Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/07/2026AGENDA REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 7, 2026 – 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Council Liaison: Councilmember Kip Christianson Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items D. Approval of Agenda E. Approval of Meeting Minutes 1. Regular Meeting - February 3, 2026 2. March 3, 2026 - No official business was conducted and no minutes were prepared for the meeting due to the lack of a quorum of the Commission F. Citizen Comment 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of an Amendment to the Stony Brook Village Planned Unit Development District for amendment to the proposed residential twinhome structures, including design standards for the exterior elevations and floor plans. Applicant: Thomas Dehn – Thomas Allen Homes LLC B. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Jefferson Commons Fifth Addition and Conditional Use Permits for Cross-Access on a 7.01 acre site in a B-4 (Regional Business) district, for a Day Care Center use. Applicant: Kid’s Haven Childcare and Preschool PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Monticello Community Center – Academy Room 5:00 p.m. Discussion on Amendments to 2040 Vision + Plan and Zoning Ordinance for single-family housing goals Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda – April 7, 2026 2 C. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation”, re-guiding certain parcels from the Light Industrial Park land use designation to other land use designations, and including any other amendments to related sections of Chapter 3 necessary to regulate land use for the subject area. Applicant: City of Monticello D. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, § 153.041 Districts Established for the creation of a new zoning district to include public and quasi-public uses; and any other related sections of text necessary to define and regulate public and quasi- public uses within the City Applicant: City of Monticello 3. Regular Agenda 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director’s Report 5. Adjournment MINUTES REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 3, 2026 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Council Liaison Present: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart Council Liaison Absent: Councilmember Kip Christianson Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1. General Business A. Call to Order – 6:00 p.m. Chair Andrew Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call Mr. Tapper the roll. C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None D. Approval of Agenda TERI LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 3, 2026 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. E. Approval of Meeting Minutes • Regular Meeting - December 2, 2025 • Regular Meeting - January 6, 2026 MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. RICK KOTHENBEUTEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 6, 2026 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. F. Citizen Comment None 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage Planned Unit Development of Twin Pines Apartments, a 96-unit multi-family residential project in a Planned Unit Development district, and amendment to a Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – February 3, 2026 2 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development. Applicant: Brick by Brick Development, LLC City Planner Steve Grittman explained the proposal included three decisions for consideration including the preliminary plat, the development stage of the Twin Pines planned unit development (PUD) district, and an amendment to the conditional use permit (CUP) for a PUD in the noted development. He explained the series of prior approvals dating back to the initial 2020 applications for anticipated commercial buildings with shared parking and roadway access to School Boulevard. The applicant returned to the City in late 2025 with a concept review of an updated plan where, at workshop on December 2, City officials agreed that the plan continued to meet the expectations of the City and its PUD Zoning. It was also noted that the absence of both direct access and visibility from School Boulevard diminished the potential of the Twin Pines site as commercial property. Mr. Grittman said the consensus of Council and Commission shared at the December 2025 workshop was that the revised concept plan meets the mixed land uses described within the Comprehensive Plan designation to support the proposed development on the remaining PUD land. Mr. Grittman explained the ordinance requirements and flexibility within the PUD for parking, roadway access, and circulation while the applicant seeks flexibility from the 2.25 spaces per unit standard. He spoke in detail to the number of bedrooms to decipher units and parking spaces assigned; the estimated 1.1 parking spaces proposed should suffice overall parking for owners and tenants. Mr. Grittman spoke of reciprocal easement recordings involving driveway and maintenance for a portion of the sixth addition and parking and access as part of the fifth addition. Mr. Grittman explained the proposed landscaping plan exceeded the minimum requirements of the code and recommended improvements to the lighting plans to City standards The applicants have provided an extensive landscaping plan for the site, exceeding the minimum requirements of the code. He explained the building plans and the grading and elevation plans to accommodate a lower-level parking garage access at the east boundary of the site. Mr. Grittman provided context regarding internal residential trash handling and externally enclosed commercial use as designed and is currently in use. Mr. Kothenbeutel addressed a concern raised at workshop regarding pedestrians and traffic flow; asked how to mandate and govern speed bumps. Mr. Grittman explained the parking lot maintenance component is factored into the owner agreement written into the PUD. He said the layout of the forked entrance also Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – February 3, 2026 3 encourages traffic flow for commercial patronage along the naturally-placed eastern driveway. Mr. Kothenbeutel said he conducted a site visit and noted the narrow traffic divider from School Boulevard. Mr. Grittman said amendments and additions to the proposed conditions are subject to the Commission’s discretion. He said along with the driveway, Staff also noted conditions for traffic directional signage for review. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. • Scott Cutsforth, Hunters Crossing development (8634 Fairhill Lane), suggested not allowing commercial traffic access into the proposed parcel. Mr. Kothenbeutel said concern was for emergency access, to ensure fire trucks can maneuver through the drive and lot. • Scott Jacobson, owner of Jacobson Veterinarian Properties dba Monticello Pet Hospital at 4134 School Boulevard, said to have concerns for additional vehicles entering the property to potentially affect his business and the neighboring special needs school within the existing building to the east and said speed bumps were ineffective for slowing traffic. Dr. Jacobson said that he is not opposed to the development but encouraged careful consideration to the proposal as it affects the surrounding businesses. • Cheryl Michelson stated that she patronizes the Monticello Pet Hospital and commented on the shared entrance and parking area’s small scale and concern with potential construction traffic; she suggested considering an alternate entrance into the proposed development. • A resident asked if signage to indicate “Emergency Vehicles Only” may be implemented. Mr. Tapper noted that the suggestion is factored into Item 9. of Exhibit Z. as part of the proposed conditions of approval. • Christina Johnson-Koshiol, 2485 Briar Oakes Boulevard, stated that she is a client of the Pet Hospital and works closely with neurodivergent individuals who patronize the school, she expressed concern with traffic within proximity to the students and staff. She said to not encourage additional traffic through the subject parking lot. • Bill Sevil, 310 Vine Street, inquired as to the setbacks from the development to existing utility lines south of the project. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – February 3, 2026 4 Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Grittman clarified that the R-4 zoning standard is a 20 foot setback from the rear property line. He said the power lines extend into the utility easements an additional 55 feet and estimated approximately 70 feet from structure to utility lines. Mayor Hilgart said the property will be developed, and regardless of whether developed for residential or commercial use, the access is already established. He then asked if traffic frequency may be more intense than anticipated if reserved for commercial. Without a definitive answer, Mr. Hilgart discouraged the traffic standpoint as a sole factor for denial. Mr. Tapper commented on parking in commercial and residential developments and traffic fluctuation for patrons and tenants. Mayor Hilgart inquired as to the original layout of the development when first proposed. Mr. Grittman said three commercial buildings were depicted for this area, with intent to loop along a proposed southerly-curved parking lot. Mayor Hilgart said additional studies based on original commercial buildings may assist a review of the traffic considerations. Mr. Kothenbeutel noted that utility line corridors are regulated by the state, energy provider, and public utilities commission (PUC), noting the referenced power lines are closer to the easterly existing homes on Orchard Circle than the proposed apartment building. Mr. Kothenbeutel then asked about Harvest Court as a potential access to the development and if additional parking beyond 1.1 spaces might be captured and reserved. Mr. Grittman said the roads into the neighboring development are private as part of the townhome covenants and limit public access. Mr. Tapper referred to the previous project approval discussion, stating a similar outcome on that potential. Mr. Kothenbeutel concurred with the Mayor’s comments on traffic. Mr. Tapper referenced the earlier approval and stated that while the development pattern is not typical to what Monticello usually reviews, it is not an impossibility when compared to other communities with heavy density on compact sites. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-05 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – February 3, 2026 5 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-06 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-07 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. Mr. Bevier indicated that the matter will move forward for City Council consideration on the February 23, 2026 Consent Agenda. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.012 Definitions, 153.045 Industrial Base Zoning Districts, 153.046 Overlay Zoning Districts, 153.090 Use Table, 153.091 Use-Specific Standards, 153.092 Accessory Use Standards and any other related sections of text necessary to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the City Applicant: City of Monticello Community Development Director Angela Schumann reviewed the history of public hearings and reviews of the draft DCPUD ordinance. She explained that a public hearing on the DCPUD ordinance was opened at the regular December 2, 2025 meeting and closed that evening. Commission postponed action on a recommendation for the ordinance to January 6, 2026, and then further postponed at the January regular meeting to allow for a joint workshop with City Council as requested by the Commission, which was held on January 15, 2026. She noted that the ordinance included for Planning Commission review included both a clean and redline format. The redline version illustrated revisions from the December ordinance draft, which were based on additional research, response to the public comments received, and legal recommendations. Ms. Schumann noted the drafted ordinance continues to be evaluated relative to the comments received, and that staff may recommend additional revisions to the proposed DCPUD ordinance as part of the future Council review. Ms. Lehner referenced the potential for long-term DCPUD construction activities and if timeframes are established for hours of operation. Ms. Schumann explained that the DCPUD ordinance includes a set of regulations for temporary construction activities, including time restrictions for site lighting. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – February 3, 2026 6 While these temporary construction standards are proposed in the DCPUD ordinance, it was noted in a prior joint Council and Commission workshop that the City may also need to evaluate general noise standards for construction activity. General noise standards for construction activity are in the City Code. Ms. Schumann also indicated that the base zoning ordinance and city code is applicable unless modified by the language in the DCPUD. Ms. Robeck asked about temporary construction for data mining, an inclusion noticed since the previous meeting. Ms. Schumann noted that the ordinance provides specific language for temporary construction as noted and that outdoor storage is otherwise prohibited. Additionally, the language was strengthened to restrict data mining including cryptocurrency. Mr. Robeck read the subject text for data mining and sought clarification on whether data mining would be allowed. Ms. Schumann explained that the proposed ordinance first defines what the City proposes to consider “data mining”, which is the section referenced, and then prohibits data mining uses as defined within DCPUD in a later section. Mr. Kothenbeutel drew attention to the language concerning backup generators under Section 2.(F)(8)(i). He referenced electrical off-peak and usage during heavy-usage periods. He indicated that there are state regulations which may influence generator use. He also suggested adjusting the wording to read with better clarity. Mr. Tapper noted that there are also other state environmental compliance requirements that may be applicable to this type of development. Mr. Kothenbeutel noted that specific language may need to be added as related to specific development proposals and inquired as to the status of an electrical power utility study addressed at a previous meeting. Ms. Schumann stated that the draft ordinance is intended to consider and regulate a variety of data center development, not a single project. She indicated that for power use, the local power provider completes a study for power feasibility for availability and service requirements. These studies are initiated and paid for by a proposer. Mr. Tapper addressed the ordinance language for back-up power generation and suggested that the language be revised to not only require submission of an annual generator testing schedule, but also City approval. He also suggested that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – February 3, 2026 7 the Commission make revisions to the proposed DCPUD ordinance amendment via formal motion. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE TEN, SECTION 2.(F)(8)(i)i. TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL SENTENCE TO INCLUDE TESTING SCHEDULE OF GENERATORS MUST BE FILED AND APPROVED ANNUALLY WITH THE CITY NO LATER THAN JANUARY 15 OF EACH YEAR. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. Mr. Tapper asked Commissioners if they recalled whether state noise standards are effective during generator testing periods. Mr. Stark inquired how the 500-foot setback number was established. Ms. Schumann explained that setbacks are provided via a table within the proposed ordinance and are proposed in the interest of managing potential impacts on surrounding properties. She stated that setbacks for principal structures in the DCPUD are reduced when mechanical equipment is located interior to a building, wall or site. The setbacks are also based on the adjacent land uses, with reduced setbacks allowed when adjacent to other industrial uses. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-41 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV, LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING A DATA CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 153.012 DEFINITIONS, 153.045 INDUSTRIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICTS, 153.046 USE TABLE, 153.092 ACCESSORY USE STANDARDS AND ANY OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF TEXT NECESSARY TO DEFINE AND REGULATE DATA CENTER AND TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS LAND USES WITHIN THE CITY, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND INCLUDING THE PREVIOUS MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. Ms. Schumann explained that additional research and review time for the DCPUD ordinance may influence the final date for Council review and action. She indicated that those interested should refer to the Council agenda information online or contact City Hall. 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director’s Report Ms. Schumann highlighted the January Planning Commission matters considered for Council action at the January 12, 2026 meeting. Ms. Schumann highlighted the summary of 2026 fees related to Planning, Building, and Economic Development, approved by City Council on December 8, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – February 3, 2026 8 2025. Regarding City staffing, she explained the Senior Planner tentative hire is anticipated in April 2026. She highlighted the department update by the Chief Building Official presented at the January 26, 2026 City Council meeting. Ms. Schumann stated that the Monticello Industrial AUAR and Mitigation Plan was approved at the January 26, 2026 Council meeting and is posted online. Ms. Schumann stated that the EDA had approved an agreement with Bolton and Menk to review and amend the 2017 Downtown Small Area Study Plan. She explained the goals included further work on future development and strategies for Downtown core planning, notably for the east side of MN TH25. Ms. Schumann indicated that re housing-related discussions are slated to continue in workshop in March 2026. 5. Adjournment TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE FEBRUARY 3, 2026 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:12 P.M. REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 3, 2026 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Rick Kothenbeutel Commissioners Absent: Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Council Liaison Absent: Kip Christianson Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier No official business was conducted and no minutes were prepared for the meeting due to the lack of a quorum of the Commission. Attest: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 1 2A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Stony Brook Village Planned Unit Development District for amendment to the proposed residential twinhome structures, including design standards for the exterior elevations and floor plans. Applicant: Thomas Dehn – Thomas Allen Homes LLC Prepared by: Grittman Consulting, Stephen Grittman, City Planner Meeting Date: 04/07/2026 Council Date (pending Commission action): 04/13/2026 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building & Zoning Official, Assistant City Engineer ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Stony Brook Village Planned Unit Development District for amendment to the proposed residential twinhome structures, including design standards for the exterior elevations and floor plans. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-12 recommending approval of a request for an Amendment to the Stony Brook Village Planned Unit Development District for amendment to the proposed residential twinhome structures, including design standards for the exterior elevations and floor plans, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-12 recommending denial a request for an Amendment to the Stony Brook Village Planned Unit Development District for amendment to the proposed residential twinhome structures, including design standards for the exterior elevations and floor plans, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission and directing staff to prepare the resolution and authorizing the Chair to execute said resolution. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2026-012. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: Lot 1 – 29, Block 1, Stony Brook Village PID #: 155270001010, 155270001020, 155270001030, 155270001040, 155270001050, 155270001060, 155270001070, 155270001080, 155270001090, 155270001100, 155270001110, 155270001120, 155270001130, 155270001140, 155270001150, Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 2 155270001160, 155270001170, 155270001180, 155270001190, 155270001200, 155270001210, 155270001220, 155270001230, 155270001240, 155270001250, 155270001260, 155270001270, 155270001280, 155270001290 Planning Case Number: 2026-06 Request(s): Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Stony Brook Village Planned Unit Development District for amendment to the proposed residential twinhome structures, including design standards for the exterior elevations and floor plans. Deadline for Decision: April 3, 2026 (60-day deadline) June 2, 2026 (120-day deadline) – Extension Letter Sent Land Use Designation: Mixed-Density Residential Zoning Designation: Stony Brook Village PUD Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: Freeway bonus district Current Site Uses: Vacant with partial infrastructure installation Surrounding Land Uses: North: Vacant Residential East: Vacant Residential South: 7th Street/Vacant Mixed Use West: Single Family Residential Project Description: The applicant is proposing to complete the original Stony Brook twinhome development for which utilities, streets and grading had begun after its approval in 2021, but which was abandoned without construction of homes and full completion of all public improvement items. The approved project consists of 28 single- family dwelling units (14 buildings) around a public cul-de-sac street which accesses Elm Street. The applicant proposes to construct the project as approved, but with modified building designs. The amendment to the buildings requires an amendment to the Stony Brook PUD District. (See below for reference). Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 3 No other changes to the project are proposed. The Stony Brook PUD District, along with the original plans (subject to the amendments proposed herein) will continue to control development of the project. An assignment of the development contact with all terms and conditions will be required as part of assuming the plat development. ANALYSIS: As noted above, the applicant is pursuing the previously approved Stony Brook PUD project based on the plat and PUD approvals granted originally by the City Council in October of 2021. The plat and PUD for Stony Brook Village were approved based on consistency with the intent of the 2040 Plan land use guidance as Mixed-Density Residential and the underlying R-2 (Single and Two-Family) District zoning. The plat and development contract were recorded after project approval, with all securities and escrows provided, and the City adopted the Stony Brook PUD District. The amendment is reproduced below, with a redlined amendment that would incorporate the current request if approved. §153.047(P) Stony Brook Village PUD District. (1) Purpose. The purpose of the Stony Brook PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the district for two-family residential land uses. (2) Permitted uses. Permitted principal uses in the Stony Brook PUD District shall be two-family residential uses as found in the R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, subject to the approved final stage development plans dated August 23, 2021, and as amended for building façade by development plans dated 1/28/26; and development agreement dated August 23, 2021, as may be amended. The introduction of any other use from any district shall be reviewed under the requirements of § 153.028(O) - Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD and Final Stage PUD. (3) Accessory uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to residential uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans. (4) District performance standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the Stony Brook PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement is not addressed by the final stage PUD, Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 4 then the regulations of the R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential District shall apply. (5) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, exterior building materials or colors, lot coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of § 153.028(O)(10). The city may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. The amendment proposed for the development is limited to modifications to the building exterior and minor changes to the corresponding floor plan. The proposed changes to the façade consist of a lower roof pitch and changes to other building elevation details. The design proposes a 7/12 side gable roof pitch as opposed to the original 12/12 pitch. The front-to-rear pitch has been consequently lowered from 7/12 to 5/12. The City’s zoning ordinance accommodates 5/12 as an allowable minimum roof pitch in single- family and two-family districts. The current applicant has eliminated the chimneys on each end of the unit pairs, converting to a direct-vent gas fireplace which requires no chimney. The applicant has also replaced the individual window dormers with a single common false dormer over the paired garages. Building materials are identified by the applicant in narrative as being LP exterior siding on all sides, and the buildings have retained the brick/stone wainscot façade. The original plans included a stone wrap on the front entry porch posts; that element has been removed from the proposed plan. Otherwise, the proposed project appears to be substantially similar to the original approval. The originally approved building design accommodated a floor plan that was approximately 40 feet wide by 56 in length, with an attached garage of approximately 540 feet. The net livable area was approximately 1,650 square feet. The proposed home design continues to be single- story slab on grade design. The proposed homes, although modified in floor plan configuration, continue to be consistent with the prior approved dimensions, with a slightly smaller attached garage of 520 square feet. The plans require no change to the platted lot size given the similar dimensions. The building and garage sizes exceed R-2 standards. While a majority of the public street and utility improvements were previously completed, in assuming the development, the applicant/developer will be required to complete the remaining approved improvements, including the 10’ bituminous trail along Elm Street and the sidewalk along the interior public street, Stony Brook Circle. The conditions of Exhibit Z for the proposed amendment include those previously approved conditions still to be addressed, as well as additional conditions specific to the proposed Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 5 amendment. These include compliance with the approved landscaping plan, which provided landscaping for the overall PUD and common areas as well as individual unit landscaping, showing a 5’ x 6’ patio for each unit. As a condition of approval, the landscaping plan should be updated to detail the replacement quantity that is specific to the loss of the single specimen tree on site. While the landscaping plan provided should be sufficient to mitigate the loss of that tree, the request is to verify that calculation. The applicant also indicated during the application review meeting a desire for flexibility in the placement of the development monument originally proposed. That request has been noted in the conditions of approval. The conditions of approval for the original Stony Brook plat relating to the plat legal description and title have been resolved with the prior recording of the final plat. The Exhibit Z conditions are intended to confirm that all other developer responsibilities are completed consistent with the intent of the original project. This includes a requirement that the developer/applicant comply with all prior approved plans, receive Council approval of the assignment of the development, and provide replacement of securities and escrows necessary to complete the project. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommend approval of the amendment to the Stony Brook Planned Unit Development District, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z. The plans are slightly modified from the original, but still consistent with the City’s requirements for residential development in this area and buildings and the intent of the Stoy Brook PUD. As such, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the original Stony Brook PUD. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2026-12 B. Stony Brook Village PUD District - Ordinance No. 763 C. Aerial Site Image D. Applicant Narrative E. Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans F. Prior Approved Elevations and Floor Plans G. Prior Approved PUD and Plat Plans, Including: a. City Council Approved PUD b. City Council Approved Plat H. City Engineer’s Letter, dated February 20, 2026 I. Chief Building Official’s Letter, dated February 20, 2026 J. Public Comment Z. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 6 EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval Amendment to the Stony Brook Planned Unit Development District Legal Description: Lot 1 – 29, Block 1, Stony Brook Village PID #: 155270001010, 155270001020, 155270001030, 155270001040, 155270001050, 155270001060, 155270001070, 155270001080, 155270001090, 155270001100, 155270001110, 155270001120, 155270001130, 155270001140, 155270001150, 155270001160, 155270001170, 155270001180, 155270001190, 155270001200, 155270001210, 155270001220, 155270001230, 155270001240, 155270001250, 155270001260, 155270001270, 155270001280, 155270001290 1. Building permit plans shall be consistent with the submitted plans illustrating the use of LP siding materials on the building exterior. 2. Revise the landscaping plan to detail calculations detailing that the proposed site landscaping meets the requirements for Specimen Tree loss replacement as required by city ordinance. 3. All prior plans approved as a part of the Stony Brook Village PUD and Final Plat are incorporated into this approval, including: a. Plans for all public improvements b. Site landscaping, with exception of flexibility to accommodate the elimination of the development monument sign as previously shown c. Prohibition on accessory buildings d. HOA requirements per the City Attorney e. Pedestrian connection from end of cul-de-sac to 7th Street or Elm Street as approved by the City Engineer f. Amend grading plans to address the proposed patios as shown on the approved landscaping plan g. Provide detail for the monument signage identifying the project for separate sign permitting 4. Site landscaping is completed as approved with the PUD in 2021, with flexibility on installation of a proposed development monument, with required maintenance securities as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the approved landscaping plan is an ongoing requirement of CUP and site plan approval. Materials that are removed or fail to survive shall be replaced, regardless of landscape guarantees. Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 7 5. Compliance with the terms of the City’s engineering staff letter dated August 17, 2021 and February 20, 2026. 6. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Chief Building & Zoning official letter dated February 20, 2026. 7. Homeowner’s Association documents are subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and shall provide for individual and common maintenance responsibilities, as well as accessory structure limitations. 8. The noted amendment to the Stony Brook Village PUD ordinance shall be made, with any necessary amendment to the adopted Development Contract for Stony Brook Village. 9. Replacement or verification of letters of credit and securities necessary to complete site and public improvements for the approved plat and PUD plans. 10. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-12 1 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR STONY BROOK VILLAGE, MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS RELATED TO PUD PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. PID #: 155270001010, 155270001020, 155270001030, 155270001040, 155270001050, 155270001060, 155270001070, 155270001080, 155270001090, 155270001100, 155270001110, 155270001120, 155270001130, 155270001140, 155270001150, 155270001160, 155270001170, 155270001180, 155270001190, 155270001200, 155270001210, 155270001220, 155270001230, 155270001240, 155270001250, 155270001260, 155270001270, 155270001280, 155270001290 WHEREAS, the applicant seeks an amendment to conditions applicable to an existing PUD residential plat; and WHEREAS, the property is subject to the Stony Brook Village Planned Unit Development District that governs the land uses on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes would modify building and site development standards for attached twin homes in this plat; and WHEREAS, the site is located on property that is guided for Mixed Density Residential uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes would retain the neighborhood design and development elements that the City has identified as important to long-term residential stability and growth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 7th, 2026 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The amendment to the PUD preserves the intent of the original PUD approval. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-12 2 2. The amendment facilitates the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Economic Development objectives of the development of “missing middle” owner-occupied housing. 3. The amendment provides for the infill development of a long-vacant parcel in the core area of the community. 4. The amendment is consistent with the long term goal of developing attractive livable neighborhoods that offer longevity and stability of residents. 5. The amendment facilitates the development of residential uses that are consistent with the mix of residential densities in the immediate area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approve the amendment to Stony Brook Village Planned Unit Development to modify the development and building standards as shown in the applicant’s project submission, subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit Z of the Staff report, as listed below: 1. Building permit plans shall be consistent with the submitted plans illustrating the use of LP siding materials on the building exterior. 2. Revise the landscaping plan to detail calculations detailing that the proposed site landscaping meets the requirements for Specimen Tree loss replacement as required by city ordinance. 3. All prior plans approved as a part of the Stony Brook Village PUD and Final Plat are incorporated into this approval, including: a. Plans for all public improvements b. Site landscaping, with exception of flexibility to accommodate the elimination of the development monument sign as previously shown c. Prohibition on accessory buildings d. HOA requirements per the City Attorney e. Pedestrian connection from end of cul-de-sac to 7th Street or Elm Street as approved by the City Engineer f. Amend grading plans to address the proposed patios as shown on the approved landscaping plan g. Provide detail for the monument signage identifying the project for separate sign permitting 4. Site landscaping is completed as approved with the PUD in 2021, with flexibility on installation of a proposed development monument, with required maintenance CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-12 3 securities as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the approved landscaping plan is an ongoing requirement of CUP and site plan approval. Materials that are removed or fail to survive shall be replaced, regardless of landscape guarantees. 5. Compliance with the terms of the City’s engineering staff letter dated August 17, 2021 and February 20, 2026. 6. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Chief Building & Zoning official letter dated February 20, 2026. 7. Homeowner’s Association documents are subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and shall provide for individual and common maintenance responsibilities, as well as accessory structure limitations. 8. The noted amendment to the Stony Brook Village PUD ordinance shall be made, with any necessary amendment to the adopted Development Contract for Stony Brook Village. 9. Replacement or verification of letters of credit and securities necessary to complete site and public improvements for the approved plat and PUD plans. 10. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. ADOPTED this 7th day of April, 2026 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Andrew Tapper, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Davidson, Hilgart, Hudgins, and Murdoff None. Absent: Gabler Request for Stony Brook Village PUD Amdt Legal: Lots 1-29, Block 1, Stony Brook Village Created by: City of Monticello 125 ft 12 7 12 7 12 FRONT TO REAR5 ALUM. OR STEEL FASCIA SOFFIT MFG. STONE LP SMARTSIDE 12 5 12 5 12 7 12 7 12 3 LP SMARTSIDE ALUM. OR STEEL FASCIA & SOFFIT LP SMARTSIDE ALUM. OR STEEL FASCIA & SOFFIT LP SMARTSIDE ALUM. OR STEEL FASCIA & SOFFIT FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION OF OPTION 1 1/8"= 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION 1/4"= 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION OF OPTION 2 1/8"= 1'-0"1/8"= 1'-0" GR E Y D U C K C O . D R A F T I N G & D E S I G N OF DE S I G N F O R : DR A W N B Y : DR A W I N G # 2 0 P:R:R:R:R: F: X X DE H N D U P L E X KK 25 . 0 2 6 11 / 2 0 / 2 5 1/ 2 2 / 2 6 2/ 2 0 / 2 6 DISCLAIMER IN PREPARATION OF THIS PLAN EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO AVOID MISTAKES. DESIGNER CANNOT GUARANTEE AGAINST HUMAN ERROR. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. THESE DESIGNS, CONCEPTS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND AS SUCH REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF GREY DUCK CO. AND ARE NOT TO BE COPIED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF GREY DUCK CO. ALL SIDING LP SMART SIDE 18'-0" 58 ' - 0 " 14'-0"6'-0" 3' - 0 " 61 ' - 0 " I CRS. 6" CURB BLK. 5 CRS. 8" CONC. BLK. 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. I CRS. 6" CURB BLK. 5 CRS. 8" CONC. BLK. 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. I CRS. 6" CURB BLK. 5 CRS. 12" CONC. BLK. 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. UNEXCAVATED UNEXCAVATED 16'-3" 18'-0" 58 ' - 0 " 14'-0"6'-0" 3' - 0 " 61 ' - 0 " I CRS. 6" CURB BLK. 5 CRS. 8" CONC. BLK. 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. I CRS. 6" CURB BLK. 5 CRS. 8" CONC. BLK. 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. I CRS. 6" CURB BLK. 5 CRS. 12" CONC. BLK. 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. UNEXCAVATED UNEXCAVATED 16'-3" 6' - 0 " 1'-10 1/2"1'-10 1/2"1'-10 1/2" I CRS. 6" CURB BLK. 5 CRS. 12" CONC. BLK. 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. I CRS. 6" CURB BLK. 5 CRS. 12" CONC. BLK. 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. 6' - 0 " I CRS. 4" CURB BLK. 5 CRS. 8" CONC. BLK. 16" x 8" CONC. FTG. 6' - 0 " I CRS. 4" CURB BLK. 5 CRS. 8" CONC. BLK. 16" x 8" CONC. FTG. 1'-10 1/2" 20'-0" 40'-0" 20'-0" 40'-0" 80'-0" 22'-0"22'-0" 40'-0"40'-0" 80'-0" FOUNDATION PLAN - EITHER OPTION 1/4"= 1'-0"1,718 SFT. (HOUSE) 540 SFT. (GARAGE) OF X X WH.FURN. MECH. RM. 5'-11" X 6'-2" MASTER BATH 5'-0" x 12'-0" W.I.C. 6'-8" x 5'-6"LAUNDRY 6'-10" x 5'-6" MUD RM. 7'-7" x 3'-8" MASTER BEDROOM 12'-0" x 16'2" DEN 10'-8" x 12'-8" 13'-11" x 10'-0" KITCHEN 13'-11" x 9'-6" DINING RM. 15'-8" x 15'-0" GREAT RM. 5'-8" x 5'-6" PANTRY W.I.C. 5'-8" x 5'-0" 13'-0" x 12'-0" BEDROOM BATH 8'-3" x 6'-8" 18'-0"22'-0" 40'-0" 58 ' - 0 " 8'-0" x 4'-0" ISLAND 14'-0"6'-0"20'-0" 40'-0" WH.FURN. MECH. RM. 5'-11" X 6'-2" MASTER BATH 5'-0" x 12'-0" W.I.C. 6'-8" x 5'-6"LAUNDRY 6'-10" x 5'-6" MUD RM. 7'-7" x 3'-8" MASTER BEDROOM 12'-0" x 16'2" DEN 10'-8" x 12'-8" 13'-11" x 10'-0" KITCHEN 13'-11" x 9'-6" DINING RM. 15'-8" x 15'-0" GREAT RM. 5'-8" x 5'-6" PANTRY W.I.C. 5'-8" x 5'-0" 13'-0" x 12'-0" BEDROOM BATH 8'-3" x 6'-8" 18'-0"22'-0" 40'-0" 58 ' - 0 " 8'-0" x 4'-0" ISLAND 14'-0"6'-0"20'-0" 40'-0" 80'-0" 3' - 0 " 61 ' - 0 " 80'-0" 3' - 0 " 61 ' - 0 " 16'-0" x 7'-0" OVHD.16'-0" x 7'-0" OVHD. 4" CONC. FLR. SLAB W/ 6x6-10/10 W.W.M. GARAGE 4" CONC. FLR. SLAB W/ 6x6-10/10 W.W.M. GARAGELIN.LIN. LVP LVP LVP LVP CARPET CARPET VINYL VINYL LVPLVP CARPET CARPET VINYL VINYL LVP LVP CARPET CARPET EL E C T R I C F I R E P L A C E FIREPLACE OPTION 2 FIREPLACE OPTION 1 BU I L T - I N S BU I L T - I N S BU I L T - I N S BU I L T - I N S FIREPLACE OPTION 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN OPTION 1 1/4"= 1'-0"1,718 SFT. (HOUSE) 540 SFT. (GARAGE) OF X X WH.FURN. MECH. RM. 5'-11" X 6'-2" MASTER BATH 5'-0" x 12'-0" W.I.C. 6'-8" x 5'-6"LAUNDRY 6'-10" x 5'-6" MUD RM. 7'-7" x 3'-8" MASTER BEDROOM 12'-0" x 16'2" 16'-0" x 7'-0" OVHD. 4" CONC. FLR. SLAB W/ 6x6-10/10 W.W.M. GARAGE 13'-0" x 12'-8" KITCHEN 7'-0" x 4'-0" ISLAND 17'-0" x 16'-11" LIVING RM. 10'-6" x 10'-6" BEDROOM 11'-0" x 13'-4" DINING RM. 10'-6" x 10'-6" BEDROOM BATH 9'-6" x 5'-0" WH.FURN. MECH. RM. 5'-11" X 6'-2" MASTER BATH 5'-0" x 12'-0" W.I.C. 6'-8" x 5'-6"LAUNDRY 6'-10" x 5'-6" MUD RM. 7'-7" x 3'-8" MASTER BEDROOM 12'-0" x 16'2" 16'-0" x 7'-0" OVHD. 4" CONC. FLR. SLAB W/ 6x6-10/10 W.W.M. GARAGE 10'-6" x 10'-6" BEDROOM 11'-0" x 13'-4" DINING RM. 10'-6" x 10'-6" BEDROOM BATH 9'-6" x 5'-0" 18'-0"22'-0"22'-0"18'-0" 40'-0"40'-0" 80'-0" 58 ' - 0 " 14'-0"6'-0"20'-0" 40'-0" 58 ' - 0 " 14'-0"6'-0"20'-0" 40'-0" 3' - 0 " 61 ' - 0 " 80'-0" 3' - 0 " 61 ' - 0 " PORCH 6'-0" x 6'-0" PORCH 6'-0" x 6'-0" 13'-0" x 12'-8" KITCHEN 17'-0" x 16'-11" LIVING RM. CARPET CARPET CARPET CARPET CARPET CARPET VINYL VINYL VINYLVINYL 7'-0" x 4'-0" ISLAND LVP LVP LVP LVP LVP LVP LVP LVP EL E C T R I C F I R E P L A C E FIREPLACE OPTION 2 FIREPLACE OPTION 1 BU I L T - I N S BU I L T - I N S BU I L T - I N S BU I L T - I N S FIREPLACE OPTION 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN - 3 BED OPTION 1/4"= 1'-0"1,718 SFT. (HOUSE) 540 SFT. (GARAGE) OF X X 1 11 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL DOOR AND WINDOW HEADERS TO BE S.P.F. #2 OR BETTER, SEE PLANS FOR SIZES. 