The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 01-03-2012 REGULAR MEETING MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Staff: Angela Schumann, Bruce Westby, Megan Barnett, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman - NAC 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes. a. Regular Meeting of December 6th, 2011 3. Citizen Comments. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Co-location of a Wireless Telecommunication Service Antenna. Applicant: RKZ Consulting 6. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 1 as related to Conditional Uses in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) District and a request for Conditional Use Permit for a duplex residential use in an R-3 District. Applicant: Bondhus, Mary K. 7. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a proposed parking lot expansion for an industrial use in the Central Community District (CCD). Applicant: Cargill Kitchen Solutions 8. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Cross Parking for a commercial use in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Croaston, Ray/Landform 9. Public Hearing – Consideration to adopt the 2012 City of Monticello Official Zoning Map. 10. Consideration to complete an annual review of the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 11. Consideration to review and recommend appointment for expiring Planning Commission terms. 12. Consideration to review and recommend appointment for positions of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair. 13. Consideration to review for comment the 2011-2012 Planning Commission Work Plan. 14. Community Development Director’s Report a. DNR Ordinances b. Floodplain c. CCD Rewrite d. PUD Update 15. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 6th, 2011- 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Commissioners Absent: Charlotte Gabler Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Bruce Westby, Megan Barnett-Livgard, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman-NAC 1. Call to order Commissioner Rod Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of November 1, 2011 a) Regular Meeting of November 1 St, 2011 BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. (William Spartz abstained.) b) Planning Commission and City Council Special Meeting of November 1St, 2011 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1 ST, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4- 0. 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 5. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R-1 (Single -Family) District lots. Applicant: McCann, Steve/Sunset Ponds, LLC Sunset Ponds, LLC is seeking to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) approved in 2003 under the previous version of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. The PUD allowed a mixing of zoning districts within the development. The requested PUD amendment would allow limited flexibility in building and performance standards for five single-family lots which are vacant residential properties in the R-1 zoning district. The addresses for these lots are: 9433, 9391, 9381, 9351 Gifford Court and 6766 94th St. NE in Monticello. The applicant requested flexibility to reduce standards in three primary areas — an approximately 14% reduction in total finishable space, a larger garage footprint than principal structure footprint, and a smaller than required garage door. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 Representatives from Sunset Ponds, LLC, the Planning Commission, and City Council met prior to the application submittal to discuss the proposed amendments. There was general consensus that any reduction in square footage requirements or other code flexibility needed to be offset by other structure enhancements. Any such reductions should be essentially "invisible" in terms of negative impact in mass and sizing relative to the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has proposed to offset variations with upgraded exterior modifications, increased initial finished square footage, and a three - stall garage. Staff analyzed roof pitch, minimum finished floor area, finishable space, building materials, garage size, garage size relative to principal structure and garage door size for three home designs submitted for the five lots. The roof pitch proposed would change from 5/12 to a 6/12 pitch. The proposed amendment would provide 1,721 sq. ft. of finishable space. Base code required 2,000 sq. ft. of finishable space, exclusive of mechanical, garage or unfinished space, which must be above grade. The total finished square footage would be 1328 which is larger than the base code of 1050 sq. ft. The applicant is also seeking to increase the size of the garage from 450 sq. ft. to 660 sq. ft. The proposed garage would be approximately 10% larger than the footprint of the home. The garage door size proposed would be a 15' opening dual door rather than the existing code requirement of 16' opening. There was some discussion about the proposed size of the house and the distinction between finished space and finishable space. The house would be smaller in finishable space but likely not look smaller from the street. The basement would be smaller but there would be a bonus room above the garage. The garage would be larger. The public hearing was opened. Numerous Sunset Ponds residents expressed concerns about this proposal. Michael Ramen of 6780 94th Street asked how it might affect the value of his house. Planning Commissioners pointed out that if the PUD were not amended it was likely that a smaller house could be built on the vacant lots based on current code requirements. Dan Moffitt of 9348 Giffort Court asked if the homes would be two-story as had been the practice of the previous home builder NW Johnson. Staff noted that current owners are not required to abide by the previous owner's design commitment and that the proposed home designs were to be split -entry and multi-level. Evelyn Moffitt of 9348 Giffort Court indicated that she was against the proposal because would affect three lots in her cul-de-sac. Nichole Lerberg of 9366 Giffort Court asked how the public input process worked. Rod Dragsten responded that the Planning Commission will take public comment and staff 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 research into consideration as they make a recommendation to City Council. Brad Lerber of 9366 Giffort Court stated that his neighbors were totally against the proposal. He said value would increase with above grade square footage. Ben Roberg of 9413 Giffort Court, indicated that he thought that this smaller housing type won't create a long-term family neighborhood. Other Sunset Ponds residents in attendance were: Aimee & Kip Sandberg of 9354 Giffort Court, Jamie Cline of 9403 Giffort Court and Staci & Troy Magsam of 9376 Giffort Court. There was no information provided about what the proposed home designs would be valued or what vacant lots had been sold for. There are base codes in place for landscaping. The public hearing was closed. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE #1 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR R- 1 (SINGLE-FAMILY) DISTRICT LOTS FOR SUNSET PONDS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. APPROVAL IS LIMITED TO THE FIVE LOTS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6, 10, 11 AND 14, BLOCK 2, AND LOT 4, BLOCK 3, SUNSET PONDS. B. APPROVAL IS LIMITED TO BUILDING AND PERFORMANCE STANDARD MODIFICATIONS AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE "HICKORY STANDARD", "HICKORY DELUXE" AND "HICKORY PREMIUM" HOME PLANS AS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. C. NO HOMES ON ABUTTING PROPERTIES MAY BE CONSTRUCTED OF THE SAME HOME PLAN. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 WITH WILLIAM SPARTZ VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R 1A (Single -Family) District lots. Applicant: Keyland Homes Key Land Homes asked to amend one Planned Unit Development standard applicable to garage design for R -IA properties within the Hillside Farm development. It is specific to the ratio of garage door to home as measured from side to side on the front facade. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 The required 700 square foot garage, coupled with the R-1 lot sizing standard creates the potential for design constraints relative to the 40% requirement. The applicant has provided a house plan reflecting the proposed garage modification. All other code and PUD standards (including amended standards noted above) have been met for the home, including finished square footage, finishable square footage, exterior detailing, etc. The four lots proposed for this current PUD amendment are vacant residential properties located at 8605, 8585, and 8626 Elk Avenue and 5903 Badger Street in Monticello. These lots must also conform to the 2004 and 2008 amendments to the original PUD approval. The 2004 amendment requires that two-story and modified two-story residential dwellings must provide: a minimum finished first floor size of 1100 square feet; a minimum of 2200 square feet finished area above grade; and, full basements. The 2008 amendment requires that no split entry homes shall be allowed on the balance of the lots owned by the applicant; and the garage shall not extend more than 12' beyond the front building line of the home itself for the balance of the lots owned by the applicant. The public hearing was opened. Hillside Farm resident Jason Penaz of 5944 Badger Street confirmed that the square footage would be the same on all four lots. Resident Pat Caouetta of 5866 Badger asked why this amendment can't be valid for all developers in the neighborhood. Staff noted that legally an application for variance must come from the property owner. Key Land Homes Representative Terry Long answered questions. Work on these homes should be completed by the end of February. The public hearing was closed. WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR R- DA (SINGLE-FAMILY) DISTRICT LOTS FOR HILLSIDE FARMS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. APPROVAL IS LIMITED TO THE FOUR LOTS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5, 6, AND 10, BLOCK 2 AND LOT 5, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE FARM 2ND ADDITION. B. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MEET AND/OR EXCEED ALL OTHER CODE AND PUD DESIGN STANDARDS. C. APPROVAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT IS LIMITED TO: M Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 • GARAGE FRONTAGE: FROM SIDE BUILDING LINE TO SIDE BUILDING LINE OF ANY SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE, NO MORE THAN 50% OF SUCH BUILDING WIDTH SHALL CONSIST OF GARAGE DOORS THAT FACE THE STREET. SIDE OR REAR LOADED GARAGE DOORS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS REGULATION. AN EXCEPTION SHALL BE MADE FOR GARAGE DOORS WHICH FACE THE STREET, BUT ARE SET BACK AT LEAST TEN FEET IN BACK OF THE FRONT BUILDING LINE OF THE PRINCIPAL USE. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Concept State Planned Unit Development. (Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2, Carcone Addition, 1005 State Hwy 25) Applicant: Weinhold Investments, LLC Steve Grittman indicated that this is Monticello's first Planned Unit Development Concept Stage Approval application subject to the new zoning ordinance and submission process. The new rules require establishment of a customized PUD zoning district. Staff met with the applicant, planning commission representatives and city council representatives to collaborate on project aspects and assist with the design of a public values statement. The proposed PUD consists of a remodeling of the existing Ford dealership building for multiple tenant occupancy, including utilization of a portion of the building for automotive services (detailing and car wash), and other portions for commercial uses including retail, office, and commercial services. The property would be subdivided to establish two new parcels on what was the former sales/display lot, one of which would be used for restaurant, and the southern -most parcel to be used for professional office space or other commercial uses. The remnant parcel west of Sandberg Road would be used for overflow parking for the currently proposed project, and then subject to future development by PUD amendment. A PUD is being requested for this project to provide for more flexible land uses, including both B-3 and B-4 district uses (highway and regional business), as well as for shared parking, off-site parking, and shared access locations. Staff asked that the applicants incorporate the following items into a Preliminary Development PUD application: a. Develop a clear boundary between the proposed PUD and the property to the north (West Metro). Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 b. Address circulation on the west side of the existing building to channelize drive lanes and potentially, reduce paved surface cover. c. Remove parallel parking along the west side of the existing building, replacing it with better drive lane channeling. Angle parking may be appropriate if adequate space exists. d. Revise the parking layout between the existing building and the restaurant to permit more direct access from the restaurant to the Sandberg Road access point and minimize dead-end parking stall access. e. Consider landscape elements that enhance the site visually and minimize stormwater runoff where possible, with the understanding that tree planting can be designed to avoid interrupting views of the buildings in the PUD. f. Landscaping, Lighting, Signage, and Utility details would all be a part of the more extensive Preliminary Development PUD application. g. Building Design and Materials meet the expectations of the Public Values Statement and collaborative process. Additional detail, including details of trash handling and other incidental uses, and elevation illustrations for the exterior of the existing building, will be provided. The public hearing was opened. Developer Calvin Freudenrich of 4483 87t' St NE apologized to the City for the recent article in Monticello Times. He assured the Planning Commission that he would be working closely with the city to fulfill his development obligations. The Commissioners asked a few questions about parking. The developer stated that adding parking stalls wouldn't be a problem and that he would work with West Metro to plan for vehicle drop off. He may add trees to the property along Sandberg Road. He stated that he had no concerns with the Preliminary Development PUD requirements. The public hearing was closed. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO PASS THE PROPOSED CONCEPT STAGE PUD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR COMMENT WITH THE ITEMS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 WITH BRAD FYLE VOTING IN OPPOSITION DUE TO THE OFFSITE PARKING. 8. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Co - location of a Wireless Telecommunication Service Antenna. Applicant: RKZ Consulting 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 The applicant indicated intent to move forward with the application review during January's regular meeting. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CO -LOCATION OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE ANNTENA UNTIL THE JANUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 9. Public Hearing Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the adoption of the Embracing Downtown Plan The Embracing Downtown Plan updates the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan as part of the larger 2008 Comprehensive Plan in order to achieve the community's current objectives. Changing economic conditions and retail centers as well as increased growth have created an opportunity to move forward in creating a vibrant locality. The EDA, spurred on by a Business Retention & Expansion study which indicated a key interest in strengthening the downtown, acted as the primary redevelopment agency to embark on this new planning effort. The Embracing Downtown Steering Committee recommended the appointment of consulting firm the McComb Group to address challenges and opportunities in market analysis, transportation planning, land use planning and financial implementation. The consultants worked through a five phase planning process involving downtown property owners and business owners and numerous stakeholders throughout the community. The five -phase planning process included: • Research and analysis • Assessment of alternatives and preliminary feasibility • Stakeholder review of alternatives and identification of the preferred alternative • Feasibility and strategy development for the preferred alternative • Creation of a downtown revitalization strategy The draft plan presented for recommendation details the work accomplished in each of the five phases and the resulting outcomes. The four components of the plan included: • Market Analysis • Transportation Planning • Land Use Plan & Design • Financial Feasibility and Implementation 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 These components integrated into one preferred vision for the revitalization of the downtown. Market Analysis Economic Development Director Megan Barnett-Livgard pointed out that in developing the final project scope of work, the EDA felt strongly that the new plan should be driven by economic realities. Market Analysis determined that Monticello has capacity for more commercial and retail space in the community. The consulting team believed that Monticello should market itself as a sub -regional center between Maple Grove and St. Cloud. The City has a real, market-driven opportunity to successfully locate a department store, additional medical services, and another type of grocery store in the downtown area. Local traffic is conducive to having these amenities. Transportation Planning City Engineer Bruce Westby noted that providing a functional, multi -modal transportation system will play a critical role in ensuring the commercial viability of the downtown area. This will include adequate accommodations for vehicular operations, vehicle parking both on and off-street and pedestrians and bicyclists. Westwood Professional Services completed a comprehensive Transportation Study as part of the Embracing Downtown Monticello Report. He outlined key transportation improvements recommended by the Embracing Downtown Plan: • TH 25/Pine Street Development in this corridor will capitalize on the high volume of traffic. Off- street pedestrian and bicycle accommodations will be provided. On -street parking will continue to be prohibited along the TH 25 corridor. A signal system will be required at the intersection of 0 Street/TH 25 to provide adequate access to the proposed retail facilities. The newly signalized intersection at TH 25 will benefit pedestrians by providing another controlled crossing for TH 25. Right-in/right-out access restrictions will be required at Yd Street to accommodate the new 4t' Street signal system. • CSAH 75/Broadway Development along this corridor will capitalize on the high volume of traffic. Off-street pedestrian accommodations will be provided, through the design of these sidewalks will require special attention to accommodate desired streetscape enhancements and outdoor seating. Bicycle accommodations will not be provided. On -street parking will be provided as practicable. Off-street parking fields will be located behind stores. 