2. HOUSE TO BE BUILT PER CURRENT I.R.C. CODES. 3. VERIFY GRADES AND ADJUST FOUNDATION/FOOTING STEPS AS NEEDED. 4. SEE PLANS FOR CEILING HEIGHTS 5. 4' HIGH POURED FDN. WALLS STD. 6. FLOOR PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FRAMING AND FOUNDATION. 7. ALL TRADES & SUPPLIERS TO REVIEW & VERIFY INFORMATION PERTINENT TO THEIR WORK AND NOTIFY CONST. OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 8. NOTED CABINET SIZES ARE +/- AND TO BE FIELD VERIFIED. 9. TRADES TO VERIFY BASE AND TRIM SIZE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 10. ALL WALLS MORE THAN 10' H. TO BE S.P.F. #2 OR BETTER. 11. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY: HOME SITE, FILL AND TOPOGRAPHY WILL DICTATE ACTUAL GRADES AND MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 12. NOTE: SUBFLOOR JOINTS SHALL BE STAGGERED FROM FLOOR TRUSS OR JOIST JOINTS OF SHEET 07-00-BUYERPROJECT # BUYER S/O BUYER S/O REVISIONS: STARTED: AGENT:X X .MO N T I C E L L O , M N BE L L W O O D T W I N H O M E S MA R K E L L I O T T H O M E S 8-10-21 APP SET ST O N E Y B R O O K V I L L A G E CO L U M N GLS.GLS.GLS.GLS. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR ROOF PITCHES AND OVERHANGS 6" WINDOW TRIM AND GRIDS 6" CORNER BD. ON ALL ELEVATIONS TYP. C/ L A I R S P A C E 12 12 T.O. PLATE 9' - 1 1 / 8 " T.O. SLAB 10" TRIM 2x OVER 10" TRIM 27 ' - 1 " 6" TRIM TYP. ALUM. SOFFIT & FASCIA 6" TRIM TYP.8" LP TRIM TYP. BKT 12x24x3 (FYPON) ON VINYL SIDING 4" LAP 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" T R I M 6" T R I M 6" TRIM TYP. 6" TRIM TYP. LEDGESTONE PER SPECS T.O. PLATE 8' - 0 " T.O. 2/6 x 3/6 SH (BLACKENED) VINYL SHAKE VINYL SHAKE NOTE: @ SIDES OF DORMER TYP. 3' - 0 " 3/4 GLS. 6" T R I M 6" T R I M 12 1212 12 7:12 12:12 6" T R I M 6" TRIM TOP & BOTTOM 12 " S Q . L P 12" 20" LP BD. C/L 7'-0" GLS.GLS.GLS.GLS. 4:12 12 12 T.O. PLATE 9' - 1 1 / 8 " T.O. SLAB 2x OVER 10" TRIM 27 ' - 1 " 6" TRIM TYP. 6" TRIM TYP. 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" T R I M 6" T R I M 6" TRIM TYP. LEDGESTONE PER SPECS T.O. PLATE 6' - 2 " T.O. 6/0 x 2/0 PICT. (BLACKENED) 3' - 0 " 3/4 GLS. 6" T R I M 6" T R I M 12 12 7:12 12:12 6" T R I M 12 " T R I M 12 " T R I M 20" C/L 7'-0" 10" TRIM LP BD. & BATTEN VINYL SHAKE 12 12 4" 10" TRIM 4" CO L U M N 12 " S Q . L P 12" VINYL B&B NOTE: @ SIDES OF DORMER TYP. & BATTEN 12 12 12 12 NOTE: ZERO BARRIER SIDEWALKS (NO STEPS) - SLOPE SIDEWALK AS REQUIRED TO MATCH DRIVEWAY HT. / SLOPE VINYL BD. & BATTEN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY: HOME SITE, FILL AND TOPOGRAPHY WILL DICTATE ACTUAL GRADES AND MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLAN.2 11 07-00-BUYERPROJECT # BUYER S/O BUYER S/O REVISIONS: STARTED: AGENT:X X .MO N T I C E L L O , M N BE L L W O O D T W I N H O M E S MA R K E L L I O T T H O M E S 8-10-21 APP SET ST O N E Y B R O O K V I L L A G E OF SHEET SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" VINYL SIDING 4" LAP ROOF BEYOND LINE OF MAIN ROOF BEYOND LINE OF GARAGE A/C UNIT GA S M E T E R 7 12 LEDGESTONE PER SPECS EL E C . M E T E R T.O. PLATE 9' - 1 1 / 8 " T.O. SLAB 6" T R I M 10" TRIM 12:12 12:12 24" 6" T R I M 12:12 10" TRIM 7 12 12:12 LP BD. & BATTEN C/ L A I R S P A C E ALUM. SOFFIT & FASCIA 6" TRIM TYP. 8" LP TRIM TYP. BKT 12x24x3 (FYPON) ON VINYL SIDING 4" LAP LP BD. & BATTEN T.O. PLATE 9' - 1 1 / 8 " T.O. SLAB 10" TRIM 27 ' - 1 " 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" TRIM TYP. 7:12 12 12 T.O. PLATE 9' - 1 1 / 8 " T.O. SLAB10" TRIM 27 ' - 1 " 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" TRIM TYP. 12 12 6" T R I M T Y P . 8" T R I M 6" TRIM TYP. 4" TRIM 8" TRIM 12 12 4" TRIM 8" TRIM VINYL SHAKE 7:12 ALUM. SOFFIT & FASCIA 6" TRIM TYP. 8" LP TRIM TYP. BKT 12x24x3 (FYPON) ON 12 12 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" TRIM TYP. 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" T R I M T Y P . 6" TRIM TYP. 8" T R I M 6" T R I M T Y P . 8" T R I M 6" TRIM TYP. 8" T R I M 10" TRIM10" TRIM VINYL BD. & BATTEN VINYL SHAKE VINYL SIDING 4" LAP ROOF BEYOND LINE OF MAIN ROOF BEYOND LINE OF GARAGE A/C UNIT GA S M E T E R 7 12 LEDGESTONE PER SPECS EL E C . M E T E R T.O. PLATE 9' - 1 1 / 8 " T.O. SLAB 6" T R I M 10" TRIM 12:12 12:12 24" 6" T R I M 12:12 4 12 10" TRIM 7 12 12:12 VINYL SHAKE SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" TWIN HOME FND PLAN 3 11 07-00-BUYERPROJECT # BUYER S/O BUYER S/O REVISIONS: STARTED: AGENT:X X .MO N T I C E L L O , M N BE L L W O O D T W I N H O M E S MA R K E L L I O T T H O M E S 8-10-21 APP SET ST O N E Y B R O O K V I L L A G E OF SHEET C/ L A I R S P A C E UNEXCAVATED UNEXCAVATED 2" 6" 2" 6"2" 8" 6" 2" 58 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 40'-0" 40'-0" 11'-6"9'-0"19'-6" 56 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1'-6"1'-6 1/2" 56 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 10" 2"2" 5'-11 1/2" 8"8" 2" 6"2" 10" 2"2" 6" 2" FILL FOR SLAB 20'-6 1/2" 29 ' - 0 " 27 ' - 0 " 6'-11 1/4" 23 ' - 7 1 / 4 " 26 ' - 1 1 " 13 ' - 8 " 3'-7" 1' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 3' - 0 " 2' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 4' - 4 " 20'-2"2'-6" 15 ' - 4 " 6'-3" 17 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 2' - 9 " 5' - 0 " 7'-4" C/ L A I R S P A C E UNEXCAVATED UNEXCAVATED 2" 6" 2" 6"2" 8" 6" 2" 58 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 40'-0" 40'-0" 11'-6"9'-0"19'-6" 56 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1'-6"1'-6 1/2" 56 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 5'-11 1/2" 8"8" 2" 6"2" 6" 2" FILL FOR SLAB 20'-6 1/2" 29 ' - 0 " 27 ' - 0 " 6'-11 1/4" 23 ' - 7 1 / 4 " 26 ' - 1 1 " 13 ' - 8 " 3'-7" 1' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 3' - 0 " 2' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 4' - 4 " 20'-2"2'-6" 15 ' - 4 " 6'-3" 17 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 2' - 9 " 5' - 0 " 7'-4" 80'-0" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" TWIN HOME MAIN FLOOR PLAN 4 11 07-00-BUYERPROJECT # BUYER S/O BUYER S/O REVISIONS: STARTED: AGENT:X X .MO N T I C E L L O , M N BE L L W O O D T W I N H O M E S MA R K E L L I O T T H O M E S 8-10-21 APP SET ST O N E Y B R O O K V I L L A G E OF SHEET PORCH O. BATH LNDRY OWNER'S SUITE FOYER 58 ' - 0 " 2-CAR GARAGE C/ L A I R S P A C E BEDROOM #2 BATH MUDRM KITCHEN DINING 3' - 0 " GREAT ROOM MECH. 40'-0" 40'-0" 11'-6"9'-0"19'-6" 1'-8" 1' - 8 " 56 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1'-8" 58 ' - 0 " 56 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 3'-0" 29 ' - 0 " 27 ' - 0 " 20'-6" 27 ' - 0 " DEN 1'-6" 3'-0" 1'-6" PORCH O. BATH OWNER'S SUITE FOYER 58 ' - 0 " 2-CAR GARAGE BEDROOM #2 BATH MUDRM KITCHEN DINING 3' - 0 " GREAT ROOM MECH. 40'-0" 40'-0" 11'-6"9'-0"19'-6" 1'-8" 1' - 8 " 56 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1'-8" 3'-0" 20'-6" 27 ' - 0 " DEN 1'-6" 3'-0" 1'-6" LNDRY 80'-0" www.ci.monticello.mn.us OFFICE: 763-295-2711 FAX: 763-295-4404 505 Walnut Street Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 February 20, 2026 Re: Thomas Allen Homes- Stony Brook Village The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and offers the following comments: General Comments 1. All grading and public improvements will need to be completed in accordance with the approved plans created by Westwood Engineering. 2. See note 6 from the approved grading plans “LOTS 7-20 SHALL HAVE GUTTERS DRAINING ENTIRELY TO THE PROPOSED STREET.” 3. All punchlist items will need to be completed in accordance with the approved plans: 1. Raise Manhole castings 2. Repair washouts in the infiltration basins. 3. Install erosion control as needed during repairs in accordance with approved plans 4. Add 12” filter topsoil borrow to infiltration basins per plan. 5. Double-ring infiltration test must be completed and pass on both basins. 6. Remove any debris washed into catch basins. 7. Abandon two water services per plan. 8. Install street signs. 9. Install sidewalk. 10. Install trail. 11. Install wear course 12. Repair damaged section of storm sewer identified in televising video. 13. Install landscaping. 14. Relocate street light electrical service to new pole. The City is not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Please contact the Engineering Department with any questions. Sincerely, Ryan Melhouse Assistant City Engineer CITY OF Monticello PHONE: 763-295-2711 FAX: 763-295-4404 505 Walnut Street I Suite 1 I Monticello, MN 55362 February 20, 2026 Re: Stony Brook General Comments: The City is not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The Owner/ Developer, and Engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City Standards and the applicable Minnesota codes. 1.All new residential townhouses shall comply with any/all applicable provisio ns of the 2020 MN Residential Building Code, including Appendix K-Sound Transmission. 2.The Monticello Department of Building Safety Requires a Certificate of survey showing any/all proposed improvements including driveways, sidewalks, and patios. 3.The Monticello Department of Building Safety Requires Foundation As built Surveys prior to the start of framing and final grading as Built Survey prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. These items are subject to approval of the Monticello Department of Building Safety. This is a preliminary list of items that need to be addressed. Sincerely, Bob Ferguson Chief Building Official/Zoning Administrator www.ci.monticello.mn.us From:joane larson To:Development Services Subject:Stony Brook Public hearing Date:Friday, February 27, 2026 10:55:28 AM This development was originally single family homes. New developer wants to put 14 twin homes in a small footprint! Do we really need more twin homes. How about afforable single family? Adjacent homes will have 10 households in their backyards. Putting up a few trees will not offer privacy for either party. On West 7th those twin homes landscaping has bent over and half dead trees. They (or the city) didn't mow the weeds along road until fall. Traffic is horrendous on 7th St already. Trucks and trailers hit every manhole cover. Sounds like gunshots. I have to shout to be heard in my backyard! People speed down the road. Reduce the mph to 30? How about the turn radius for emergency vehicles? Can firetrucks access and be able to turn? The development on west 7th is now in its 4th or 5th year including site development. We'll have to endure another year or more of large trucks . Where is the oversight to get these projects done? Not to mention the pathway work to be done on West 39 this summer. Deland and Joane Larson 11 Sandtrap Circle Monticello, Mn Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 1 2B. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat for Jefferson Commons Fifth Addition and Conditional Use Permits for Cross-Access on a 7.01 acre site in a B-4 (Regional Business) district, for a Day Care Center use. Applicant: Kid’s Haven Childcare and Preschool Prepared by: Grittman Consulting, Stephen Grittman, City Planner Meeting Date: 04/07/2026 Council Date (pending Commission action): 04/13/2026 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Economic Development Manager, Assistant City Engineer, Chief Building Official, Community & Economic Development Coordinator ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat for Jefferson Commons Fifth Addition 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-09 recommending approval of a request for a Preliminary Plat for Jefferson Commons Fifth Addition, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-09 recommending denial of a request for a Preliminary Plat for Jefferson Commons Fifth Addition based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission and directing staff to prepare the resolution and authorizing the Chair to execute said resolution. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2026-09. Decision 2: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for cross-access 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-10 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permits for cross-access subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-10 recommending denial of a request for Conditional Use Permits for cross-access based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission and directing staff to prepare the resolution and authorizing the Chair to execute said resolution. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2026-10. Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 2 Decision 3: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for cross-access 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-11 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit for cross-access subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-11 recommending denial of a request for Conditional Use Permits for cross-access based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission and directing staff to prepare the resolution and authorizing the Chair to execute said resolution. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2026-11. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: Outlot C Jefferson Commons, except that part platted as Jefferson Commons Second Addition] PID #: 155164000030, 155192001011, 155164000070 Planning Case Number: 2026-05 Request(s): 1. Preliminary Plat for Jefferson Commons Fifth Addition 2. Conditional Use Permit for Cross-Access 3. Conditional Use Permit for Cross-Access Deadline for Decision: April 3, 2026 (60-day deadline) June 2, 2026 (120-day deadline) – Extension Letter Sent Land Use Designation: Regional Commercial Zoning Designation: B-4 (Regional Business) Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: None Current Site Uses: Vacant Land Surrounding Land Uses: North: Vacant Commercial East: Vacant Commercial South: Commercial (Monticello Theater) West: Stormwater Ponding Project Description: The applicants seek to subdivide a portion of an existing outlot in the Jefferson Commons commercial district to establish a Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 3 commercial daycare facility for up to 316 students. The building would be approximately 26,704 square feet in area, on a parcel of 2.93 acres. The remaining undeveloped portion of the existing outlot would be 4.09 acres, and replatted as a new outlot in the “Fifth Addition”, together with the building site. Because the property was originally developed with specified access points to School Boulevard, along with a shared access easement between this land and the Theater parcel to the south, the consideration of the plat includes Conditional Use Permits to two shared/cross access easements that facilitate access from this parcel and the theater parcel to School Boulevard. ANALYSIS: Preliminary Plat The proposed plat consists of one building parcel (Lot 1, Block 1) which will be developed as a commercial daycare facility, and a residual outlot to the east available for future development. The underlying property is currently owned by the City of Monticello, which has consented to the plat application. Pending approval of the plat and property sale, the easterly outlot will be retained by the City. In the current condition, the subject property is encumbered by an access easement along its far westerly property line. This easement would be vacated or amended through a separate action of the City Council in coordination with the Council’s Final Plat consideration. This easement would be replaced with two access points, including a revised location for the westerly access, which better facilitates development of the proposed daycare site. One additional benefit of the driveway/easement relocation is the provision of proof-of-parking space for the daycare (discussed more directly in the Site Plan Review comments below). The configuration is further discussed as part of the cross-access analysis below. The service drive located along the south property line is an existing condition and subject to an existing easement. Apart from confirmation of the various easement descriptions and management of stormwater as reviewed separately by the City Engineer, planning staff believes the Plat to be consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant has supplied a concurrent application for final plat consideration, which will be forwarded to the City Council for review pending the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 4 Conditional Use Permits for Cross Access Intertwined with the proposed plat are the CUPs for cross access. The first CUP establishes shared access from the theater parcel across the daycare site to School Boulevard, and the second CUP establishes access for the daycare site across the undeveloped portion of the adjoining outlot, also to School Boulevard. The access points along School Boulevard are controlled by the City to ensure that School Boulevard traffic is not disrupted by unregulated driveway locations. School Boulevard is a major east-west collector route for the city. The primary requirement for such cross access permitting relates to assurances that the proper agreements are recorded to manage requirements for shared long-term maintenance of the access routes and ensure permanent access easements across the driveways for the benefitted parcels. As noted above, the locations of driveway access points on School Boulevard are ed by the City, resulting in the need for these CUPs as the subdivision patterns often will not mesh with the prescribed driveway access points. Staff have made one comment related to improving access circulation, which is discussed below. Other than that revision and the recording of cross easement documents as conditions of approval, planning staff sees no issues with these CUP requests. Site Plan The Preliminary Plat and the Cross-Access CUPs are the formal items for Planning Commission hearing and review. The proposed use of the property as a day care facility is a permitted use in the B-4 (Regional Business) District and consistent with the Regional Business 2040 Plan land use designation. As a permitted use, an administrative site plan review is required for the use itself. The applicants have prepared site plans to demonstrate the ability to develop the proposed use on the subdivided property. Staff completed a site plan review concurrent with the land use applications and included the site plan review comments here for reference. Parking Supply. Based on student and staff capacity, the Zoning Ordinance would require a total of 99 parking spaces. The applicable parking ratios require one space per 5 students (64 spaces), plus 35 staff spaces on maximum shift, a total of 99. The applicant proposed to construct 85 parking spaces and has illustrated the remaining 14 spaces along the westerly driveway as “proof of parking”, to be constructed if the City observes common overflow on the property. There is no parking permitted on School Boulevard, so the site must be able to contain its parking on site. For daycare facilities of this type, parents typically walk their children into the building (as opposed to more common drop-off circulation for older school students). However, the parking stays are short and turn over rapidly. It is staff’s belief that the 85 spaces should be sufficient for the use, and notes that if needed, the 14 proof-of-parking spaces can be required if needed. Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 5 Circulation. The site is designed to accommodate access to School Boulevard in two locations – first along the westerly boundary of the site, and second via the extension of a driveway onto the easterly outlot. Both of these access points are shared with adjoining parcels. The building is also accessible for service purposes via a shared service drive along the south boundary of the site, shared with the Theater parcel. One aspect of the parking and circulation design that bears attention is the alignment of the parking immediately to the west of the building. The layout leaves a large triangle of pavement without clear delineation for vehicle use and direction. It further adds impervious surface that serves no circulation or other purpose. By repositioning the island parking rows along the west building line (adjacent to the sidewalk that abuts the building and planting space, the design could replace the 14 spaces in the island, or even add a few more, and create more defined circulation for all vehicles on the site, as well as those utilizing the shared driveway aisle from the Theater. This triangular island, along with the additional edge islands near the building, would reduce pavement, but not increase planting requirements. An illustration of this idea is shown below, but other alternatives to accomplish a clear circulation path may also be acceptable. Staff Option Proposed Plan Pedestrian Circulation. The plan shows sidewalk construction around the building, as well as pathway along School Boulevard, accommodating the eventual extension of this pathway system to both sides of the collector roadway. The plan shows a private sidewalk connection from the School Boulevard path into the site. However, the location of this sidewalk extension leads to parking spaces, which are the accessible spaces with accessible ramps. By shifting the private sidewalk connection to the east, it could align with the front entrance, and shorten the Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 6 distance for pedestrians using that sidewalk across the main driveway. However, that shift would impact the site plan’s current compliance with parking lot island delineator requirements. As such, as a site plan comment, if the applicant can provide an alternative to align the front entrance, the site plan may be adjusted to accommodate this change. As a site plan comment, this is not a condition of approval. Lighting. The applicants have provided a photometric lighting plan for the facility. Site lighting levels appear to be consistent with the standards for commercial areas and should be confirmed at the time of building permit. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all site lighting is hooded and directed downward to avoid direct light source glare onto adjoining property or public right or way. In addition, the Ordinance requires site lighting to be on poles no greater than 25 feet in height. These details are not included on the plans but should also be confirmed at the time of building permit. Landscaping. The applicants have provided an extensive landscaping plan for the building perimeter, parking lot islands, and site perimeter. The plans include a calculation of the Landscaping code requirements, and compliance with the quantities as required. One note to mention – the zoning ordinance prescribes tree planting quantities based on total caliper inches of planting size. Therefore, the 13 boulevard trees along School Boulevard are to be planted at 3 caliper inches (DBH) to meet the standard as the plan notes. It is recommended that the tree species are varied among the four species proposed, rather than just the two as shown. Other trees in the plan are shown to be planted at 2-inch caliper and are accounted for at that size. Signage. Limited signage information has been provided at this time. The site will be required to meet the general ordinance standards, as well as specifics applicable to the Jefferson Commons development. Building Materials. The primary building materials are LP “Cedar Mill Panel” siding, with a series of accent metal and other materials used on the primary building. The front entrance includes an area of cultured stone fascia. All materials meet the requirements of the City’s building materials regulations as shown on the plans. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, as well as the two Conditional Use Permits for cross parking, with the conditions identified in Exhibit Z and incorporated into the resolutions. The proposed plat and cross access CUPs are consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations applicable to the site, as well as the development expectations for the Jefferson Commons commercial area. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2026-09, Preliminary Plat B. Resolution PC-2026-10, CUP between City and Kids Haven Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 7 C. Resolution PC-2026-11, CUP between Kids Haven and Monticello Theatre D. Aerial Site Image E. Applicant Narrative F. Preliminary Plat G. Final Plat H. Plans, Including: 1. Architectural 2. Site Plan 3. Grading & Drainage 4. Sanitary Sewer & Water Plan 5. Storm Sewer Plan 6. SWPPP 7. Existing Conditions & Removal Plan 8. Pipe Size Analysis 9. Drainage Analysis 10. Landscape Plans 11. Photometrics I. Easement Exhibits J. City Engineer’s Letter and Plan Comments, dated February 20, 2026 K. Chief Building Official’s Letter, dated February 20, 2026 Z. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Agenda – 04/07/2026 8 EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval Legal Description: Outlot C Jefferson Commons, except that part platted as Jefferson Commons Second Addition PID #: 155164000030, 155192001011, 155164000070 1. Cross access easement over Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A of the plat for access to School Boulevard is prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney, to include language for maintenance requirements for both accesses. 2. Cross Access Easement over Lot 1, Block 1 of the plat, Outlot G, Jefferson Commons and Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Second Addition for shared access to School Boulevard and Deegan Avenue is prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney. 3. Amendment of the existing easement recorded with the Wright County as Document Number A925026 to amend the existing roadway easement to align with the shared boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A of the plat and Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Second Addition to be prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney, which shall also include language for maintenance and requirements for access. 4. As related to the westerly shared access, develop an alternative configuration to create more defined circulation for the shared driveway aisle from the theater parcel. 5. Site landscaping is completed as approved, with required maintenance securities as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the approved landscaping plan is an ongoing requirement of CUP and site plan approval. Materials that are removed or fail to survive shall be replaced, regardless of landscape guarantees. 6. Approval and recording of the plat is subject to the approval and completion of the pending land sale of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Fifth Addition. 7. A development contract for the proposed plat is executed and recorded providing for the terms and conditions of the plat development. 8. Compliance with the City ordinance for lighting, signage, landscaping and building materials and other site plan details, to be verified with building permit. 9. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated February 20, 2026. 10. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated February 20, 2026. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2026-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR JEFFERSON COMMONS FIFTH ADDITION PID: 155164000030 WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a preliminary plat of a parcel of currently undeveloped land, currently platted as Outlot C of Jefferson Commons; and WHEREAS, the proposed plat would incorporate development opportunity for a commercial daycare land uses as an allowed use in the proposed B-4, Regional Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the plat creates a single commercial development parcel and one outlot reflecting common access area in the commercial district, dedication of public easements, and utilizes existing access easements to public streets along with drainage and utilities; and WHEREAS, the platted parcel will be consistent with requirements of the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements; and WHEREAS, the subject property will be developed under the requirements of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, which designate the land use for the property as Regional Business; and WHEREAS, the proposed preliminary plat accommodates the proposed commercial daycare under the B-4 zoning structure; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the plat pursuant to the regulations of the applicable ordinances and land use plans and policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 7th, 2026 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution, and make the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the B-4, Regional Business District. 2. The proposed uses will be consistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located, including the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 3. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4. The proposed plat accommodates additional public and private improvements, including pedestrian facilities, utilities, and stormwater controls that ensure the project will continue to be consistent with the City’s long-term public service infrastructure. 5. The proposed access and development details, as supplemented in further submissions, meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations. 6. As a property with development consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the previously approved plat for the site, the proposed plat is not anticipated to negatively impact surrounding residential properties. 7. Approval of the plat will not result in the need for additional road or utility infrastructure other than that being provided by and for the proposed use, and should not otherwise negatively impact the health or safety of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota recommends to the City Council that the proposed Preliminary Plat for the Jefferson Commons Fifth Addition be approved, subject to the conditions of Exhibit Z of the staff report, as follows: 1. Cross access easement over Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A of the plat for access to School Boulevard is prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney, to include language for maintenance requirements for both accesses. 2. Cross Access Easement over Lot 1, Block 1 of the plat, Outlot G, Jefferson Commons and Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Second Addition for shared access to School Boulevard and Deegan Avenue is prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney. 3. Amendment of the existing easement recorded with the Wright County as Document Number A925026 to amend the existing roadway easement to align with the shared boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A of the plat and Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Second Addition to be prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney, which shall also include language for maintenance and requirements for access. 4. As related to the westerly shared access, develop an alternative configuration to create more defined circulation for the shared driveway aisle from the theater parcel. 5. Site landscaping is completed as approved, with required maintenance securities as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the approved landscaping plan is an ongoing requirement of CUP and site plan approval. Materials that are removed or fail to survive shall be replaced, regardless of landscape guarantees. 