0 Walnut Street Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 This corridor will serve as the major north -south pedestrian corridor between the Mississippi River and Interstate 94 in the downtown area. Walnut Street bisects "anchor block", separating the anchor store from the parking field east of Walnut. On -street parking will be prohibited between 0 Street and CSAH 75/Broadway. • 4th Street Accommodations for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic will be provided along this corridor. On -street parking will be maintained where practicable. • Second River Crossing A second river crossing will be necessary to reduce congestion on TH 25 to acceptable levels through at least the year 2030. Traffic volumes are estimated to increase by 60% by 2030 without this project. • Multi -Modal Considerations Pedestrian Crossings: • CSAH 75/Broadway-Locust, Walnut, TH 25/Pine & Cedar • TH 25/Pine Street — CSAH 75/Broadway, 0 & 7th Pathway Connections: • CSAH 75/Broadway-Both ends • 7th Street East Sidewalk Connections: • 0 Street East • 6th Street East • CSAH 75/Broadway-Both ends • TH 25 — Both ends Traffic impacts associated with the Plan as developed are expected to be minor. Redevelopment of the downtown area is anticipated to result in a net increase of 9,000 ADT. Traffic operations at the intersection of TH 25/CSAH 75 is most critical to traffic flow in and around the CCD. Brad Fyle asked about how Walnut Street will function as part of this plan. Staff indicated that Walnut would continue to accommodate both pedestrians and vehicles but that the local vehicular traffic would calm as a result of the proposed redevelopment plan. Walnut would serve the businesses along that corridor. Rod Dragsten asked how the proposed signalization of 0, Street would affect traffic. Staff indicated that based on a recent study of operational impacts the addition of a 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 traffic signal would create a more organized and consistent progression of traffic through the intersection. Land Use Plan & Design The McCombs Group melded the outcomes of the Market Analysis and Transportation components with the stated strategies for the downtown identified within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan to develop: • A Downtown Vision Statement • Guiding Principles • Goals • Development Framework Plan • Development Plan Alternatives Four alternatives for redevelopment were prepared utilizing the results of the research and site analysis, market investigation, and goals developed for Land Use, Transportation, and Downtown design and Image. Compact Scheme A best represented the basis for redevelopment of the CCD consistent with goals and objectives for the downtown area and the Downtown Framework. Scheme A was refined to include suggestions for modifications and improvements extracted from other alternatives or new ideas. The Preferred Alternative Plan met considerations for market compatibility, transportation, pedestrian movements and land use and design and the ability to be phased in over time. Design Guidelines are intended to correspond to the limits of the CCD Zoning District and to establish development controls within the CCD. Financial Feasibility and Implementation Monticello has an opportunity to capitalize on the new Walgreens and related intersection improvements with a few catalyst projects: • Relocate Ace Hardware • Attract and "anchor" tenant • Attract a whole foods store or discount store • Attract additional medical services Several financial tools both within Monticello and through outside agencies were identified to help address how expensive redevelopment projects can become reality. Preliminary redevelopment costs for each downtown block were calculated using assessor's market values and estimated development costs. The results indicate that some blocks are more expensive to redevelop than others. The City has an opportunity to capitalize on additional surplus TIF funds to assist in redevelopment costs. The implementation strategy needs to be flexible and driven by market opportunities. It will be important to keep focus on the Value Creation Principle: increased customer traffic, increased economic activity and vitality downtown, growing number of 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 businesses and increased sales and profit, buildings that increase in value, increased tax revenues to the City, and increased tax increments. A strong marketing program will also be key to promoting local amenities, utilizing existing business opportunities and purchasing appropriate properties when opportunities arise. Keeping communication channels open and building strong and effective leadership in the downtown will ensure the successful implementation of the plan. Next Steps Planning Commission implementation of the Embracing Downtown Plan calls for the following specific steps: • Adoption of needed Comprehensive Plan amendments consistent with Embracing Downtown policies and goals • Rezoning of parcels included within the Downtown Framework Plan that lie outside the CCD • Revision of the CCD ordinances to support Downtown Framework Plan, including Landmark, Flex and Transition Zones, and the Design Guidelines Brad Fyle shared general concern about financing the Embracing Downtown Plan. The public hearing was opened. Downtown business owner Steve Johnson noted his support for the plan and commended staff on its commitment to the downtown. The public hearing was closed. WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2011-108, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 2011 EMBRACING DOWNTOWN PLAN, APPENDIX DOCUMENTS, AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3 OF THE 2008 MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. The Monticello Economic Development Authority will review the plan on December 14, 2011. It will be considered by the City Council in January. 10. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as related to Permitted and Conditional Uses in the B-3 (Highway Business) District The Planning Commission was asked to consider expanding the number of permitted and conditionally permitted (CUP) principal uses allowed in the B-3 (Highway Business) District. In the recent update of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, the City elected to keep two Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 higher -intensity commercial districts, the B-3 (Highway Business) and B-4 (Regional Business) Districts. As the Planning Commission considered the allowable uses in the two districts during the recent code update, the consensus was to continue to allow auto - oriented uses in very specifically zoned locations adjacent to arterial or collector roadways. The more "standard" commercial uses such as retail, restaurants and office were completely left out of the B-3 District in the new ordinance. This decision was likely based on the need to mitigate potentially negative impacts caused by the auto - related uses on other commercial uses and to create two more highly differentiated commercial districts. However, lack of inclusion of the more traditional commercial uses in the B-3 District has created two problematic conditions. • A number of use non -conformities have been created in the existing B-3 Districts. • The need for convenience retail and service-oriented commercial uses exists for the B-3 District; but these uses are no longer allowed (either as permitted or conditional) in the B-3 District. For these reasons, staff is requesting that Planning Commission consider amending the basic purpose statement of the B-3 District to include general commercial activities, as well as amendments to the Chapter 5 Use Table to allow the expansion of additional commercial uses into the B-3 District. The purpose of the B-3 (highway business) district is to provide for and Unii limited commercial and service activities and provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. Staff is also proposing that the City consider allowing the following commercial/business activities within the B-3 District. Permitted: Consistent and compatible with B-3 business/commercial uses • Business Support Services • Personal Services • Restaurants • Retail Commercial • Specialty Eating Establishments Conditional: Requires additional review for compatibility Office Financial Institutions Entertainment/Recreation Outdoor Commercial Rod Dragsten noted his concern about truck traffic and allowing business support services as a permitted use. The public hearing was opened. Hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed. 12 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/06/11 WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #539, AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED, WITH BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES BEING MOVED TO CONDITIONAL USE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PURPOSE STATEMENTS OF MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 11. Community Development Director's Report a. Transportation -City Engineer Bruce Westby will review the findings of the Transportation Advisory Committee with the Planning Commission in January or February. b. Post -Development Survey -Post -development survey results will be made available for Commission consideration. c. Planning Commission Survey- Staff asked the Planning Commission to participate in a review of Planning Department operations. d. Development Cost Study -Studies indicate that Monticello has lower fees and fewer requirements when compared to surrounding communities. e. Permit Cost Study -Staff made the Permit Cost Study available for Planning Commission review. Building Official Ron Hackenmueller will include the City of St. Michael's fee schedule with the Planning Commission agenda packet next month. f. Consultant Appointment -Staff requested rate information for 2012 from both NAC and MFRA in order to maintain the flexibility to utilize both consulting firms on an as -needed basis depending on workload and type of project required of the planning department. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE REAPPOINTMENT OF NAC AS CITY PLANNER. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 12. Adiourn BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Recorder: Kerry T. Burri Approved: January 3, 2012 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 13 5. A. Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Co -location of a Wireless Telecommunication Service Antenna. Applicant: (NAC) Property: 6111 Wildwood Boulevard; Part of the NE 1/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 24, Twp 121N, R 25W — Spirit Hills Outlot A. The site is a wooded outlot near the crest of the "Monti Club Hill", and is occupied by two telecommunications towers, accessed from the Wildwood subdivision. Planning Case Number: 2011-029 REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Conditional Use Permit to co -locate wireless communication equipment on an existing tower (applicants are upgrading their own existing equipment). Deadline for Decision: March 2, 2012 (with 60 day extension) Land Use Designation: Places to Live Zoning Designation: R-1 The purpose of the "R-1" single family district is to provide for low density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. The proposed use is a conditional use in the district. Current Site Use: The site is currently occupied by two telecommunication towers, one of which (a self-supporting tower on the south) contains various telecommunications equipment, including that of the current applicant, and another, taller tower array (north tower) which also includes a large area occupied by guy wires. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Public uses, including park and water tower East: Single Family Residential 1 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 South: Vacant Land, guided and zoned for single family development West: Public uses, primarily open space Project Description: The applicant proposes to replace existing antenna and ground equipment with newer technology. The applicant will also be installing a GPS antenna near the existing ground enclosure. The ground equipment will be located within the existing enclosure. New wiring will also be installed connecting the antenna array and ground equipment. Ordinance Requirements: The zoning ordinance encourages co -location of antenna equipment on existing towers or other structures. Per ordinance, a Conditional Use Permit is required for the new equipment. ANALYSIS Parking. There is no specific parking requirement. Landscaping. The enclosure is not being altered as a part of this work. Lighting. No additional lighting is proposed. Signage. No signage is proposed. Building Design. The equipment is required to match existing buildings, however, no addition construction is proposed. Access and Circulation. The property gets its access from the end of Wildwood Boulevard, a stubbed street from the Wildwood subdivision. An existing easement is in place for this access. No additional traffic or improvements are anticipated resulting from this application. Grading and Drainage. No changes to grade or drainage are proposed. Utilities. No city utilities are impacted by this work. 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 Conditional Use Permit Requirements The zoning ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for co -location of antenna equipment on existing structures. The applicants have submitted the required information and appear to be in compliance with each of the required regulations of the code. The changes are slight, and due to the height of the existing tower (370 feet), and the fact that the proposed antenna changes are near the top (the second highest antenna array on the tower), there is expected to be no visual impact for surrounding property. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for CUP for Telecommunication Antenna 1. Motion to approve Resolution 2012-004 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit as requested. 2. Motion to deny Resolution 2012-004 recommending for a Conditional Use Permit, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. C. STAFF RECOMMNDATION Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit as submitted, based on the application materials provided, and with findings that the proposal meets the requirements of the ordinance, and that the proposal largely replaces existing equipment with no visual or other impacts on surrounding property. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Image B. Zoning Map (see map included with Item 9) C. Applicant Narrative D. Application Plan Packet E. Structural Analysis F. Resolution 2012-004 3 RF DATA SHEET :... at&t 4300 MARKET POINTE DR. BLOOMINGTON, MN 55435 BLACK & VEATCH 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 66210 (913) 458--2000 PROJECT NO: 169619 DRAWN BY: DJK CHECKED BY: GAH 1 09/21/11 REVISED ANTENNA HEIGHT 0 04/14/11 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION REV DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PRINT NAME: BRUCE GOCKEI.4 SIGNATURE: DATE: 46-2/ tl LICENSE # 45038 IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON. UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. 70 ALTER THIS DOCUMENT. MNL01 1361690 MONTICELLO 6111 WILDWOOD BOULEVARD MONTICELLO, MN 55362 LTE - SST SHEET TITLE RF DATA SHEET CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THAT RF DATA SHEET NUMBER SHEET IS CORRECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION C-4 NO SCALE at&t 4300 MARKET POINTE DR, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55435 n • BLACK & VEATCH 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 66210 (913) 458-2000 PROJECT NO: 169519 DRAWN BY: DJK CHECKED BY: GAH 1 09/21/17 REVISED ANTENNA HEIGHT 0 04/14/11 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION REV DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. PRINT NAME: BRUCE GOCKEL SIGNATURE: DATE: - LICENSE # 45038 IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT. FAI RF DATA SHEET A ,a it t IWO 4300 MARKET POINTE DR. BLOOMINGTON, MN 55435 o...... \ ter, . r,,.......,,,.,... Antenna Position 1 Antenna Position 2 Antenna Position 1 r. GSM 850 Antenna Position 3 Antenna Position 2 Antenna Position 1 UMTS 850 GSM 850 Antenna Position 3 Antenna Position 2 LTE 790 UMTS 850 BLACK �� GSM 1900 GSM 850 Antenna Position 3 UMTS 1900 LTE Spare GSM 1900 UMTS 1900 LTE 700 UMTS 850 p LTE Spare GSM 1900 UMTS 1900 LTE 700 AISG LTE Spare Protoc aI AISG= AISGII Protocpl 10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 2.0 20 Protoc I OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 66210 2.0 (913) 458-2000 H El Ei El PROJECT NO: 169619 .� y� ,� vo ,� vyvv DRAWN BY: \.... �: �,. A ? rt, i \\ �� y v� wVvv�yvo� �o� DJK 8 sTi V ARRH y.. oA �ti,ifi r .,�� .\\ \\\ \\ 1 U3SL � T}aEA� Tem � ii �� , tt+�riis 7tYY3 4 eSs T RRt! CHECKED BY: GAH 17C tit o\ N� \\\\\ \\ 9X \ DOm I Gat ort & \' \\ \\\\ \`a\` a m ` \\\`O � ��\�\ \\ \\ I 09/21/11 REVISED ANTENNA HEIGHT \\ \� \\ \ 0 04/14/11 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION (E7tei iEYG'f \ \ \\ \., llipiexer�BJC£l C1i�Terletttx \ \O\\\\\\.ImMI1i6X8fl�f'X8! DiEXBf DJiO(Cf \ REV BATE DESCRIPTION l s T7 td t7i Bundled SPECIFC ATION,TIS OR REPORT THATFY I W AN fiber optic ndled Bundled p cable fiber ndled Bundled ndled PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY optic cable cable cable fiber optic cab's DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I cable AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, PRINT NAME: BRUCE GOCKEL a SIGNATURE: DATE: qW 111 LICENSE # 45038 TXJRX RXD w, ,p Rud TX/RX RxD r, RX Rk) TXJRX FUD �X`I�'� RxD R IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION GSM 1900 OF A LICE SEPTHISSSION ENGINEER, ER UMTS 1900 GSM 1900 UMTS 1900 GSM 1900 UMTS 1900 MNL01 136-1690 MONTICELLO 6111 WILOW00D BOULEVARD MONTICELLO, MN 55362 LTE - SST SHEET TITLE ANTENNA CONFIGURATIONS (ALL SECTORS) CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THAT RF DATA SHEET NUMBER SHEET IS CORRECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ALPHA SECTOR ANTENNAS NO SCALE BETA SECTOR ANTENNAS CONNECTORS, GAMMA SECTOR ANTENNAS e"s CONNECTORS, & CABLE CONFIGURATION & CABLE CONFIGURATION NO SCALE CONNECTORS & CABLE CONFIGURATION NO SCALE FDH Engineering, Inc., 2730 Rowland Rd. Raleigh, NC 27615, Ph. 919.755.1012, Fax 919.755.1031 Document No. ENG-RPT-502S Revision Date: 01/08/09 Structural Analysis for SBA Network Services, Inc. 370’ Self Support Tower SBA Site Name: Monticello 2 SBA Site ID: MN10250-A New Cingular Site Name: Monticello New Cingular Site ID: MNL01136 FDH Project Number 11-05311E S2 Analysis Results Tower Components 78.4% Sufficient Foundations 70.2% Sufficient Prepared By: Brandon T. Compton, EI Project Engineer Reviewed By: Christopher M. Murphy, PE President MN PE License No. 46093 FDH Engineering, Inc. 2730 Rowland Rd. Raleigh, NC 27615 (919) 755-1012 info@fdh-inc.com September 21, 2011 Prepared pursuant to TIA/EIA-222-F June 1996 Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures Structural Analysis Report SBA Network Services, Inc. SBA Site ID: MN10250-A September 21, 2011 Document No. ENG-RPT-502S Revision Date: 01/08/09 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………..………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Conclusions Recommendations 3 APPURTENANCE LISTING………………………………………………………………………………....................................... 4 RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. GENERAL COMMENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 7 LIMITATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Structural Analysis Report SBA Network Services, Inc. SBA Site ID: MN10250-A September 21, 2011 Document No. ENG-RPT-502S Revision Date: 01/08/09 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the request of SBA Network Services, Inc., FDH Engineering, Inc. performed an analysis of the existing self supported tower located in Monticello, MN to determine whether the tower is structurally adequate to support both the existing and proposed loads, pursuant to the Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures, TIA/EIA- 222-F. Information pertaining to the existing/proposed antenna loading, current tower geometry, the member sizes, and foundation dimensions was obtained from PiROD, Inc. (Eng. File No. A-115346) Tower Reanalysis Report dated May 24, 2002, FDH, Inc. (Job No. 07-0709T) TIA Inspection Report dated July 31, 2007, and SBA Network Services, Inc. The basic design wind speed per the TIA/EIA-222-F standards is 80 mph without ice and 38 mph with 3/4” radial ice. Ice is considered to increase in thickness with height. Conclusions With the existing and proposed loading from New Cingular in place at 347’ (see Table 1), the tower meets the requirements of the TIA/EIA-222-F standards provided the Recommendations listed below are satisfied. Furthermore, provided the foundations were designed and constructed to support the original design reactions (see PiROD, Inc. Eng. File No. A- 115346), the foundations should have the necessary capacity to support the existing and proposed loading. For a more detailed description of the analysis of the tower, see the Results section of this report. Our structural analysis has been performed assuming all information provided to FDH Engineering, Inc. is accurate (i.e., the steel data, tower layout, existing antenna loading, and proposed antenna loading) and that the tower has been properly erected and maintained per the original design drawings. Recommendations To ensure the requirements of the TIA/EIA-222-F standards are met with the existing and proposed loading in place, we have the following recommendations: 1. Coax lines must be installed as shown in Figure 1. 2. The proposed TMAs should be installed directly behind the proposed panel antennas. 3. The proposed RRHs should be installed directly behind the proposed panel antennas. Structural Analysis Report SBA Network Services, Inc. SBA Site ID: MN10250-A September 21, 2011 Document No. ENG-RPT-502S Revision Date: 01/08/09 4 APPURTENANCE LISTING The proposed and existing antennas with their corresponding cables/coax lines are shown in Table 1. If the actual layout determined in the field deviates from this layout, FDH Engineering, Inc. should be contacted to perform a revised analysis. Table 1 – Appurtenance Loading Existing Loading: Antenna Elevation (ft) Description Coax No. Coax and Lines Carrier Mount Elevation (ft) Mount Type 381.5 (1) Decibel ASP-705K Omni 378.6 (1) Sinclair SC480-SF1SNF Omini 29, 35, 31 (2) 1-5/8” (1) 7/8” --- 371 (6) Standoffs (Halo Mount) 347 (6) Powerwave 772_00_1900_T3 (12) Andrew ETD819G-12UB TMAs --- (12) 2-1/4” New Cingular 347 (3) 12’ T-Frames 327.5 (1) RFS CPF500-1 37 (1) 7/8” --- 327.5 (1) 6.5” Pipe Mount 329.5 (1) 10’ Dipole 25 (1) 7/8” --- 324.5 (1) 11” Standoff 323.5 --- --- --- --- 323.5 (1) 11” Standoff 319.5 (1) Alvarion AN1169 (1) TMA 23 (1) 3/8” --- 319.5 (1) 4’ Pipe Mount 317 (2) Radiowave SEC25V-180-13 (2) TMAs 26, 30 (2) 1/2” --- 317 (2) 4’ Pipe Mounts 316 (1) Alvarion AN1169 (1) TMAs 22 (1) 3/8” --- 316 (1) 4’ Pipe Mount 278.4 (1) Celwave BA6012-1 Omni 277 (1) 2’ Yagi --- --- --- 277 (1) 15” Standoff 267.5 (1) Decibel DB420-A 24 (1) 7/8” --- 267.5 (1) 5’ Standoff 266.5 (1) Andrew PG1N0F-0090-310 Omni 32 (1) 7/8” --- 261.5 (1) 5’ Standoff 224.5 (1) Andrew PG1N0F-0090-310 Omni 28 (1) 7/8” --- 219.5 (1) 5’ Standoff 211.5 (3) EMS FR65-17-04DP (9) Decibel DB848H90E-XY 3-8, 11, 14-21 (15) 7/8” Nextel 211.5 (3) 13’ T-Frames 200 (9) Andrew TMBX-6517-R2M (6) Andrew EW190VS12UB TMAs --- (18) 7/8” T-Mobile 200 (3) 12’ T-Frames 172.5 (4) CSA B800A085-25 (2) CSA B800A065-25 (4) Antel LPA-185080/8 (2) Antel LPA-185063/8 (3) Antel BXA-70040/8CF (6) CSS DBC-750 Diplexers (6) ADC DD1900 TMAs --- (6) 1-5/8” (9) 7/8” Verizon 172.5 (3) 15’ T-Frames 151 (1) Alvarion SU-A-5.8-24-BD-VL (1) Radiowave SP2-5.2-NS Dish 27 (1) 3/8” --- 151 (1) 2’ Pipe Mount 102 (1) Scala CL-FMRX/VRM/50N Yagi 36 (1) 1/2” --- 102 (1) 7’ Pipe Mount Proposed Loading: Antenna Elevation (ft) Description Coax and Lines Carrier Mount Elevation (ft) Mount Type 347 (6) Kathrein 800 10766 (3) Kathrein 800 10764 (6) Powerwave TT08-19DB111-001 TMAs (3) Alcatel Lucent 9442 RRHs (1) Raycap DC6-48-60-18-8F Surge Suppressor (12) 1-5/8” (1) 1/2” (1) 3/8” (1) 3/4" New Cingular 347 (3) 12’ T-Frames Structural Analysis Report SBA Network Services, Inc. SBA Site ID: MN10250-A September 21, 2011 Document No. ENG-RPT-502S Revision Date: 01/08/09 5 (4) 1-5/8" PROPOSED COAX FOR NEW CINGULAR TO 347' 16-21 (4) 1-5/8" PROPOSED COAX FOR NEW CINGULAR TO 347' 3-8 14-15 11 (4) 1-5/8" PROPOSED COAX FOR NEW CINGULAR TO 347' 22-23 24 2526-27292830 31 323635 37 (18) 7/8" EXISTING COAX FOR T-MOBILE TO 200' = EXISTING = FUTURE = PROPOSED (9) 7/8" EXISTING COAX (6) 1-5/8" EXISTING COAX FOR VERIZON TO 172.5' (1) 1/2" PROPOSED FIBER CABLE (1) 3/8" PROPOSED RET CABLE (1) 3/4" PROPOSED POWER CABLE FOR NEW CINGULAR TO 347' A-LEG (331°) Figure 1 – Coax Layout Structural Analysis Report SBA Network Services, Inc. SBA Site ID: MN10250-A September 21, 2011 Document No. ENG-RPT-502S Revision Date: 01/08/09 6 RESULTS The following yield strength of steel for individual members was used for analysis: Table 2 - Material Strength Member Type Yield Strength Legs 50 ksi Diagonals 36 ksi & 50 ksi Horizontals 36 ksi & 50 ksi Table 3 displays the summary of the ratio (as a percentage) of force in the member to their capacities. Values greater than 100% indicate locations where the maximum force in the member exceeds its capacity. Note: Capacities up to 105% are considered acceptable. Table 4 displays the maximum foundation reactions. If the assumptions outlined in this report differ from actual field conditions, FDH Engineering, Inc. should be contacted to perform a revised analysis. Furthermore, as no information pertaining to the allowable twist and sway requirements for the existing or proposed appurtenances was provided, deflection and rotation were not taken into consideration when performing this analysis. See the Appendix for detailed modeling information Table 3 – Working Percentage of Structural Components Section No. Elevation ft Component Type Size % Capacity Pass Fail T1 370 - 350 Leg 1 1/2 39.0 Pass Diagonal 3/4 26.3 Pass Top Girt 7/8 8.7 Pass Bottom Girt 7/8 10.5 Pass T2 350 - 330 Leg 2 68.3 Pass Diagonal 7/8 43.8 Pass Top Girt 7/8 3.6 Pass Bottom Girt 7/8 34.5 Pass T3 330 - 310 Leg 2 1/2 55.1 Pass Diagonal 1 32.7 Pass Top Girt 1 17.8 Pass Bottom Girt 1 18.6 Pass T4 310 - 300 Leg Pirod 105245 49.3 Pass Diagonal L2 1/2x2 1/2x3/16 34.6 42.6 (b) Pass Pass T5 300 - 280 Leg Pirod 105218 43.5 Pass Diagonal L2 1/2x2 1/2x3/16 36.0 37.8 (b) Pass Pass T6 280 - 260 Leg Pirod 105218 51.1 Pass Diagonal L3x3x3/16 29.8 36.7 (b) Pass Pass T7 260 - 240 Leg Pirod 105219 44.7 Pass Diagonal L3x3x5/16 26.9 Pass T8 240 - 220 Leg Pirod 105219 51.1 Pass Diagonal L3x3x5/16 37.8 Pass T9 220 - 200 Leg Pirod 105220 45.7 Pass Diagonal L3 1/2x3 1/2x5/16 41.8 Pass T10 200 - 180 Leg Pirod 105220 53.2 Pass Diagonal L4x4x1/4 46.8 Pass Structural Analysis Report SBA Network Services, Inc. SBA Site ID: MN10250-A September 21, 2011 Document No. ENG-RPT-502S Revision Date: 01/08/09 7 Section No. Elevation ft Component Type Size % Capacity Pass Fail 53.0 (b) Pass T11 180 - 160 Leg Pirod 112743 49.2 Pass Diagonal 2L3 1/2x3 1/2x5/16x3/8 34.7 Pass T12 160 - 140 Leg Pirod 112743 57.1 Pass Diagonal 2L3 1/2x3 1/2x5/16x3/8 42.3 Pass T13 140 - 120 Leg Pirod 112744 53.4 Pass Diagonal 2L3 1/2x3 1/2x5/16x3/8 46.3 Pass T14 120 - 100 Leg Pirod 112744 59.5 Pass Diagonal 2L3 1/2x3 1/2x5/16x3/8 52.6 Pass T15 100 - 80 Leg Pirod 112745 55.2 Pass Diagonal 2L3 1/2x3 1/2x5/16x3/8 59.0 Pass T16 80 - 60 Leg Pirod 112745 60.3 Pass Diagonal 2L3 1/2x3 1/2x5/16x3/8 65.5 Pass T17 60 - 40 Leg Pirod 112745 65.2 Pass Diagonal 2L3 1/2x3 1/2x5/16x3/8 74.4 Pass T18 40 - 20 Leg Pirod 114683 59.9 Pass Diagonal 2L4x4x1/4x3/8 65.9 Pass T19 20 - 0 Leg Pirod 114685 63.7 Pass Diagonal 2L4x4x1/4x3/8 78.4 Pass *Capacities include 1/3 allowable increase for wind per TIA/EIA-222-F standards. Table 4 – Maximum Base Reactions Load Type Direction Current Analysis (TIA/EIA-222-F) Original Design (TIA/EIA-222-F) Individual Foundation Horizontal 62 k --- Uplift 482 k 712 k Compression 585 k 833 k Overturning Moment --- 16,874 k-ft 24,082 k-ft GENERAL COMMENTS This engineering analysis is based upon the theoretical capacity of the structure. It is not a condition assessment of the tower and its foundation. It is the responsibility of SBA Network Services, Inc. to verify that the tower modeled and analyzed is the correct structure (with accurate antenna loading information) modeled. If there are substantial modifications to be made or the assumptions made in this analysis are not accurate, FDH Engineering, Inc. should be notified immediately to perform a revised analysis. LIMITATIONS All opinions and conclusions are considered accurate to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty based upon the evidence available at the time of this report. All opinions and conclusions are subject to revision based upon receipt of new or additional/updated information. All services are provided exercising a level of care and diligence equivalent to the standard and care of our profession. No other warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is offered. Our services are confidential in nature and we will not release this report to any other party without the client’s consent. The use of this engineering work is limited to the express purpose for which it was commissioned and it may not be reused, copied, or distributed for any other purpose without the written consent of FDH Engineering, Inc. Structural Analysis Report SBA Network Services, Inc. SBA Site ID: MN10250-A September 21, 2011 Document No. ENG-RPT-502S Revision Date: 01/08/09 8 APPENDIX Tower Analysis FDH Engineering, Inc. 2730 Rowland Road Raleigh, North Carolina Phone: (919) 755-1012 FAX: (919) 755-1031 Job: MONTICELLO 2, MN - MN10250-A Project: 11-05311E S2 Client: SBA Network Services, Inc. Drawn by: Brandon Compton App'd: Code: TIA/EIA-222-F Date: 09/21/11 Scale: NTS Path: \\Fdh-server\projects\2011 Projects\5 - May\11-05311E\Monticello 2, MN\S2- SA, Rerun, ATT\Analysis\Monticello 2, MN - MN10250-A.eri Dwg No. E-1 370.0 ft 350.0 ft 330.0 ft 310.0 ft 300.0 ft 280.0 ft 260.0 ft 240.0 ft 220.0 ft 200.0 ft 180.0 ft 160.0 ft 140.0 ft 120.0 ft 100.0 ft 80.0 ft 60.0 ft 40.0 ft 20.0 ft 0.0 ft REACTIONS - 80 mph WIND TORQUE 46 kip-ft 95 K SHEAR 16874 kip-ft MOMENT 132 K AXIAL 38 mph WIND - 0.7500 in ICE TORQUE 18 kip-ft 39 K SHEAR 7540 kip-ft MOMENT 265 K AXIAL SHEAR: 62 K UPLIFT: -482 K DOWN: 585 K MAX. CORNER REACTIONS AT BASE: S e c t i o n T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T1 0 T1 1 T1 2 T1 3 T1 4 T1 5 T1 6 T1 7 T1 8 T1 9 L e g s SR 1 1 / 2 SR 2 SR 2 1 / 2 A Pi r o d 1 0 5 2 1 8 Pi r o d 1 0 5 2 1 9 Pi r o d 1 0 5 2 2 0 Pi r o d 1 1 2 7 4 3 Pi r o d 1 1 2 7 4 4 Pi r o d 1 1 2 7 4 5 B C L e g G r a d e A5 7 2 - 5 0 D i a g o n a l s SR 3 / 4 SR 7 / 8 SR 1 L2 1 / 2 x 2 1 / 2 x 3 / 1 6 L3 x 3 x 3 / 1 6 L3 x 3 x 5 / 1 6 D L4 x 4 x 1 / 4 2L 3 1 / 2 x 3 1 / 2 x 5 / 1 6 x 3 / 8 2L 4 x 4 x 1 / 4 x 3 / 8 D i a g o n a l G r a d e A3 6 A5 7 2 - 5 0 A3 6 T o p G i r t s SR 7 / 8 SR 1 N. A . B o t t o m G i r t s SR 7 / 8 SR 1 N. A . F a c e W i d t h ( f t ) 4 4. 5 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 # P a n e l s @ ( f t ) 16 @ 2 . 3 7 5 9 @ 2 . 3 3 3 3 3 13 @ 1 0 9 @ 2 0 W e i g h t ( K ) 0. 7 1. 2 1. 8 1. 2 2. 5 2. 7 4. 2 4. 3 5. 2 5. 2 7. 4 7. 5 8. 3 8. 4 9. 3 9. 5 9. 6 9. 8 9. 9 10 8 . 5 6' Standoff 3716' Standoff 3716' Standoff 371SC480-SF1SNF 3716' Standoff 371ASP-705K 3716' Standoff 3716' Standoff 371Flash Beacon Lighting 370Lightning Rod 370(3) 800 10764 W/Mount Pipe 347(3) 800 10766 w/Mount Pipe 347(3) 800 10766 w/Mount Pipe 347(2) TT08-19DB111-001 TMA 347(2) TT08-19DB111-001 TMA 347(2) TT08-19DB111-001 TMA 3479442 RRH 3479442 RRH 3479442 RRH 347Raycap DC6-48-60-18-8F Surge Suppressor 347(3) 12' T-Frames 347CPF500-1 327.56.5' Pipe Mount 327.510' Dipole 324.511" Standoff 324.511" Standoff 323.5AN1169319.5TMA319.54' Pipe Mount 319.5SEC-25V-180-13 317SEC-25V-180-13 317TMA317TMA3174' Pipe Mount 3174' Pipe Mount 317AN1169316TMA3164' Pipe Mount 316BA6012-1 27715" Standoff 2772' Yagi 277DB420-A 267.55' Standoff 267.5PG1N0F-0090-310 261.55' Standoff 261.5PG1N0F-0090-310 219.55' Standoff 219.5FR65-17-04DP w/Mount Pipe 211.5FR65-17-04DP w/Mount Pipe 211.5FR65-17-04DP w/Mount Pipe 211.5(3) DB848H90E-XY w/Mount Pipe 211.5(3) DB848H90E-XY w/Mount Pipe 211.5(3) DB848H90E-XY w/Mount Pipe 211.5(3) 13' T-Frames 211.5(3) TMBX-6517-R2M w/Mount Pipe 200(3) TMBX-6517-R2M w/Mount Pipe 200(3) TMBX-6517-R2M w/Mount Pipe 200(2) TMA-ETW190VS12UB 200(2) TMA-ETW190VS12UB 200(2) TMA-ETW190VS12UB 200(3) 12' T-Frames 200B800A085-25 w/Mount Pipe 172.5B800A085-25 w/Mount Pipe 172.5(2) B800A085-25 w/Mount Pipe 172.5B800A065-25w/Mount Pipe 172.5B800A065-25w/Mount Pipe 172.5LPA-185080/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5LPA-185080/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5LPA-185080/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5LPA-185080/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5LPA-185063/8CF w/ Mount Pipe 172.5LPA-185063/8CF w/ Mount Pipe 172.5BXA-70040/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5BXA-70040/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5BXA-70040/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5(2) ADC DD1900 172.5(2) ADC DD1900 172.5(2) ADC DD1900 172.5(2) CSS DBC-750 172.5(2) CSS DBC-750 172.5(2) CSS DBC-750 172.5(3) 15' T-Frames 172.5SU-A-5.8-24-BD-VL 1512' Pipe Mount 151SP2-5.2-NS 1517' Pipe Mount 102CL-FMRX/VRM/50N 102DESIGNED APPURTENANCE LOADING TYPE TYPEELEVATION ELEVATION 6' Standoff 371 6' Standoff 371 6' Standoff 371 SC480-SF1SNF 371 6' Standoff 371 ASP-705K 371 6' Standoff 371 6' Standoff 371 Flash Beacon Lighting 370 Lightning Rod 370 (3) 800 10764 W/Mount Pipe 347 (3) 800 10766 w/Mount Pipe 347 (3) 800 10766 w/Mount Pipe 347 (2) TT08-19DB111-001 TMA 347 (2) TT08-19DB111-001 TMA 347 (2) TT08-19DB111-001 TMA 347 9442 RRH 347 9442 RRH 347 9442 RRH 347 Raycap DC6-48-60-18-8F Surge Suppressor 347 (3) 12' T-Frames 347 CPF500-1 327.5 6.5' Pipe Mount 327.5 10' Dipole 324.5 11" Standoff 324.5 11" Standoff 323.5 AN1169 319.5 TMA 319.5 4' Pipe Mount 319.5 SEC-25V-180-13 317 SEC-25V-180-13 317 TMA 317 TMA 317 4' Pipe Mount 317 4' Pipe Mount 317 AN1169 316 TMA 316 4' Pipe Mount 316 BA6012-1 277 15" Standoff 277 2' Yagi 277 DB420-A 267.5 5' Standoff 267.5 PG1N0F-0090-310 261.5 5' Standoff 261.5 PG1N0F-0090-310 219.5 5' Standoff 219.5 FR65-17-04DP w/Mount Pipe 211.5 FR65-17-04DP w/Mount Pipe 211.5 FR65-17-04DP w/Mount Pipe 211.5 (3) DB848H90E-XY w/Mount Pipe 211.5 (3) DB848H90E-XY w/Mount Pipe 211.5 (3) DB848H90E-XY w/Mount Pipe 211.5 (3) 13' T-Frames 211.5 (3) TMBX-6517-R2M w/Mount Pipe 200 (3) TMBX-6517-R2M w/Mount Pipe 200 (3) TMBX-6517-R2M w/Mount Pipe 200 (2) TMA-ETW190VS12UB 200 (2) TMA-ETW190VS12UB 200 (2) TMA-ETW190VS12UB 200 (3) 12' T-Frames 200 B800A085-25 w/Mount Pipe 172.5 B800A085-25 w/Mount Pipe 172.5 (2) B800A085-25 w/Mount Pipe 172.5 B800A065-25w/Mount Pipe 172.5 B800A065-25w/Mount Pipe 172.5 LPA-185080/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5 LPA-185080/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5 LPA-185080/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5 LPA-185080/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5 LPA-185063/8CF w/ Mount Pipe 172.5 LPA-185063/8CF w/ Mount Pipe 172.5 BXA-70040/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5 BXA-70040/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5 BXA-70040/8CF w/Mount Pipe 172.5 (2) ADC DD1900 172.5 (2) ADC DD1900 172.5 (2) ADC DD1900 172.5 (2) CSS DBC-750 172.5 (2) CSS DBC-750 172.5 (2) CSS DBC-750 172.5 (3) 15' T-Frames 172.5 SU-A-5.8-24-BD-VL 151 2' Pipe Mount 151 SP2-5.2-NS 151 7' Pipe Mount 102 CL-FMRX/VRM/50N 102 SYMBOL LIST MARK MARKSIZE SIZE A Pirod 105245 B Pirod 114683 C Pirod 114685 D L3 1/2x3 1/2x5/16 MATERIAL STRENGTH GRADE GRADEFy FyFu Fu A572-50 50 ksi 65 ksi A36 36 ksi 58 ksi TOWER DESIGN NOTES 1. Tower is located in Wright County, Minnesota. 2. Tower designed for a 80 mph basic wind in accordance with the TIA/EIA-222-F Standard. 3. Tower is also designed for a 38 mph basic wind with 0.75 in ice. Ice is considered to increase in thickness with height. 4. Deflections are based upon a 50 mph wind. 5. Vertical offsets were utilzed in this analysis to account for centerline elevations. 