6. Approval and recording of the plat is subject to the approval and completion of the pending land sale of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Fifth Addition. 7. A development contract for the proposed plat is executed and recorded providing for the terms and conditions of the plat development. 8. Compliance with the City ordinance for lighting, signage, landscaping and building materials and other site plan details, to be verified with building permit. 9. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated February 20, 2026. 10. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated February 20, 2026. ADOPTED this 7th day of April, 2026 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Melissa Robeck, Vice Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-10 1 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CROSS ACCESS IN A B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BETWEEN PARCELS TO BE PLATTED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AND OUTLOT A JEFFERSON COMMONS FIFTH ADDITION WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit for cross access over and with an adjoining parcel; and WHEREAS, the proposed access would facilitate the reasonable subdivision of commercial property; and WHEREAS, the proposed cross access is an aspect of the controlled access locations to School Boulevard from adjoining commercial development; and WHEREAS, the site is zoned Regional Business (B-4), which allows cross- and shared-access site development configurations between adjoining commercial parcels; and WHEREAS, the general land use would be consistent with the long term land use plan for the City and the location, including the designation of the site for “Regional Business” uses; and WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting that the proposed use facilitates long term use of the site for uses in the B-4 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting that the proposed use will comply with the terms and standards of the subdivision ordinance with the recommendations approved by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 7th, 2026 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-10 2 1. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the proposed facility will be in compliance with the standards for cross access found in the zoning ordinance. 2. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the use will improve long- term use of, and access to, the site for uses in the subject zoning district and Comprehensive Plan land use category. 3. The parcel is intended for commercial uses, which is the existing and proposed use of the property. 4. The operation of the business will benefit from the controlled access configurations through safer public street traffic and more predictable vehicle access maneuvers. 5. The use will improve convenience to customers and to the public, consistent with the City’s economic development objectives for commercial property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for cross access, subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit Z of the Staff report, as listed below: 1. Cross access easement over Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A of the plat for access to School Boulevard is prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney, to include language for maintenance requirements for both accesses. 2. Cross Access Easement over Lot 1, Block 1 of the plat, Outlot G, Jefferson Commons and Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Second Addition for shared access to School Boulevard and Deegan Avenue is prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney. 3. Amendment of the existing easement recorded with the Wright County as Document Number A925026 to amend the existing roadway easement to align with the shared boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A of the plat and Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Second Addition to be prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney, which shall also include language for maintenance and requirements for access. 4. As related to the westerly shared access, develop an alternative configuration to create more defined circulation for the shared driveway aisle from the theater parcel. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-10 3 5. Site landscaping is completed as approved, with required maintenance securities as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the approved landscaping plan is an ongoing requirement of CUP and site plan approval. Materials that are removed or fail to survive shall be replaced, regardless of landscape guarantees. 6. Approval and recording of the plat is subject to the approval and completion of the pending land sale of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Fifth Addition. 7. A development contract for the proposed plat is executed and recorded providing for the terms and conditions of the plat development. 8. Compliance with the City ordinance for lighting, signage, landscaping and building materials and other site plan details, to be verified with building permit. 9. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated February 20, 2026. 10. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated February 20, 2026. ADOPTED this 7th day of April, 2026 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Melissa Robeck, Vice Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-11 1 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CROSS ACCESS IN A B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PID 155-164-000030 (FOR THAT PORTION TO BE PLATTED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 1, JEFFERSON COMMONS FIFTH ADDITION); 155192001011, 155164000070 WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit for cross access over and with adjoining parcels; and WHEREAS, the proposed access would facilitate the reasonable subdivision of commercial property; and WHEREAS, the proposed cross access is an aspect of the controlled access locations to School Boulevard from adjoining commercial development; and WHEREAS, the site is zoned Regional Business (B-4), which allows cross- and shared-access site development configurations between adjoining commercial parcels; and WHEREAS, the general land use would be consistent with the long term land use plan for the City and the location, including the designation of the site for “Regional Business” uses; and WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting that the proposed use facilitates long term use of the site for uses in the B-4 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting that the proposed use will comply with the terms and standards of the subdivision ordinance with the recommendations approved by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 7th, 2026 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-11 2 1. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the proposed facility will be in compliance with the standards for cross access found in the zoning ordinance. 2. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the use will improve long- term use of, and access to, the site for uses in the subject zoning district and Comprehensive Plan land use category. 3. The parcel is intended for commercial uses, which is the existing and proposed use of the property. 4. The operation of the business will benefit from the controlled access configurations through safer public street traffic and more predictable vehicle access maneuvers. 5. The use will improve convenience to customers and to the public, consistent with the City’s economic development objectives for commercial property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for cross access, subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit Z of the Staff report, as listed below: 1. Cross access easement over Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A of the plat for access to School Boulevard is prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney, to include language for maintenance requirements for both accesses. 2. Cross Access Easement over Lot 1, Block 1 of the plat, Outlot G, Jefferson Commons and Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Second Addition for shared access to School Boulevard and Deegan Avenue is prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney. 3. Amendment of the existing easement recorded with the Wright County as Document Number A925026 to amend the existing roadway easement to align with the shared boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A of the plat and Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Second Addition to be prepared and recorded per the direction of the City Attorney, which shall also include language for maintenance and requirements for access. 4. As related to the westerly shared access, develop an alternative configuration to create more defined circulation for the shared driveway aisle from the theater parcel. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-11 3 5. Site landscaping is completed as approved, with required maintenance securities as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the approved landscaping plan is an ongoing requirement of CUP and site plan approval. Materials that are removed or fail to survive shall be replaced, regardless of landscape guarantees. 6. Approval and recording of the plat is subject to the approval and completion of the pending land sale of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Jefferson Commons Fifth Addition. 7. A development contract for the proposed plat is executed and recorded providing for the terms and conditions of the plat development. 8. Compliance with the City ordinance for lighting, signage, landscaping and building materials and other site plan details, to be verified with building permit. 9. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated February 20, 2026. 10. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated February 20, 2026. ADOPTED this 7th day of April, 2026 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Melissa Robeck, Vice Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Consider Prelim Plat for Jefferson Commons 5th Addn. & CUPs PID: 155164000030, 155192001011, 155164000070 LEGAL: see notice Created by: City of Monticello 472 ft NO PARKING NO PARKING PROJECT LOCATION EXISTING DESCRIPTION LEGEND: SITE PLAN NOTES 1/1 SITE DATA: SETBACKS: PARKING DATA LOT MINIMUM: SURVEY DATA CI V I L E N G I N E E R I N G SI T E D E S I G N JEFFERSON COMMONS FIFTH ADDITION Meyer-Rohlin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·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