6. TOWER RATING: 78.4% CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2012–004 Date:January3rd,2012ResolutionNo.2012-004 MotionBy:SecondedBy: ARESOLUTIONRECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFACONDITIONALUSE PERMITFORCO-LOCATIONOFAWIRELESSTELECOMMUNICATIONSERVICE ANTENNA WHEREAS,RKZConsultinghasrequestedanConditionalUsePermitforCo-Locationofa WirelessTelecommunicationServiceAntennaforthepropertylocatedat6111Wildwood Boulevard;PartoftheNE¼oftheNE¼ofSection24,Twp121N,R25W–SpiritHillsOutlot A,whichislocatedinanR-1District;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionhasreviewedtheapplicationforConditionalUsePermit forConditionalUsePermitpursuanttotheregulationsoftheMonticelloZoningOrdinance;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonJanuary3rd,2012onthe applicationandtheapplicantandmembersofthepublicwereprovidedtheopportunitytopresent informationtothePlanningCommission;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionhasconsideredallofthecommentsandthestaffreport, whichareincorporatedbyreferenceintotheresolution;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionoftheCityofMonticellomakesthefollowingFindings ofFactinrelationtotherecommendationofapproval: 1.Thesubmittedapplicationisincompliancewitheachoftherequiredregulationsofthe MonticelloZoningOrdinance. 2.Theproposedmodificationstotheexistingantennaareslight,andthereforethereareno expectedvisualimpactsforsurroundingproperty. 3.Noadditionaltrafficorimprovementsareanticipatedresultingfromthisapplication. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof Monticello,Minnesota: 1.PursuanttoMinn.Stat.§462.357,theapplicationforConditionalUsePermitforCo- LocationofaWirelessTelecommunicationServiceAntennaisherebyrecommendedto theCityCouncilforapproval. ADOPTED this3rddayofJanuary2012,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof Monticello,Minnesota. MONTICELLOPLANNINGCOMMISSION By:_______________________________ RodDragsten,Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 6. Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 1 as related to Conditional Uses in the R-3 (Medium Density Residential) District and a request for Conditional Use Permit for a duplex residential use in an R-3 District. Applicant: Mary Kay Bondhus. (NAC) Property: 1349 Hart Boulevard See attached supporting data for legal description Planning Case Number: 2011-034 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Amendment to Conditional Uses in the R-3 Zoning District and Conditional Use Permit Deadline for Decision: February 3. 2012 (60 days) Land Use Designation: Places to Live Zoning Designation: R-3, Medium Density Residential District The purpose of the R-3, Medium Density Residential District is to provide for medium density housing in multiple family structures ranging up to and including twelve (12) units and directly related, complementary uses. Current Site Use: The subject site is currently occupied by a single family residential structure. In recent years, the home has been used for corporate office events and as a developmental connections center for children with autism. The building has been closed since 2006. Surrounding Land Uses: North: NA (Mississippi River) East: Wastewater Treatment Plant, zoned B-2, Limited Business District South: Public and industrial, zoned A -O, Agricultural Open Space District and I-1, Light Industrial Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 West: Medium density residential, zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential District Project Description: The applicant wishes to convert the existing single family home located upon the site to a duplex dwelling. The site is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential, which presently does not make an allowance for duplex dwellings. To accommodate the applicant's request, two approvals are necessary. First, the R-3 District must be amended to allow duplex dwellings as a conditional use. Secondly, a conditional use permit which is specific to the subject property must be processed and approved. Ordinance Requirements: As noted, duplex dwellings are presently not allowed in the applicable R-3, Medium Density Residential Zoning District. To accommodate the proposed use, the R-3 District must be amended to make an allowance for duplex dwellings as a conditional use. Once the mechanism to process the applicant's request is created, a conditional use permit applicable to the subject property may then be processed. ANALYSIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT As previously noted, the purpose of the R-3, Medium Density Residential District is to provide for medium density housing in multiple family structures ranging up to and including twelve (12) units and directly related, complementary uses. In considering the allowance of duplex dwellings in the district, it is important that the district purpose not be compromised. Although an allowance for duplex dwellings in R-3 zoning districts has been requested, medium density development for the property remains the long-term development objective. Recognizing the long term density objectives of the district and the applicant's specific development request, it is suggested that duplex dwellings be allowed only in R-3 Districts when converted from single-family residential dwellings. Single family residential dwellings located within R-3 zoning districts presently exist as legal non- conforming uses. The conversion of such dwellings (to duplex dwellings) would lessen 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 1/03/12 their degree of density nonconformity. Under this scenario, the construction of new duplex buildings within R-3 Districts would not be allowed. To make an allowance for duplex dwellings within R-3 Zoning Districts (as described above), the following Ordinance modifications are necessary: Uses by District (Table 5.1) must be modified to list "duplex" as a conditional use in the B-3 Zoning District. 2. Regulations for Duplex Uses [Section 5.2 (C)(2)(b)] must be modified to stipulate that duplex dwellings would be allowed within R-3 Zoning Districts by conditional use permit when converted from single family residential dwellings. In this regard, it is suggested that the Section be modified to read as follows (refer to highlighted text): (b) Duplex (i) A minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces per unit shall be provided within an enclosed garage of at least four hundred (400) square feet. (ii) All driveways and required off-street parking spaces shall be surfaced with concrete, bituminous or approved equivalent. jjiij Legal non -conforming single family dwellings located within R-3 Zoning Districts may be converted to duplex dwellings by conditional use permit where environmental conditions on the property support preservation of trees, drainage patterns, or other related features. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The preceding amendment would establish the means by which the proposed conversion may occur. If approved, a conditional use permit specific to the subject property must then be processed. According to Section 2.4 (D)(4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, approval of a conditional use permit application requires that the City find that conditions can be established to ensure that a certain set of criteria will be met. The following is a listing of the conditional use permit criteria following by Staff comment: 3 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 (i) The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity of the subject property, Comment. It is the applicant's intent to simply remodel the interior of the 3,840 square foot home to accommodate two dwelling units. In this regard, the footprint of the home will not be expanded. The subject 3.9 acre site is heavily wooded. Conversion of the home to a duplex dwelling will have little or no impact on site vegetation, ponding areas and the adjacent river shoreline. Also to be noted is that all site construction will be subject to applicable Building Code requirements. With this in mind, the proposed use is not expected to diminish or impair property values in the vicinity of the site. The conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working near the use; Comment. The existing dwelling is secluded from view of nearby properties. The proposed conversion to a duplex dwelling will likely be imperceptible to neighboring uses as no expansion of the building is proposed. The use is not expected to be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or welfare of persons residing or working near the use. The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property for permitted uses predominant in the area; Comment. The duplex use is not expected to impede development of surrounding properties. Moreover, the conversion will not interfere with future redevelopment of this property if desired by the owner. As a related comment, staff would suggest that no subdivision of the property occur under the CUP. While the long-term future land use of the property is anticipated to be multiple family residential, the current application is viewed as an interim accommodation for the existing building, given the conditions of the property. Thus, a residential use at a density less than that promoted by the zoning district is seen as acceptable. Subdivision would alter this approach, as such, staff would suggest that upon subdivision of the property, future uses should be consistent with the higher density reflected in the zoning. (iv) The conditional use will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or roads, and adequate sanitary facilities are provided; 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 Comment. Considering that the subject site is guided for medium residential use, the proposed duplex use is well within the City's ability to provide necessary services. (v) The conditional use can provide adequate parking and loading spaces, and all storage on the site can be done in conformance with City code requirements, Comment. According to the applicant, ample parking presently exists on site to accommodate the additional dwelling unit. As a condition of CUP approval, compliance with the City's parking standards will be required. (vi) The conditional use will not result in any nuisance including but not limited to odor, noise, or sight pollution; Comment. The duplex use is not expected to create any nuisances related to odors, noise and sight pollution. (vii) The conditional use will not unnecessarily impact natural features such as woodlands, wetlands, and shorelines; and all erosion will be properly controlled; Comment. Part of the reason the applicant wishes to convert the existing single family home to a duplex dwelling is to minimize impacts upon the site's existing natural features. In this regard, existing site vegetation, ponds and the river shoreline are not expected to be impacted by the conversion. (viii) The conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria outlined in Chapter 5 of the Ordinance for the proposed use. Comment. Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes a set of specific regulations which pertain to residential uses, including specific standards which apply to duplex dwellings. The Section specifically imposes the following upon duplex dwellings: 1. Minimum floor areas requirements based upon the number of bedrooms provided. 2. Not less than 2 off-street parking spaces per unit within an enclosed garage of at least four hundred (400) square feet. 5 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 3. All driveways and required off-street parking spaces be surfaced with concrete, bituminous or approved equivalent. As a condition of CUP approval, all applicable standards of Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the requirements of the Building Code should be satisfied. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Zoning Ordinance Amendment 1. Motion to recommend approval of Ordinance #541 recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow the conversion of single family residential dwellings located in R-3 Districts to duplex dwellings by conditional use permit. 2. Motion to recommend denial of Ordinance #541 recommending for approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow the conversion of single family residential dwellings located in R-3 Districts to duplex dwellings by conditional use permit. 3. Motion to table action on the requested Zoning Ordinance Amendment, pending text modifications as suggested by the Planning Commission. Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit for 1349 Hart Boulevard 1. Motion to approve Resolution 2012-001, approval of the Conditional Use Permit, contingent on compliance with those conditions specified in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to approve Resolution 2012-001, approval of the Conditional Use Permit, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. Motion to table action on the conditional use permit request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the applicant's request to convert the existing single family residential dwelling to a duplex dwelling. 0 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 The requested Zoning Ordinance amendment would make an allowance for conversions (to duplex dwellings) in the R-3 Zoning District by conditional use permit. The construction of new duplex dwellings in the district would not be allowed. This approach will provide an opportunity for the City and property owners to lessen the degree of nonconformity (by reason of density) in R-3 Districts. The approach also allows the City's long term vision for the district (medium density residential uses) to remain intact. Considering that only interior modifications to the existing home are proposed, few in any negative impacts are anticipated. With the preceding in mind, Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and the Conditional Use Permit based on the findings of fact noted within the supporting resolution and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Images B. Zoning Map (see map included with Item 9) C. Applicant Narrative D. Property Legal Description E. Site Plan F. Grading and Drainage Plan G. Property Information H. Ordinance #541 (To be provided at meeting) I. Resolution 2012-001 Z. Conditions of Approval 7 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 Exhibit Z — Conditions of Approval Mary Kay Bondhus Conditional Use Permit 1. City Officials approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment making an allowance for the conversion of single family residential dwellings to duplex dwellings in the R-3 Zoning District by conditional use permit. 2. The floor area of the duplex dwelling comply with the minimum area requirements of Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance (based upon the number of bedrooms provided). 3. Not less than two off-street parking spaces be provided per dwelling unit within an enclosed garage. Such garage shall measure not less than 400 square feet in size. 4. During the use of the property as a two-family structure under the CUP, no subdivision shall be permitted that would alter the use of the property. This restriction is not intended to restrict conveyances of portions of the property for public use. 5. All driveways and required off-street parking spaces be surfaced with concrete, bituminous or approved equivalent. 6. Issues related to grading and drainage shall be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. 0 CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2012–001 Date:January3rd,2012ResolutionNo.2012-001 MotionBy:SecondedBy: ARESOLUTIONRECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFACONDITIONALUSE PERMITFORADUPLEXRESIDENTIALUSEINANR-3DISTRICT WHEREAS,MaryKBondhushasrequestedanConditionalUsePermitforaduplexresidential useatthepropertylegallydescribedas,whichislocatedinanR-3District;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionhasreviewedtheapplicationforConditionalUsePermit forConditionalUsePermitpursuanttotheregulationsoftheMonticelloZoningOrdinance;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonJanuary3rd,2012onthe applicationandtheapplicantandmembersofthepublicwereprovidedtheopportunitytopresent informationtothePlanningCommission;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionhasconsideredallofthecommentsandthestaffreport, whichareincorporatedbyreferenceintotheresolution;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionoftheCityofMonticellomakesthefollowingFindings ofFactinrelationtotherecommendationofapproval: 1.Theapplicationisconsistentwiththe2008MonticelloComprehensivePlanforPlacesto Live. 2.Theconversionofsingle-familyresidentialdwellingstoduplexdwellingswithintheR-3 Districtwouldlessentheirdegreeofdensitynonconformity. 3.Conversionofthehometoaduplexdwellingwillhavelittleornoimpactonsite vegetation,pondingareasandtheadjacentrivershoreline. 4.Theproposeduseisnotexpectedtodiminishorimpairpropertyvaluesinthevicinityof thesite. 5.Theuseisnotexpectedtobedetrimentaltothehealth,safety,moralsorwelfareof personsresidingorworkingneartheuse. 6.Theduplexuseisnotexpectedtoimpededevelopmentofsurroundingproperties,northe futureredevelopmentofthisproperty. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof Monticello,Minnesota: 1.PursuanttoMinn.Stat.§462.357,theapplicationforConditionalUsePermitforduplex residentialusewithinanR-3(MediumDensityResidential)Districtishereby recommendedtotheCityCouncilforapproval. 2.TherecommendationforapprovalissubjecttothoseConditionsasfollows: a.CityOfficialsapprovetheZoningOrdinanceAmendmentmakingan allowancefortheconversionofsinglefamilyresidentialdwellingstoduplex dwellingsintheR-3ZoningDistrictbyconditionalusepermit. b.Thefloorareaoftheduplexdwellingcomplywiththeminimumarea requirementsofChapter5oftheZoningOrdinance(baseduponthenumberof bedroomsprovided). c.Notlessthantwooff-streetparkingspacesbeprovidedperdwellingunit withinanenclosedgarage.Suchgarageshallmeasurenotlessthan400square feetinsize. d.Duringtheuseofthepropertyasatwo-familystructureundertheCUP,no subdivisionshallbepermittedthatwouldaltertheuseoftheproperty.This restrictionisnotintendedtorestrictconveyancesofportionsofthepropertyfor publicuse. e.Alldrivewaysandrequiredoff-streetparkingspacesbesurfacedwithconcrete, bituminousorapprovedequivalent. f.Issuesrelatedtogradinganddrainageshallbesubjecttoreviewandcomment bytheCityEngineer. ADOPTED this3rddayofJanuary2012,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof Monticello,Minnesota. MONTICELLOPLANNINGCOMMISSION By:_______________________________ RodDragsten,Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 7. Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a proposed parking lot expansion for an industrial use in the Central Community District (CCD). Applicant: Cargill Kitchen Solutions. (NAC) Property: 2064 1h Street West Blocks 18, 19, and Lots 1-6, Block 20, Original Plat Monticello. Also the vacated portion of Locust Street between 4th Street and the Burlington Northern rail line. The subject site is generally located south of 4th Street West between Maple and Walnut Streets. The site includes five individual structures related to business operations. Planning Case Number: 2011-028 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Deadline for Decision: January 31, 2012 Land Use Designation: Industrial (per 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan) Zoning Designation: CCD, Central Community District The purpose of the CCD, Central Community District is to implement the plans and policies of the Monticello Downtown Revitalization Plan, as that Plan is designed to provide for the establishment and continuation of a traditional downtown area in Monticello's primary commercial core. Current Site Use: The Cargill site is currently occupied by a variety of buildings associated with the "Cargill Kitchen Solutions" business operations. The area in which the new parking lot is proposed is currently occupied by a single family home. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Low density residential and commercial, zoned CCD, Central Community District East: Commercial, zoned CCD, Central Community District Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 South: Institutional, zoned CCD, Central Community District West: Low density residential and commercial, zoned CCD, Central Community District Project Description: The requested amendment involves an expansion of the existing CUP (for PUD) site boundaries and the conversion of a single family residential lot to a parking lot. The proposed parking lot would be located south of 4th Street and west of Linn Street. The parking lot includes 29 stalls and is proposed to be accessed from the east via Linn Street. Ordinance Requirements: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is currently in place for the subject site. The current CUP (for PUD) applies only to the existing Cargill site and does not include the site upon which the parking lot is proposed. In order to expand the site's boundaries and its uses, an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (for PUD) is necessary. Presently, the requirements of the City's CCD, Central Community District are applicable to the subject property. At some future point, the City envisions the rezoning of the subject property to PUD to address its unique attributes and allow design flexibilities in return for higher design standards. Such rezoning has not however, been requested as part of this application. ANALYSIS Parking Supply. The following is a summary of the subject site's existing off-street parking supply as provided by the applicant. As shown, a total of 192 off-street parking spaces are required of the use. Including the proposed 29 stalls, a total supply of 259 stalls would result. Thus, the site's off-street parking supply exceeds that required by the Ordinance. At issue for the property has included conflicts during multiple shift overlap, and extensive use of on -street or other public parking in the area. The current application is intended to increase the off-street parking supply, particularly for the business activities toward the west end of the campus. 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 itrwwA eraf stalls I I Number of Emplayam Cretla RM! Number of stalls 1katet. 53,ift frripla tMatal 'wainWt Ptaxa office lease 2111 ecesskgie spam i 1st shOt Mam-20rr:) 10 'FWhiteHouse 'rehouse 39; 2Cce$$k4le Ccs Office (gam -spm) 127 290-1stshiftand office !Lh fi 2nd shiFt Pprn 10prr) 153 2ffi5-4Ffce and 2r,d shift r- I$uuth 5ubstatlnn 33 13rd shift; IOpmfiam 42 IPllat PI ant 21 E accessible space _ 485 Mumhers from HR 1D/Y11 _ _ -_ East Of R&D 9 Ea si of Plant 99 4 acri!ssible spaces Pruposed new lot n iremerft perMionticello Ordinance Parking Schedule 41 Industrial Manufar_tunng Office: lstallf3[X1sf=33,529/3D0-LIZ sIall s Pliant/Manufacturing: I sta31/1,250 sf=IDO.42I/ I.2S0= 80 Tatal required 192 Total Provided 259 Dimensional Requirements. Parking stalls within the lot measure 9 feet in width and 18 feet in depth. While the proposed stall widths are consistent with Ordinance requirements, the 18 foot stall depths fail to meet the minimum 20 foot depth requirement Parking stalls are proposed to be accessed via a two-way, 22 foot wide drive aisle. The Ordinance does not impose a minimum drive aisle width, stating only that off-street parking spaces must be served adequately by access aisles. Setbacks. According to the Ordinance, parking lot curb barriers may not be closer than six (6) feet to any lot line as measured from the lot line to the face of the curb. While a 6 foot curb setback is shown along the west side of the parking lot (adjacent to the single family home), setbacks to the north, south and east range from 1 to 3 feet. Considering the adjacent home to the west, it is important that minimum setback requirements of the Ordinance be maintained on the west side of the parking lot. Setback flexibility along the north, south and east property lines may however, be granted via the Planned Unit Development. As a condition of CUP amendment (for PUD) approval, City Officials should find such setback flexibility to be acceptable. Parking Lot Design. Of particular concern with the proposed parking lot is the dead-end drive aisle design. Conceivably, a parking lot user could enter the parking lot only to find that the lot is full. In such case, it would be necessary for the user to back his/her vehicle out of the lot (undesirable for obvious reasons). To address this concern, it is suggested that some consideration be given to using a one- way drive aisle design which includes points of entry and exit. Attached as Exhibit I is a parking lot design alternative which illustrates this concept. It should be noted that the design alternative illustrates an access point along 4th street, approximately 45 feet from the nearby 4th Street Linn Street intersection. It is acknowledged that the proximity of the parking lot access (along 4th Street) to Linn Street is less than ideal. The access location 3 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 does however, meet the minimum 40 foot separation requirement of the Ordinance and would result in improved parking lot circulation. While the driveway location onto 4th Street is less than ideal, there are a number of other advantages to this design. By switching to the angled parking layout, the parking stall size and drive aisle would meet standards, the dead-end lot design would be avoided, and the lack of backing space in the original design would be eliminated. While the number of spaces is reduced, the original design would lose several spaces from the 29 shown on the plan when back -out space is included, and the stalls are widened to compensate for the shallow drive aisle width. In conversations with the applicant, the flow for this one-way circulation may be reversed, with traffic entering Linn Street and existing onto 4th Street. The advantage of this pattern would be the ability to add angle parking to the Linn Street right of way area that would be accessible to the in -bound traffic. This concept is being examined further at staff level, as well as by the applicant's engineer. Disabled Parking Requirements. No information has been provided regarding parking spaces which are devoted to use for the disabled. According to the State Council on Disability, a parking area having from 201 to 300 spaces must provide 7 spaces which are devoted to use by the disabled. As a condition of CUP amendment (for PUD) approval, the applicant should demonstrate compliance with the State's disabled parking requirements. Comprehensive Parking Plan. The proposed parking lot is confined to the boundaries of the underlying residential lot. As part of a possible future PUD rezoning application, consideration should be given to the preparation of a site master plan which would include a comprehensive parking plan. Such plan could incorporate efficient parking area designs which are not necessarily restricted to property boundary lines which reflect prior site development. Landscaping As shown on the submitted site plan, the parking lot is bordered on the west by a single family residence. Appropriately, the applicant has submitted a landscape plan which calls for a variety of plantings along the parking lot's western boundary. The plan calls for the placement 21 Dwarf Alberta Spruce trees (24" in height) and 22 Spirea (24" in height) along the property line. While well intended, concern exists that proposed landscaping will not effectively screen vehicle headlights within the parking lot. The neighboring property currently has a fence along the property line that would provide some screening from this parcel. Given the limited dimension between the edge of the parking lot and the property line, it is unfeasible to consider a berm that would provide any protection, and a second fence would raise separate issues for maintenance. Staff 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 would recommend an enhanced landscaping plan with evergreen shrubs only, replacing the proposed spirea, and a larger initial planting size (36" to 48") to ensure more effective screening from the outset. In addition to the recommended landscaping, Planning Commission may also consider the construction of a fully opaque fence on the applicant's property, or may require as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a security guaranteeing placement of such fence, should the adjacent fencing be removed. It should be noted that the revised zoning ordinance does call for additional landscaping per the perimeter vehicular area landscaping standards. The applicant has not proposed landscaping for the 4th or Linn Street ROW areas, seeking PUD flexibility from these requirements in their site design. Lighting. No lighting is proposed within the parking lot. Any future lighting proposed must meet ordinance requirements, including the provision that no illumination be cast on adjacent residential properties. Grading and Drainage. As required, the applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan for review. As a condition of CUP amendment (for PUD) approval, the plan should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Utilities. Site utilities have been superimposed upon the grading and drainage plan. As a condition of CUP amendment (for PUD) approval, issues related to site utilities should be subject to review and approval by the City's Utility Department. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Motion to approve Resolution 2012-002 recommending approval of the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, contingent on compliance with those conditions specified in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny Resolution 2012-002 recommending for approval of the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the applicants desire to provide additional off-street parking supply to reflect site parking demand. While some concerns exist in regard to the design of the 5 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 parking lot and associated screening, it is believed these issues can be adequately addressed. With this in mind, Staff recommends approval of the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Site Image B. Zoning Map (see map included with Item 9) C. Site Vicinity D. Certificate of Survey E. Site/Landscape Plan F. Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan G. Engineer's & Utility Department Comments H. Parking Lot Design Alternative I. Off -Street Parking Regulations, Section 4.8 J. Vehicular Use Area & Buffer Area Landscaping Regulations, Section 4.1 K. Public Comment Letter L. Fence Images M. Resolution 2012-002 Z. Conditions of Approval 0 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 Exhibit Z — Conditions of Approval Cargill Kitchen Solutions Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 1. City Officials find the proposed north, south and east parking lot setbacks (all less than 6 feet) to be acceptable. 2. Consideration be given to modifying the parking lot design to eliminate the proposed dead- end drive aisle conditions. In this regard, a design similar to that depicted upon attached Exhibit I be considered, or a similar plan with a reversed pattern of traffic flow. 3. The applicant address the State's disabled parking requirements. 4. Landscaping is intensified along the western boundary with evergreen shrubs at least 36" to 48" in initial planting height. 5. No semi -trailer parking or outdoor storage shall be permitted in the proposed parking area. 6. Issues related to grading and drainage shall be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer, including those comments included with the staff report dated 1/3/12. 7. Issues related to utilities shall be subject to review and comment by the City Utilities Department. including those comments included with the staff report dated 1/3/12. 7 CARGILL KITCHEN SOLUTIONS PUD AMENDMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT g T MONTICELLO, MN /+c� Ck s �11 14 / \ B& VICINITY MAP CITY OF MONTICELLO MN �'9�' / / v � r 111-10001 \ y��jV / / / � ' \ -q14C '9 �N TER\ TE 94 \ W) 0 50 100 150 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET REVISIONS DATE /TEM BY SHEET INDEX SHEET DATE 11130111 DESCRIPTION SHEET 1 TITLE SHEET SHEET 2 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY / EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3 SITE PLAN SHEET 4 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN / UTILITY PLAN SHEET 5 0 50 100 150 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET N:\Land Projects\11179 - Cargill\dwg\Site Plan - PUD\11179 North Parking 1 of 5_Title.dwg, 11/30/20113:07:59 PM REVISIONS DATE /TEM BY SHEET INDEX SHEET DATE 11130111 DESCRIPTION SHEET 1 TITLE SHEET SHEET 2 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY / EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET 3 SITE PLAN SHEET 4 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN / UTILITY PLAN SHEET 5 DETAILS N:\Land Projects\11179 - Cargill\dwg\Site Plan - PUD\11179 North Parking 1 of 5_Title.dwg, 11/30/20113:07:59 PM REVISIONS DATE /TEM BY l hereby certify that this pl ,specification, or report was prepare by me or der my direct supervision and `�'�� """'' " "" �' �; �' DATE 11130111 RECORD PLANS DATE.• �+ SOLUTIONS CARV7IlLL KITCHEN SOLUTIONa7 FILE NO. 1 1 1 79 CIVILDESIGN that I am a c ed o sionol Engineer under ' ' BOOK PAGE: PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN SHEET ♦ PROFESSIONALS the laws f he tat o i nesota. + ; 1 DRAWN BY AAN PROPOSED PARKING LOT T 8609 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 200 Signature Curtis J. Derlchs � � � �� N V S IE R V I C ' DESIGNED BY AAN HORIZONTAL SCALE I inch = 50 feet Monticello, Minnesota OF BLOOMINGTON, MN.5.5420 ��Highway 25 North VERTICAL SCALE 1 inch = NIA feet 5 PHONE: (952) 303-.53121111 Date 11z/1I License No. 48216 Buffalo, MN 55313 CHECKED BY CJD * If sheet is other than 24x36, use barscale. / T/TLE SHEET SHEETS WEBSITE. vvwa cDP-vs.wM Ph. 763.682.1781 www.meyerrohlin.com N:\Land Projects\11179 - Cargill\dwg\Site Plan - PUD\11179 North Parking 1 of 5_Title.dwg, 11/30/20113:07:59 PM W \ 0 20 40 60 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET DATE ITEM BY N:\Land Projects\11179 - Cargill\dwg\Site Plan - PUD\11179 North Parking 2 of 5_ COS-Existing.dwg, 11/30/20113:05:37 PM W CIVILDESIGN PROFESSIONALS .•• LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH,•• BLOOMINGTON,• PHONE: (952) 303�5312 WEBS=. WWW.CDP-US.COM I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Licensed Land Surveyor under the I ws of the State of Minnesota. Date 11130111 ram Niemela License No. 48664 II LEGEND y, DATE 1 11JO/1 1 RECORD PLANS DATE.• 00000 DRAWN BY AAN BOOK PAGE. A% Pd O SERVICES ,ffl\ DESIGNED BY AA N HORIZONTAL SCALE 1 inch = 20 feet 1111 Highway 25 North VERTICAL SCALE 1 inch = NIA feet u f f a I o, MN 55313 Ph. 763.6822 .1781 www.meyerrohlin.com CHECKED BY CJD *If sheet is other than 2436, use barscale. CARGILL KITCHEN SOLUTIONS PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN PROPOSED PARKING L O T Monticello, Minnesota CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY / EXISTING CONDITIONS FILE NO. 1 1 179 SHEET 2 OF 5 SHEETS EXISTING • IRON MONUMENT FOUND —0-0-0— CHAIN–LINK FENCE —0-0-0— WOOD FENCE 0 DECIDUOUS TREE \ CONIFEROUS TREE \ oHE oHF OVERHEAD ELECTRIC \ —E E F F UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC —T T T T UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE SAS SAS BURIED GAS FO— Fo Fo BURIED FIBER OPTIC 10 10 10 10 1. SANITARY SEWER 1010 Poo STORM SEWER WATERMAIN • SANITARY MANHOLE �i CATCH BASIN 0 STORM MANHOLE 101 HYDRANT GATE VALVE $ WATER SHUTOFF ❑ ❑ ❑— WOOD FENCE — —952— — — EXISTING CONTOUR x 101.8 SPOT ELEVATION -0- UTILITY POLE ❑ TELEPHONE RISER ® TV RISER ON ❑E ELECTRIC METER , Original Townsite of Monticello. ❑Q GAS METER ESS 9t, Monticello, MN BITUMINOUS SURFACE ),975 Sq. Ft. (0.25 acres) CCD (Central Community District) a ° CONCRETE SURFACE y, DATE 1 11JO/1 1 RECORD PLANS DATE.• 00000 DRAWN BY AAN BOOK PAGE. A% Pd O SERVICES ,ffl\ DESIGNED BY AA N HORIZONTAL SCALE 1 inch = 20 feet 1111 Highway 25 North VERTICAL SCALE 1 inch = NIA feet u f f a I o, MN 55313 Ph. 763.6822 .1781 www.meyerrohlin.com CHECKED BY CJD *If sheet is other than 2436, use barscale. CARGILL KITCHEN SOLUTIONS PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN PROPOSED PARKING L O T Monticello, Minnesota CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY / EXISTING CONDITIONS FILE NO. 1 1 179 SHEET 2 OF 5 SHEETS \ II 0 20 40 60 6mom 11 GRAPHIC SCALE /N FEET W \ \ LEGEND EXISTING WOOD FENCE DECIDUOUS TREE BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE / \ . PROPOSED KEY NOTES: 1O B612 CURB AND GUTTER. TIP GUTTER TO MATCH GRADE OF ADJOINING PAVEMENT. (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 5) 2O BITUMINOUS PAVING (SEE TYPICAL SECTION ON SHEET 5) 3O PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE & CROSS GUTTER (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 5) ® SPIREA (TYP.) — POTTED, MIN. 24" HT. (QTY. — 22) 5O DWARF ALBERTA SPRUCE (TYP.) — POTTED, MIN. 24" HT. (QTY. — 21) © PROTECT EXISTING TREES \ SHRUBS 7O PAVEMENT STRIPING (TYP.) NOTE: ALL LAWN AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COVERED WITH MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL, SEEDED, AND MULCHED. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PARKING DATA FOR ENTIRE CARGILL KITCHEN SOLUTIONS SITE — PROVIDED BY CLIENT Current number of stalls Number of Employees Location Number of stalls I Notes Shift IEmployeetotal lOverlap Walnut Plaza office lease 23 1 accessible space 1st shift (6am-2pm) 163 White House 39 2 accessible spaces Office (8am-5pm) 127 290 -1st shift and office Warehouse 6 12nd shift (2pm-10pm) 153 280 -office and 2nd shift South Substation 33 3rd shift (10pm-6am) 42 Pilot Plant 21 1 accessible space 485 Numbers from HR 10/6/11 East of R&D 9 East of Plant 99 4 accessible spaces Proposed new lot OW29 259 Parking Requirements per Monticello Ordinance Parking Schedule #1 Industrial Manufacturing Office: 1 stat l/300 sf=33,529/300=112 stalls Plant/Manufacturing: 1 stat I/1,250 sf=100,421/1,250=80 stalls Total required 192 Total Provided 259 r�tviJivivJ I hereby certify that this pI , specification, or report CARGILL KITCHEN SOLUTIONS DATE ITEM BY was prepare by me or der my direct supervision and DATE 11/30/11 RECORD PLANS DATE. FILE NO. 1 1 179 CIVILDESIGN that I am a ed o sional Engineer under BOOK PAGE. PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN DRAWN BY AAN PROPOSED PARK/NG LOT PROFESSIONALS the laws f he tat o nesota. SHEET 8609 LnanaLE AVENUE sourx, surlE zooms p S V M (�� AAN HOR/ZONTAL SCALE 1 inch = 20 feet Monticel%, Minnesota OF BLOOMINGTON, MN.5.5420 Signature Curtis J. Derichs DESIGNED BY PHONE: (952)303-.5312 �, 1111 Highway 25 North VERTICAL SCALE 1 inch = NIA feet SITE PLAN 5 Date 11/30/11 License No. 48216 Buffalo, MN 55313 CHECKED BY CJD vvEaslrE: wwa cDP-us.coM Ph. 763.682.1781 www.meyerrohlin.com If sheet is other than 24X36, use barscale. sHEETs N:\Land Projects\11179 - Cargill\dwg\Site Plan - PUD\11179 North Parking 3 of 5_ Site Plan.dwg, 11/30/20113:08:40 PM LEGEND GENERAL UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVING 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" FOR UTILITY LOCATION 612-454-0002 OR 1-800-251-1166 AT LEAST -0-0-0- WOOD FENCE 10 11 SANITARY SEWER48 HR. PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. FURNISH AND INSTALL ALL BITUMINOUS PAVING AS CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS. FOLLOW ® EX/ST/NG BOLLARD �� ELECTRIC METER RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. PRIOR TO FINE GRADING OF THE SITE, PAVING 2. POTHOLE TO VERIFY THE POSITIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AT A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF LOCATIONS IN ORDER CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND VERIFY THAT THE SUBGRADE IS WITHIN PLUS OR TO ASSURE THAT NO CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED WORK EXISTS AND THAT SUFFICIENT CLEARANCE IS AVAILABLE. VERIFY oHE OHE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC WATERMA/N MINUS 1/10 OF A FOOT, AND THAT THE SUBGRADE CONDITION IS SUITABLE TO ACCEPT THE BASE LOCATIONS, TYPES, SIZES, AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES. NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY MAJOR DISCREPANCIES MATERIAL RELATIVE TO SOIL COMPACTION AND MOISTURE. IF THESE CONDITIONS ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY, -E E E E UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC • SANITARY MANHOLE PRESENT, PAVING CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CONTRACTOR AND NOT PROCEED UNTIL ACCEPTABLE CORRECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN. 3. ADJUST ALL CURB STOPS, VALVE BOXES, MAINTENANCE HOLE CASTINGS, CATCH BASIN CASTINGS, CLEANOUT COVERS, AND SIMILAR -r r r r UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE Q/ CATCH BASIN PAVING CONTRACTOR SHALL ROLL THE PARKING LOT SUBGRADE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF BASE ITEMS TO FINISHED GRADE. MATERIALS WITH AT LEAST THREE PASSES OF A VIBRATORY ROLLER, OR AS ADDITIONALLY NEEDED CAS - CAS BUR/ED GAS 0 STORM MANHOLE TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIRED SUBGRADE DENSITY. PAVING CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE MINOR 4. INSTALL ALL PIPE WITH THE ASTM IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS ON THE TOP FOR INSPECTION. COMMENCE PIPE LAYING AT THE ADJUSTMENTS IN GRADE OF BASE MATERIALS TO ASSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE OF ALL POINTS ON LOWEST POINT IN THE PROPOSED SEWER LINE. LAY THE PIPE WITH THE BELL END OR RECEIVING GROOVE END OF THE PIPE -FO FD FO- BUR/ED FIBER OPTIC HYDRANT THE LOT WITHOUT FLAT SPOTS, BIRDBATHS, ETC. POINTING UPGRADE. WHEN CONNECTING TO AN EXISTING PIPE, UNCOVER THE EXISTING PIPE IN ORDER TO ALLOW ANY UTILITY POLE GATE VALVE PRIOR TO CURBING, AGGREGATE PLACEMENT, AND BITUMINOUS PAVING, PARKING AREAS SHALL BE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE PROPOSED LINE AND GRADE BEFORE LAYING ANY PIPE. PROOF ROLLED WITH HEAVY RUBBER TIRED FULLY LOADED TANDEM AXLE DUMP TRUCK IN THE 5. CONSTRUCT STORM SEWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY ENGINEER'S ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS GUY WIRE - 952 - - CONTOUR PRESENCE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL SCIENTIST TO ISOLATE AND CAUSE THE REMOVAL OF SOFT, LOOSE YIELDING SOILS. SECTIONS 2600, 2611, AND 2621 DATED 1999, OR THE LATEST REVISED EDITION. o TELEPHONE RISER x 101.8 SPOT ELEVATION BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE: MNDOT LVNW35035B ❑E STORM SEWER BITUMEN TACK COAT: CONFORM TO MNDOT 2357 BITUMINOUS SURFACE BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE: MNDOT LVWE35035B ❑c GAS METER a BITUMINOUS PAVING: 6" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (MNDOT CLASS V 100% CRUSHED ROCK OR / © POWER BOX ° CONCRETE SURFACE RECYCLED CONCRETE). 1-1/2" BASE COURSE, 1-1/2" WEAR COURSE PARKING LOT STRIPING: WHITE WITH BLUE FIELD/WHITE HANDICAP MARKINGS. FINAL ROLLING SHALL BE DONE WITH A STEEL -WHEELED ROLLER CONTINUOUSLY UNTIL ALL ROLLER CATCH BASIN SCHEDULE \ PROPOSED MARKS ARE ELIMINATED. CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PROTECT ADJACENT CONCRETE FINISHES FROM DAMAGE OR SMEARING. ERECT BARRICADES TO PROTECT PAVING FROM TRAFFIC UNTIL C13-1, 27" PRECAST, \ PROPOSED DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE MIXTURE HAS COOLED AND ATTAINED SUFFICIENT HARDNESS TO WITHSTAND TRAFFIC. NEENAH R-2501 CASTING \ - / CONTOUR C13-2, 48" PRECAST, \ polo polo STORM SEWER NEENAH R-2501 CASTING \ ® CATCH BASIN S/LT FENCE EROSION PREVENTION PRACTICES: X 999 .9 SPOT ELEVATION (PROPOSED FINISH GRADE) I . ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS (INCLUDING STORM WATER POND SIDE SLOPES OR EXPOSED SOILS WITH A POSITIVE SLOPE \ / \ TO A STORM WATER CONVEYANCE) WITH A CONTINUOUS POSITIVE SLOPE WITH 200 LINEAL FEET OF A SURFACE WATER oy TC - TOP OF CURB MUST HAVE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT COVER FOR THE EXPOSED SOIL AREAS YEAR ROUND, ACCORDING TO THE GT _ GUTTER FOLLOWING TABLE OF SLOPE AND TIME FRAMES: x 935.7 BIT BITUMINOUS 935.2 SLOPES TIME MAXIMUM TIME AN AREA oyF BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT STEEPER THAN 3:1 7 DAYS CAN REMAIN OPEN WHEN .85 / FROM 10: 1 TO 3:1 14 DAYS THE AREA IS NOT ACTIVELY �qs • FLATTER THAN 10: 1 21 DAYS BEING WORKED. / ---RIM=934.50 y 2Q„ INV. IN=(S&SW)=929.2 2. THE NORMAL WETTED PERIMETER OF TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DRAINAGE DITCHES WILL BE STABLIZED WITHIN 200 FT. \ = 935'9\\ \ �Rpo p S'0� ; INV. (OUT)=928.96 LU FROM THE PROPERTY EDGE, OR POINT OF DISCHARGE. STABILIZATION SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF GENERAL GRADING CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONNECTION. cq RpTFC' T/ 936. Q 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS, SIZES, AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING 3. PIPE OUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF /x 936. 'TC 936.50 UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES, PRIOR TO START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR CONNECTION TO A SURFACE WATER. / SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS 936.4 o 3�y _ CB -3 (EX.) oz� FROM PLANS. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES / \ 16 ms`s\\ �n�� INV (OUT)=930.65 (EX.) �> >� 4. ROCK ENTRANCES/EXITS SHALL BE INSTALLED TO MINIMIZE VEHICLE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION 0' �'� INV OUT)= 0.70 (PR.) 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATION 0 G 651-454-0002 OR 1-800-252-1166 A MINIMUM OF 48 HR. PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. SITE. STREET SWEEPING SHALL BE USED IF THE ROCK ENTRANCES/EXITS ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO PREVENT SEDIMENT l C' -� X9 6.3 �°� AS FROM BEING TRACKED ONTO THE STREET1� o� 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION yG 9�6 93 5. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL BE ESTABLISHED ON ALL DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETERS BEFORE ANY UP GRADIENT o� 6 tij "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION". �- LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES BEGIN. J Q- h ''� G 62' 12" HDPE �q01s,r 4. GRADING WORK AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT TRESPASS ON ADJACENT PRIVATE 36.3 �O�O^ (off ° 0.44 9 oma` G. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS, AND WILL NOT BE PLACED IN STORM WATER O O`�p"� �� ?.39 . G �� 34.47 oy 0qs PROPERTIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO ANY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM �k 7j �� 36. o /i Fo INV. CrldT,=931.34 SUCH ACTIONS. CONVEYANCES OR SURFACE WATERS. 0 �� 2 ? X 936.2 } O<e �� G'B- o� �e 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OFF SITE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF ALL 7. ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY APPROPRIATE BMPS DURING CONSTRUCTION UNTIL ALL SOURCES �"OQ <v" RIM=935.2 V Fo WITH POTENTIAL FOR DISCHARGING TO THE INLET HAVE BEEN STABILIZED. � INV. OUT=930.97 ? G �G O / \ r OHF\\ MATERIAL PER LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. O /W.. IN=931.02 6 �6^� O�tc,�o Fo O 6. ALL MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR THIS WORK SHALL BE NEW MATERIAL CONFORMING TO THE EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL SEQUENCING: X 936.4 2�"y �G, fou I �r yF\ REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS, KIND, GRADE, SIZE, QUALITY, AND OTHER DETAILS SPECIFIED HEREIN Q 3516 x 935.16 / \ OR AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. DO NOT USE RECYCLED OR SALVAGED AGGREGATE ASPHALTIC O � / I PAVEMENT, CRUSHED CONCRETE, OR SCRAP SHINGLES. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE 6. SILT FENCE, CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, AND/OR OTHER SUITABLE PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE 936 x / �� GPS b\ O <v CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL REQUIRED MATERIALS. INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY GRADING OR LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY. O C 936.90 6, �,y N Qo��C' CV 9. STOCKPILES WILL BE STORED ON SITE. TEMPORARY STABILIZATION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY SEED AND MULCH, AND O��v� �l X 9 6.4 0� 7. RESTORE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. REPLACE ANY CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, rQ k+ V 92' - 12" HDPE G EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLAN SHEETS PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF THE MPCA PERMIT Ok 23 6 / BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, OR VEGETATIVE COVER DAMAGED BY THE CONSTRUCTION ��, V @ 0.44% TRANSFER/MODIFICATION FORM SUBMITTAL. ACTIVITY. RESTORE DAMAGED TURF WITH SOD WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE WORK /' hCb TC 936.73 / o� / AREA SHOWN IS GENERAL AND MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND ADEQUATE PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL ON ALL x �`�\ TC 936.60 DOWNGRADIENT SLOPES PRIOR TO LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY AS INDICATED ON PLANS. 936.3 ® / 8. ALL STREET AND SIDEWALK RESTORATION SHALL BE COMPLETED PER CITY STANDARDS. N 0� 4j / C? POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES: TC 936.43 ^�Q3 /~ It 9. STRAIGHT LINE SAW -CUT EXISTING BITUMINOUS OR CONCRETE SURFACING AT THE PERIMETER O OF PAVEMENT REMOVAL AREAS. USE SAWS THAT PROVIDE WATER TO THE BLADE. TACK, AND 1 1 . SOLID WASTE: COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, PLASTIC, FABRIC, TO/936 6 0�6 ro / MATCH ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. ,G CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTES SHALL BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY !�°�� ` 35. 9 o WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. O X D BIT 935.50 935.42 12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES SHALL BE PROPERLY STORED, x 936.6 ° a / EARTHWORK INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, TO PREVENT SPILLS, LEAKS OR OTHER DISCHARGE. RESTRICTED ACCESS TO 36.5 O C 936. STORAGE AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST 936.3 ? `V 3p9, EARTHWORK CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ALL EARTHWORK OPERATIONS TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. 5 �: 24 a LAWS, ORDINANCES, OSHA, AND/OR STATE SAFETY GUIDELINES. o I o/coo . . I 1 3. EXTERNAL WASHING OF TRUCKS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES NEEDS TO BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE O o �n SITE. RUNOFF NEEDS TO BE CONTAINED AND WASTE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. 937.0 x 936.7 5 2.0% CS -1 M co '� a a 35. 7/�Iv EARTHWORK CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL GRADING AND SOIL CORRECTION TO SUBGRADE. 9�3� RIM=935.20 °' rn C 115 �`a / EARTHWORK CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL FOUNDATION EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL, C 936.30 INV. OUT=931.43 SO v 16 CURB BACKFILL, SAND CUSHION, VAPOR BARRIER BELOW SAND CUSHION. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: 937.1 O 93) �O �� o, a 91) � EARTHWORK CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL BLACK DIRT AT LEAST 6" DEEP IN ALL PLANTING AREAS, 14. STABILIZED AREAS SHALL BE INSPECTED ONCE PER MONTH. WHERE WORK HAS BEEN SUSPENDED DUE TO FROZEN �r /� J G o / / o GROUND CONDITIONS, INSPECTIONS AND MAINENANCE WILL TAKE PLACE AS SOON AS RUNOFF OCCURS AT THE SITE OR FREE OF LARGE LUMPS, STONES AND STICKS, GRADED AND READY FOR PLANTING. BLACK DIRT PRIOR TO RESUMING CONSTRUCTION, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. r 36.88 MAY BE TAKEN FROM ORGANIC ON SITE SOURCES, IF AVAILABLE. C 936.50 X y / 1 5. ALL SILT FENCE MUST BE REPAIRED, REPLACED, OR SUPPLEMENTED WHEN THE BECOME NONFUCTIONAL OR THE 936.5` X 935.66 EARTHWORK CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT /3936.5 \ �g 9 SEDIMENT REACHES OF THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. THESE REPAIRS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY, \ FOR ALL EARTHWORK. MATERIALS IMPORTED TO THE SITE SHALL MEET WITH SOIL ENGINEER'S OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONSTRUCTION ALLOWS ACCESS. / \6'6' r a �® seRv°G APPROVAL AND SHALL BE CERTIFIED AS NON -CONTAMINATED. THE REQUIRED COMPACTION OF ALL PAVEMENT GRADING SHALL BE 100% OF THE STANDARD I G. CONSTRUCTION SITE VEHICLE EXIT LOCATIONS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR EVIDENCE OF OFF-SITE SEDIMENT TRACKING / ONTO PAVED SURFACES. TRACKED SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED FROM ALL OFF-SITE PAVED SURFACES WITHIN 24 0 20 40 60 PROCTOR DENSITY. ALL TRENCHES WITHIN PAVEMENT AREAS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 100% OF HOURS OF DISCOVERY. STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY THE OWNER WITH DOCUMENTED TEST _ _ i RESULTS BY AN INDEPENDENT TESTING LABORATORY ON UTILITY, STREET, AND FILL COMPACTION f y36.4 �/ / GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET TESTS. 35.74 / CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES FOR EARTHWORK SHALL BE PLUS OR MINUS 1/10 OF A FOOT. TC 935.81 035.34 90 o F 3 F�� \ z / \ 0 REVISIONS / hereby certify that this pl specification, or report ; �+ARGILL KIT�+HEN S'OLUTIONS' DATE ITEM BY was prepare by me or der my direct supervision and L,Lw� DATE 11/30/11 RECORD PLANS DATE. FILE N0. 1 1 1 79 CIVILDESIGN that I am a ed o sional Engineer under BOOK PAGE. PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN DRAWN BY AAN PROPOSED PARK/NG LOT PROFESSIONALS the laws f he tat o i nesota. 7 � , �, SHEET � 8609 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 200�� S �`/r C� AAN HOR/ZONTAL SCALE 1 inch = 20 feet Montleel%, Minnesota OF BLOOMINGTON, MN.5.5420 Signature Curtis J. Der/chs DESIGNED BY PHONE:(952)303-5312 1111 Highway 25 North VERTICAL SCALE 1 inch = N A feet GRAD/NG & DRAINAGE PLAN / UTILITY PLAN 5 Date 11/30/11 License No. 48216 Buffalo, MN 55313 CHECKED BY CJD WF-BSITF: WWW.C:DP-US.00M Ph. 763.682.1781 www.meyerrohlin.com If sheet is other than 24X36, use borscole. SHEETS N:\Land Projects\11179 - Cargill\dwg\Site Plan - PUD\11179 North Parking 4 of 5_Grading.dwg, 11/30/2011 3:09:43 PM DF 0GHT PLAN WIMCO ROAD DRAIN CG -23* HIGH FLOW INLET PROTECTION CURB AND GUTTER MODEL DEFLECTOR PLATE OR CITY APPROVED EQUAL. OVERFLOW IS Yz OF THE CURB BOX HEIGHT OVERFLOW AT TOP OF FILTER ASSEMBLY * FOR THE NEW R -3290 -VB STANDARD CASTING, INSTALL WIMCO ROAD DRAIN CG -3290 OR CIN APPROVED EQUAL. Standard Plate Library for the City of Monticello FILTER ASSEMBLY DIAMETER, 6" ON -GRADE 10" AT LOW POINT HIGH-FLOW FABRIC Title: Inlet Protection Catch Basin Insert Date: 03-07 Plate No. Revised: 4011 B612 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER SEE PLAN FOR DIMENSIONS TO BACK OF CURB 1 2"R 3"R TIP GUTTER TO MATCH i e 3"R ADJOINING PAVEMENT SLOPE a: a a 7" 8" 12" BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION 1 1/2" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE LVWE35035B 1 1/2" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE LVNW35035B 6" CLASS 5, AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (MNDOT CLASS V 100% CRUSHED ROCK OR RECYCLED CONCRETE) STEEL FENCE POST (T—POST), MINIMUM 5' LONG, ATTACH FABRIC TO POSTS 6' MAXIMUM SPACING, WITH MINIMUM 3 ZIP TIES (50 LB. TENSILE) PER POST IN TOP 8" OF FABRIC. MONOFILAMENT GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PER MNDOT TABLE 3886-1 (MACHINE SLICED). POST NOTCHES TO FACE AWAY MACHINE SLICE FROM FABRIC. 8"-12" DEPTH (PLUS 6" FLAP) DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW NOTE: THE MACHINE SLICED METHOD (THIS DETAIL) IS THE STANDARD SILT FENCE INSTALLATION METHOD. HEAVY—DUTY SILT FENCE INSTALLATION METHODS SHOULD ONLY BE USED WHEN APPROVED OR DIRECTED BY THE CITY. OA COMPACTION: AFTER "SLICING" IN THE FABRIC AND BEFORE INSTALLATION OF STEEL POSTS, DRIVE INSTALLATION EQUIPMENT OVER THE "SLICE" WHILE FABRIC IS LAYING ON THE GROUND. THEN INSTALL STEEL POSTS AND PULL UP FABRIC TO ATTACH AT A UNIFORM HEIGHT. Title: Silt Fence Machine Sliced It Standard Plate Library for Date: Plate No. the City of Monticello 03-07 Revised: 1004 DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE & CROSS—GUTTER _ VARIES—SEE PLAN _I 1 a B612 CURB & GUTTER — a L a d a FACE OF GUTTER EXTENDED — HIGH TO MATCH FRONT OF CURB & GUTTER GRADE — 2' In FACE OF GUTTER EXTENDED 4 a Where enc 11Uw U1 wuLCr i�:i sheeting, place sod strips perpendicular to the direction of water flow. SHINGLING SOD F �P Where the flow of water is concentrated, place sod stips parallel to the direction of OVERLAPPING SOD water flow. NOTE: Although pegging of sod is not specifically required it is understood that the contractor will be responsible for the successful establishment of the sod including repair or replacement of sod which becomes displaced or damaged due to lack of protection or proper care. Standard Plate Library for the City of Monticello A a d TIP—OUT CURB a 5' a d B a 4 a a d a a 18" A PROVIDE CONTRACTION JOINTS MAX SPACING ® 8' SECTION A -A LOW TO MATCH FLOW LINE OF CURB & GUTTER GRADE S=VARIE a d d ------a----A-. TAPERED BITUMINOUS I APPROVED SECTION SUBGRADE DRIVEWAY NOTES: 1. REINFORCE VALLEY GUTTER AND TRIANGULAR SECTIONS WITH 6"x6" #6 WELDED WIRE MESH. 2. CONTRACTION JOINTS SHALL BE 1/3 THE DEPTH OF SLAB. 5' BITUMINOUS MAT (AS PER STREET SECTION) 2' TAPERED BITUMINOUS SECTION 7.5" CONCRETE GUTTER — 4" CLASS 5 BASE 6" X 6" #6 WELDED WIRE MESH e: Sod Placement 03-07 Plate No. Ased: 1005 OPEN AREA: THE AREA MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED, A MINIMUM SIZE OF 10' X 10' AND 6" BELOW EXISTING SURFACE, THE PERIMETER MUST BE PROTECTED WITH SILT FENCE (SEE DETAIL ON SILT FENCE) BEHIND CURB: THE AREA MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED, A MINIMUM SIZE OF 10' X 10' AND 6" BELOW CURB, SLOPING AWAY FROM THE STREET. THE PERIMETER MUST BE PROTECTED WITH SILT FENCE (SEE DETAIL ON SILT FENCE) Title: Concrete Washout Area 6 Standard Plate Library for the City of Monticello Date: 03_07 Plate No. Revised: 6004 PVC & HDPE PIPE BEDDING DETAIL Do 12 12 12" MIN C) -�,_-UNDISTURBED SOIL 12" MIN I COMPACTED GRANULAR ENCASEMENT MATERIAL (MNDOT SPEC 3149) STANDARD 27" CATCH BASIN CASTING & FRAME STORM PIPE -,�AS SPECIFIED `MIN. 2 ADJUSTING RINGS 2.5' STANDARD FILL SUMP WITH SUMP DEPTH CONCRETE _ 40" DIA. x 5" THICK PRECAST CONCRETE BASE NOTES: REINFORCING TO CONSTIST OF TWO LINES OF STEEL FABRIC EACH HAVING AN AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 0.12 SQ. IN. PER FOOT OF HEIGHT IN BOTH BARREL AND CONE. CONCRETE BASE PREFERABLY TO BE PRECAST MATERIALS TO CONFORM TO SPECIFICATIONS MINIMUM OF TWO / MAXIMUM OF 5 — 2" ADUSTING RINGS TO BE INSTALLED WITH 1/2" OF GROUT BETWEEN RINGS, CASTING AND STRUCTURE 27" DIAMETER STANDARD 48" CATCH BASIN PLAN ADJUSTING RINGS 4"MIN —12"MAX SEE PLAN FOR CASTING TYPE MANHOLE COVE CRETEX TYPE OPENING ,3" ENCASE WITH CONCRETE R TO BE 48" DIA COLLAR II WITH 24N 36" RECORD PLANS DATE. ° BOOK PAGE. CARGILL KITCHEN SOLUTIONS PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN PROPOSED PARK/NG LOT Monticello, Minnesota FILE NO. 1 1 1 79 MANHOLE STEPS 16" O.C. ALUMINUM OR DRAWN BY '�N COPOLYMER POLY PLASTIC. 12" 24" ALL JOINTS IN MH MALL HAVE RUBBER HORIZONTAL SCALE 1 inch = N A feet VERTICAL SCALE 1 inch = NIA feet If sheet is other than 24x36, use borscole. GASKETS DETAILS CONCRETE DOGHOUSE REQUIRED D ON OUTSIDE AND INSIDE OF STRUCTURE w AND PIPE CONNECTION R 48" 0 RCP PIPE CONCRETE CATCH BASIN MANHOLE NOTES: AND BASE TO BE CRETEX TYPE 433B OR APPROVED EQUAL 1. BASE TO BE GROUTED TO FORM A SMOOTH INVERT TO OUTLET. SECTION 2. PIPE CUT—OUTS TO BE LOCATED WHERE REQUIRED. 3. USE 1' SUMP IF REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PRECAST STRUCTURE REVS/ONS DATE ITEM BY / hereby certify that this pl , specification, or report was prepare by me or der my direct supervision and 49 CIVILDESIGN that / am a c ed o slonal Engineer under PROFESSIONALS the /aws f he tat o i nesota./ill aco�Ln�D O AVENUES Nu 55 SUITE 200 Signature Curtis J. Derichs BU�OMINGTON, MN.55420 g PHONE: (9-52) 303-5312 Date 11/30/11 License No. 48216 WTBS=: WWW..cDPUs.cOna �` �_ �� 7Z-�'Z� i > >Z I Z ?Z t/ L °`�� t�J �� ~ ~ . �, 1111 Highway 25 North Buffalo, MN 55313 Ph. 763.682.1781 www.meyerrohlin.com DATE 111,30111 RECORD PLANS DATE. ° BOOK PAGE. CARGILL KITCHEN SOLUTIONS PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN PROPOSED PARK/NG LOT Monticello, Minnesota FILE NO. 1 1 1 79 DRAWN BY '�N SHEET 5 OF 5 SHEETS DESIGNED BY AAN HORIZONTAL SCALE 1 inch = N A feet VERTICAL SCALE 1 inch = NIA feet If sheet is other than 24x36, use borscole. CHECKED BY CJD DETAILS N:\Land Projects\11179 - Cargill\dwg\Site Plan - PUD\11179 North Parking 5 of 5_Details.dwg, 11/30/2011 3:10:15 PM 0.0 / 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 / 4TH STREET ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 0. 0. 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 I- + + + + + + + + + + + + 0.0 8 1.4 1.1 0. 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 3.5 2.6 2.0 1.4 1.0 0. n5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 5.4 5.1 3.5 2.1 1.3 0.9 .6 0.5 0. 0.3 0.2 0.2 r+ + + + + + + + + + + 8.1 5.0 2.8 1.7 1 0.8 0.5 .4 0.3 0.2 0.2 9 8.0 ')F + + + + + + + + + + + 5.9 8.8 7.5 4.5 2.6 1.7 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0. j + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 } 0.0 } 0.0 + 0.0 + 0 0 + 3.1 + 4.4 + 5.9 + 5.5 + 3.6 + t } + + + 2.3 1. 1.1 0.8 .6 0.4 .3 t 0.3 .2 }+ 0. 0 + 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 } 0.0 + 0. + 0 } 3.4 + 3.4 + 3.7 + 3.4 } 2.8 + } + + } + 1.9 + .4 1.0 0.8 0. 0.4 0.3 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2 4. 4.1 3.7 3.1 2 2.0 1.7 1.2 0.9 7 0.5 0.4 0.3 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 6. 7.2 5.3 3.4 2.4 .4 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0. ++ 0.0 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0 1 5.6 + 7. + 8.9 + 6.0 + 3.5 + 2.3 + 1.7 + + + + 1.2 1. �8 0.6 0.5 0.4 .3 SF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0- 0. 0 4.9 7. 7.4 4.8 2. 1. .4 1.1 .8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 LINN ST ET 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 1. 2.8 3.9 4.5 3.4 2. 1. 1.2 0. 0.6 0.5 0.4 3 0.0 0. 0.0 0. 0.0 0. 1.5 2.0 2.2 2.1 1. .2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.5 .9 1.1 1.3 1.2 1. 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.6 0. 0.8 7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 ++ 0.0 0. + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0. + 0. + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0. + + + + 0.4 0.3 0.3 .3 ++ 0.0 0.0 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0.3 + 0 4 + 0.4 + 0.3 0.3 + + + 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0:2 0.2 0.3 0. 0.2 0.2 ` ,� SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN t`THIS POLE FOOTING DETAIL IS TYPICAL, FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY; ACTUAL FOOTING SHOULD BE DESIGNED FOR THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION AND LOCATION NTH CONSIDERATION TO ACTUAL REQUIRED SEISMIC, SOIL. WIND LOAD CONDITIONS, ETC. ,-NO. 10 GROUND WARE TO LIGHT FIXTURE GROUND LUG INSIDE POLE LIGHT POLE OPPOSITE HANDHOLE PROVIDE BUSHNGS �ON CONDUITS �BASE PLoTE COWER I* FORMED CHAMFER NO. 6 BARE COPPER / (HAND TROWEL EDGE NOT ACCEPTED) GROUNO WARE IN ANCHOR BOLTS (4 REO'D) 1/2- PVC CONDW EACH. INSTALL SQUARE WITH PARKING LOT.' �-SEAMLESS SONOTUSE TYPE FORM FOR CONCRETE BASE.(REMOVE SONOTUSE GRADE LEDEL AFTER CONCRETE SETS, RUBFINIsH, NO PAINT) CADWFID OR DOUBLE LUG o i CONNECTION ' x j CONDUITS (PVC) SCH 40 MATH t COPPER CLAD 3. CLEAR LONG SWEEP ELBOWS GROUND ROD 2e k 3' -AR DINfNS10N SCHEDULE Z X=.. DIA. Y -2:-O* Z=2'-0• CONCRETE SHALL BE 4,000 PT O 28 DAYS WITH 6% AIR ENTRAINMENT TYPICAL LIGHT POLE BASE DETAIL NTS Luminaire Location Summary Lusix. Label 2 Orient Tilt 1 Sr 27 335.376 60 2 SF 27 335.376 60 Calculation Summary Symbol Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Nin Max/Min CalcPts Illuminance Fc 0.80 8.9 0.0 N.A. N.A. Parking Area Illuminance Fe 3.02 8.9 0.0 N.A. N.A. -1 Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Label Arrangement Lumens LLF Description 1 2 SF ROTATED OPTICS 23750 0.810 Techlight DCNBIAMI-PS For Additional Lighting Information and Pricing Contact: Fusion Lighting PH: 763-682-7763 Project No. 7111018 Based on the Information provided, all dimensions and luminalre locations shown represent recommended positions. The englneer and/or architect must determine applicability of the of the layout to existing or future field conditions. This lighting pattern represents Illumination levels calculated from laboratory data taken under controlled conditions utilizing current Industry standard lamp ratings In accordance with Illuminating Engineering Society approved methods. Acutal performance of any manufactureel manufacturers luminalm may vary due to variation In ectileai voltage. tolerance In lamps And other variable laid mndld-S. { 1_ O N N � co Z ' MM =r�D _ rn �h 00 P: x T -0 U / i M C a� �+ m 0 N = m T � a I i I Revision_ Date: A 10,25; 201 1 I r i {V Ile- I""" F I CO Z 0 0 J U) 0 LU Z m LJJ N Z � Q 0In0 J J z J LU 2 J U co Z Q 0 3Z m0 a U � N� Project tk: 7111018 contract S: Issue Date: 10/18/2011 AS NOTED awrVChecked: TDK/WRT Rev., SU A SITE LIGHTING SCOPE NOTES Fixture Manufacturer Techlight Fixture Side Skirts: None Lamp Type: Metal Halide Pole Material: Steel Lamp Wattage: 250W Mounting Height: 25' Pole +2' Base Lamp Orientation: Vertical Concrete Base: 2' High & 24" Dia. Fixture Type: Shoe Box Pole & Fixture Color: To Be Determined Based on the Information provided, all dimensions and luminalre locations shown represent recommended positions. The englneer and/or architect must determine applicability of the of the layout to existing or future field conditions. This lighting pattern represents Illumination levels calculated from laboratory data taken under controlled conditions utilizing current Industry standard lamp ratings In accordance with Illuminating Engineering Society approved methods. Acutal performance of any manufactureel manufacturers luminalm may vary due to variation In ectileai voltage. tolerance In lamps And other variable laid mndld-S. { 1_ O N N � co Z ' MM =r�D _ rn �h 00 P: x T -0 U / i M C a� �+ m 0 N = m T � a I i I Revision_ Date: A 10,25; 201 1 I r i {V Ile- I""" F I CO Z 0 0 J U) 0 LU Z m LJJ N Z � Q 0In0 J J z J LU 2 J U co Z Q 0 3Z m0 a U � N� Project tk: 7111018 contract S: Issue Date: 10/18/2011 AS NOTED awrVChecked: TDK/WRT Rev., SU A Engineering&UtilityComments–CargillParkingAreaExpansion EngineeringDepartment Plansheet3of5 o AddnotetosawcutbituminouspavementforLinnStreetaccess. o AddnotetosawcutconcretecurbandgutterforLinnStreetaccess. o Shiftlot1-footwesttoavoidbumperoverhangintoCityright-of-way. o Removeoneparkingstalleachfromthenorthwest,northeast,andsoutheast cornersofthelottoallowvehiclesroomtobackoutofendspots. Plansheet4of5 o LabelpipebetweenCB-2andCB-3asRCPinsteadofHDPEsinceitconnectsto theCity’sstormsewersystematCB-3. o AddinletprotectiontoexistingCBoneastsideofLinnStreetjustsouthof4th Street. Plansheet5of5 o AddgravelconstructionentrancedetailperCityStandardPlate5015. o Addnotestating“(min.=¼”perfoot)”to“S=VARIES”noteindriveway entranceandcross-gutterdetail. UtilityDepartment Applicantshallexecuteanagreementstatingtheyareresponsibleforthecostofrepairing thatwaterserviceinthefutureifitstartsleaking,astheservicehasnotbeencappedat themain. S 1 it J ZfZ7 EXHIBIT I - PARKING LOT DESIGN ALTERNATIVE CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (G) Standards Applicable to Commercial, Industrial & Civic/Institutional Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 225 (iii) T-N District 1. A garage of at lest 450 square feet, attached or detached, shall be constructed as a part of any single family home. 2. Garage frontage: From side building line to side building line of any single family structure, no more than 50% of such building width shall consist of garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded garages, or detached garages in the rear yard, are not subject to this regulation. An exception shall be made for garage doors that face the street, but are set back at least ten feet in back of the front building line of the principal use. 3. No portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal single family use. (G) Standards Applicable to Commercial, Industrial & Civic/Institutional Uses (1) Location of Required Parking for Commercial, Industrial & Civic/Institutional Uses (a) In business, industrial and institutional areas, no parking area may be located upon a public drainage and/or utility easement adjoining a public street without an encroachment agreement approved by the Community Development Department. (b) In the B-1 district, off-street parking shall not include semi-trailer trucks. (2) Vehicular Use Area Design Applicable to Commercial, Industrial & Civic/Institutional Uses (a) Access and Curbing (i) Curb cut access in industrial and commercial zoning districts may exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the approval of the Community Development Department. Denial by the Community Development Department of curb cut access in excess of twenty-four (24) feet may be appealed following the procedures outlined in Section 2.4(H) of this ordinance. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (G) Standards Applicable to Commercial, Industrial & Civic/Institutional Uses Page 226 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (ii) Curb cut access shall not be closer than six (6) feet to any lot line as measured from the lot line to the face of the curb. An exception to the setback requirement shall be granted in Business Districts where adjoining business provide for private cross access between parking lots. (iii) All off-street parking areas and driveways shall have a six (6) inch non- surmountable continuous concrete curb around the perimeter of the parking area and driveways. The Community Development Department may approve bituminous curbing as a temporary measure under the following conditions: 1. If the area is shown by adequate site plans and reasonable growth to be subject to a future expansion of the driveway and/or parking area. 2. The area is shown by adequate site plans to be able to control site traffic and circulation as recommended by the Community Development Department. The Community Development Department may approve movable curb stops as a temporary traffic control measure. 3. The area is shown by adequate drainage plans to be able to control drainage as recommended by the Community Development Department. The Community Development Department may approve bituminous curbing as a temporary drainage control measure. (iv) Adjoining business properties may allow cross parking and/or access if authorized by a Conditional Use per the requirements of Section 2.4(D) and subject the following conditions: 1. The required island and landscaping requirements in Section 4.1 are met. 2. The vehicular use area meets the required setback at the perimeter of the parcels in question. 3. The curb cut access locations to the parking lot(s) are approved by the City. 4. A shared parking/access and maintenance agreement is provided by the parking owners and recorded against all subject properties. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (G) Standards Applicable to Commercial, Industrial & Civic/Institutional Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 227 (b) Perimeter Vehicular Use Buffer (i) Open, non-residential off-street parking areas shall be designed to screen headlights from abutting or surrounding residential districts through the use of a half-berm design. Said design shall be required in all instances where headlights are directed at surrounding or abutting residential properties. A half-berm is required in addition to any buffer yard landscaping requirements with a design as illustrated in Figure 4-12: (ii) In the event that drainage or other conditions do not permit a berm of this size, a solid, maintenance free fence may be permitted for all or a portion of the retaining wall to the extent necessary to permit property drainage. Examples may include a two-foot retaining wall and berm, with a four foot tall fence section. This alternative may be allowed by Conditional Use Permit. Any fence proposed in lieu of the required design must be 100 percent opaque and in character with the surrounding area. See also Section 4.1(F): Standards for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping See also Section 4.1(G): Standards for Perimeter Buffers Figure 4-12 CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 209 (3) Site Plan Drawing Necessary All applications for a building permit or certificate of occupancy in all zoning districts shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned indicating the location of off-street parking and loading spaces in compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 4.8. (D) Prohibited Uses Related to Off-street Parking (1) Required accessory off-street parking spaces in any district shall not be utilized for open storage, sale, or rental of goods; or storage of inoperable vehicles and/or storage of snow. (2) For single family and two family dwellings, off-street parking in the rear yard is prohibited as illustrated in Figure 4-11. (3) Except for temporary uses as permitted by Section 5.4 and trailers parking in a designated loading area, no vehicle may be parked and used for storage of items in any district. (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses (1) Location of Required Parking (a) Required accessory off-street parking shall be on the same lot under the same ownership as the principal use being served except under the provisions of Section 4.8(G)(3). (b) Except for single, two-family, townhouse dwellings and parcels in the CCD, head-in parking directly off of and adjacent to a public street with each stall having its own direct access to the public street shall be prohibited. (c) Except in the case of single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas shall be designed so that circulation between parking bays or aisles occurs within the designated parking lot and does not depend upon a public street or alley. (d) Except in the case of single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking area design which requires backing into the public street is prohibited. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses Page 210 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (e) All accessory off-street parking facilities required by this ordinance shall be located and restricted as follows: (i) For single family and two family dwellings, the part of a paved driveway within boulevard portion of the street right-of-way shall only be used for parking in a manner that does not block any public sidewalk or pathway. (ii) In the case of single family dwellings, parking shall be prohibited in any portion of the rear yard. In the case where the only attached or detached garage on a property is located in the rear yard, parking may be allowed in designated driveways leading directly into a garage, or on one (1) open surfaced space located on the side of a driveway away from the principal use as shown in Table 4-9 and Figure 4-11. Said extra space shall be surfaced as required by Table 4-9 and Figure 4-11. (iii) In the case of single family dwellings, parking in the side yard shall be allowed on a surfaced space as shown in Table 4-9 and Figure 4-11. (2) Vehicular Use Area Design (a) Curb Cuts and Access (i) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut access per one hundred twenty-five (125) feet of street frontage. All property shall be entitled to at least one (1) curb cut. (ii) The maximum driveway width between the public street and the property line shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. (iii) Within all districts, a five foot radius curb may be constructed at the public street in addition to the maximum driveway width allowed. (iv) Driveway access curb openings on a public street except for single, two- family, and townhouse dwellings shall not be located less than forty (40) feet from one another. (v) No curb cut access shall be located less than forty (40) feet from the intersection of two (2) or more street right-of-ways. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot lines. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 211 (vi) All driveway access openings shall require a culvert unless the lot is served by storm sewer or is determined unnecessary by the Community Development Department. Size of culvert shall be determined by the Community Development Department but shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) inches in diameter. (vii) Except for single, two-family, and townhouse residential development (and as otherwise noted in this ordinance), all open vehicular use areas shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot, said curb barrier shall not be closer than six (6) feet to any lot line as measured from the lot line to the face of the curb. (b) Stall, Aisle, and Driveway Design (i) Each parking space shall be not less than nine (9) feet wide and twenty (20) feet in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be served adequately by access aisles. EXCEPTION: Where desired, up to 25% of the parking spaces may be not less than seven and one-half (7- 1/2) feet in width and not less than sixteen (16) feet in length when served adequately by access aisles to accommodate compact car parking and should be marked as such. (ii) Except in the case of single family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance with the following standards: TABLE 4-6: PARKING STALL AND AISLE STANDARDS Angle Wall to Minimum Wall to Interlock Minimum Interlock to Interlock Minimum 30 48.6’ 44.5’ 40.3’ 45 56.8’ 53.4’ 50.0’ 60 62.0’ 59.7’ 57.4’ 90 64.0’ 64.0’ 64.0’ Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in length CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses Page 212 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (c) Surfacing (i) Except in the case of single family and two-family dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with six (6) inch class five base and two (2) inch bituminous topping or concrete equivalent. Drainage plans shall be reviewed and subject to approval by the Community Development Department. The Community Development Department staff may waive this requirement if it is determined that the drainage plans do not merit further study. Community Development Department determination in this regard shall be based on the size of parking surface area, simplicity of design plan, and proximity/accessibility to existing storm sewer facilities. (ii) The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five (5) percent. (d) Striping Except for single, two-family, and townhouses, all parking stalls shall be marked with white painted lines not less than four (4) inches wide. (e) Lighting Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses, and public right-of-ways and be in compliance with Section 4.4 of this ordinance. (f) Landscaping and Screening All open, non-residential, off-street parking areas of five (5) or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with Section 4.1(F) of this ordinance. (i) Interior Vehicular Use Area Landscaping – see Section 4.1(F)(2) (ii) Perimeter Vehicular Use Area Landscaping – see Section 4.1(F)(3) (iii) Perimeter Buffers – see Section 4.1(G) (g) Signs No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operation and traffic movement within any parking lot. Section 4.8(E)(5) outlines requirements for a CUP to potentially lessen surfacing requirements Section 4.1(F): Standards for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping Section 4.1(G): Standards for Perimeter Buffers CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 213 (3) Parking Within a Structure The off-street parking requirements may be furnished by providing a space so designed within the principal building or one (1) structure attached thereto; however, unless provisions are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert said parking structure into a dwelling unit or living area or other activity until other adequate provisions are made to comply with the required off-street parking provisions of this ordinance. (4) Vehicular Use Area Stall Calculation Requirements (a) General Provisions (i) The minimum number of off-street parking spaces shown in Table 4-7 shall be provided and maintained by ownership, easement, and/or lease for and during the life of the respective uses hereinafter set forth. (ii) When determining the number of off-street parking spaces results in a fraction, each fraction of one-half (1/2) or more shall constitute another space. (iii) In stadiums, sports arenas, churches, and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews, or other similar seating facilities, each twenty-two (22) inches of such seating facilities shall be counted as one (1) seat for the purpose of determining requirements. (iv) Should a structure contain two (2) or more types of use, each shall be calculated separately for determining the total off-street parking spaces required. (b) Floor Area (i) The term "floor area" for the purpose of calculating the number of off- street parking spaces required shall be determined on the basis of the interior floor area dimensions of the buildings, structure, or use times the number of floors. (ii) Whenever practical, final parking calculations shall be based on an actual building floor plan. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses Page 214 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 4-7: MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES BY USE Use Type Minimum # of Spaces & Additional Requirements Residential Uses Detached Dwelling 2.0 spaces for each dwelling unit Duplex 2.0 spaces for each dwelling unit Townhome 2.5 spaces for each dwelling unit, of which two (2) must be enclosed, plus one (1) guest parking space for every four (4) units Multiple Family In general 2.5 spaces for each dwelling unit, of which two (2) must be enclosed, plus one (1) guest parking space for every four (4) units Senior housing Reservation of area equal to 1.0 space per unit  Initial development shall require only 0.5 spaces per unit, and said number of spaces may continue until such time as the City Council considers a need for additional parking spaces has been demonstrated Group Residential Facility, Single Family 2.0 spaces for each three persons for whom sleeping accommodations are provided Group Residential Facility, Multi- Family 2.0 spaces for each three persons for whom sleeping accommodations are provided Manufactured Home 2.0 spaces per manufactured home Civic and Institutional Uses Active Park Facilities (public or private) 5.0 spaces for each acre of park over one (1) acre; two (2) spaces per acre for playgrounds; and ten (10) spaces for each acre of play field  When a public recreation site has more than one (1) use designation, the areas must be divided for determining the required parking Assisted Living Facilities 0.5 spaces for each assisted living unit (a required half space shall be rounded up) Baseball Fields, Stadium 1.0 space for each eight (8) seats of design capacity Cemeteries See Parking Schedule #2 [Section 4.8(H)(3)] Clinics 4.0 spaces for each one thousand (1000) square feet Hospitals 2.0 spaces per each bed Nursing/Convalescent Home 4.0 spaces plus one (1) for each three (3) beds for which accommodations are offered Passenger Terminal 8.0 spaces plus one (1) additional space for each eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area over one thousand (1000) square feet Passive Parks and Open Space See Parking Schedule #2 [Section 4.8(H)(3)] Public Buildings or Uses 10.0 spaces plus one (1) for each one hundred fifty (150) square feet in excess of two thousand (2000) square feet of floor area in the principal structure Schools, Kindergarten through Junior High 1.0 space for each classroom plus one (1) additional space for each fifty (50) student capacity CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 215 Use Type Minimum # of Spaces & Additional Requirements Civic and Institutional Uses (continued) Schools, Kindergarten through Junior High 1.0 space for each classroom plus one (1) additional space for each fifty (50) student capacity Schools, High School & post-secondary 1.0 space for each seven (7) students based on design capacity plus one (1) for each three (3) classrooms Place of Public Assembly 1.0 space for each four (4) seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall  Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with places of public assembly shall be subject to additional requirements which are imposed by this ordinance Utilities (major) See Parking Schedule #2 [Section 4.8(H)(3)] Office Uses Offices 3.0 spaces plus at least one (1) space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor space Commercial Uses Adult Uses 1.0 space for each one hundred (100) square feet of floor space. Auction House 1.0 space for each forty (40) square feet of floor space.  Outside sales area shall be added to the floor space of the principal building when determining square footage of floor space Auto Repair – Minor 8.0 spaces plus one (1) additional space for each eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area over one thousand (1000) square feet Automotive Wash Facilities 10.0 spaces or one (1) space for each employee on the maximum shift, whichever is greater  For self service facilities, there shall be a minimum of two (2) spaces  If the wash facility is integrated into an approved vehicle fuel sales business, the wash facility shall require no additional parking Bed & Breakfasts 1.0 space for each rental unit in addition to required residential off-street parking Boarding House 2.0 spaces for each three (3) persons for whom accommodations are provided for sleeping Business Support Services 1.0 space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor space  If in the CCD district, one (1) space per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of floor space Communications/Broadcasting 1.0 space for each four hundred (400) square feet of floor space. Convenience Stores 1.0 space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor space  If in the CCD district, one (1) space per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of floor space Country Club 4.0 spaces per golf hole plus spaces provided for accessory uses in accordance with this ordinance CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses Page 216 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Use Type Minimum # of Spaces & Additional Requirements Commercial Uses (continued) Day Care Centers 1.0 space for each employee plus one (1) space per five children Entertainment/Recreation, Indoor Commercial Bowling Alley 5.0 spaces for each alley plus additional spaces as may be required herein for related uses associated with the principal structure Theater 1.0 space for each four (4) seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall; facilities as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to additional requirements imposed by this ordinance  If the theater is located in the original plat of Monticello, the required spaces shall be reduced to 1.0 space per five (5) seats Entertainment/Recreation, Outdoor Commercial 10.0 spaces plus one (1) for each one hundred (100) square feet of floor area inside an associated structure Financial Institution 1.0 space for each four hundred (400) square feet of floor space. Funeral Homes 20.0 spaces for each chapel or parlor, plus one (1) space for each funeral vehicle maintained on the premises  Aisle spaces shall also be provided off the street for making up a funeral procession Hotels or Motels 1.0 space for each rental unit plus one space for each ten (10) units an d one (1) space for each employee on the maximum shift Kennels (commercial) 1.0 space for each four hundred (400) square feet of floor space. Landscaping / Nursery Business See Parking Schedule #1 [Section 4.8(H)(2)] Personal Services 1.0 space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor space  If in the CCD district, one (1) space per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of floor space Recreational Vehicle Camp Site 1.0 space per each recreational vehicle plus one (1) guest space per ten recreational vehicles Repair Establishment See Parking Schedule #1 [Section 4.8(H)(2)] Restaurants Sit down restaurants 1.0 space for each forty (40) square feet of gross floor area of dining and bar area and one (1) space for each eighty (80) square feet of kitchen area Drive Through restaurants 1.0 space for each fifteen (15) square feet of gross floor area but not less than fifteen (15) spaces CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 217 Use Type Minimum # of Spaces & Additional Requirements Commercial Uses (continued) Retail Commercial Uses In General 1.0 space for each two hundred (200) square feet  If in the CCD district, one (1) space per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of floor space In which 50% or more of the gross floor area is devoted to storage, warehouses, and/or industry. The number of spaces may be determined by either of the listed options OPTION #1: One (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet devoted to public sales or service plus one (1) space for each 500 square feet of storage area OPTION #2: One space for each employee on the maximum shift plus one (1) space for each 200 square feet devoted to public sales or service Specialty Eating Establishments 1.0 space for each two hundred (200) square feet  If in the CCD district, one (1) space per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of floor space Vehicle Fuel Sales 4.0 spaces plus two (2) spaces for each service stall (not pump)  Those facilities designed for sale of other items than strictly automotive products, parts, or service shall be required to provide additional parking in compliance with other applicable sections of this ordinance Vehicle Sales and Rental 8.0 spaces plus one (1) additional space for each eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area over one thousand (1000) square feet Veterinary Facilities 1.0 space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet Wholesale Sales 1.0 space for each two hundred (200) square feet  If in the CCD district, one (1) space per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of floor space Industrial Uses Auto Repair – Major See Parking Schedule #1 [Section 4.8(H)(2)] Extraction of Materials See Parking Schedule #2 [Section 4.8(H)(3)] General Warehousing 8.0 spaces plus one (1) space for each two (2) employees on the maximum shift or, at a minimum, at least eight (8) spaces plus one (1) space for each one thousand (1000) square feet of floor area Truck or Freight Terminal 8.0 spaces plus one (1) space for each two (2) employees on the maximum shift or, at a minimum, at least eight (8) spaces plus one (1) space for each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area Waste Disposal & Incineration See Parking Schedule #1 [Section 4.8(H)(2)] Wrecker Services See Parking Schedule #1 [Section 4.8(H)(2)] Heavy Manufacturing See Parking Schedule #1 [Section 4.8(H)(2)] Industrial Services See Parking Schedule #1 [Section 4.8(H)(2)] Light Manufacturing See Parking Schedule #1 [Section 4.8(H)(2)] CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses Page 218 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Use Type Minimum # of Spaces & Additional Requirements Industrial Uses (continued) Machinery/Truck Repair See Parking Schedule #1 [Section 4.8(H)(2)] Recycling and Salvage Center See Parking Schedule #1 [Section 4.8(H)(2)] Self Storage Facilities 1.0 space per 100 lockers/units on the inside of the fenced area and at least five (5) spaces outside the fenced area  If a caretaker’s quarters is provided on-site, at least one (1) covered parking space for exclusive use by the caretaker shall be provided (iii) Unusable space (e.g. entries, halls, service areas, bathrooms, etc) within uses may be excluded from floor area calculations when applicable. (iv) Required parking spaces may be reduced through alternative development types (e.g. Planned Unit Development, utilization of Performance Based Enhancement Overlay District provisions, etc) as permitted in this ordinance. (c) CCD District Exceptions Property owners i n the CCD District shall comply with the parking supply requirements as listed in Table 4-7 of this ordinance. However, property owners may be granted flexibility from a portion of their required parking supply under the following conditions: (i) Where the City finds that there will be adequate opportunity to provide public parking in the vicinity of the subject property, and at the City’s option, the owner shall pay into a ―CCD‖ Parking Fund an amount as established by City Council Resolution. Said fund shall be used for the acquisition, construction, and/or maintenance of publicly-owned parking in the ―CCD‖ district. (ii) The City may, in addition to, or as an alternative to, the option listed in Section 4.8(E)(4)(c)(i) above, and at the discretion of the City, offer the property owner the opportunity to choose to supply parking at a rate which is sixty (60) percent of the requirement listed in Section 4.8 provided that the owner grants an easement to the public for automobile parking use over the subject area. The owner shall retain responsibility for maintenance of said parking area. (iii) Location: Parking shall not be located on a parcel between the front building line of the principal building and the public street, except where expressly provided for by the City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.8 Off-street Parking Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 219 (d) Parking Stall Requirement: Schedule #1 Uses subject to Off-Street Parking Schedule #1 must provide the minimum number of off-street parking spaces indicated in Table 4 -8, Off-Street Parking Schedule #1. TABLE 4-8: OFF STREET PARKING SCHEDULE #1 Activity Number of Spaces Required Office or Administrative Area 1.0 space per three hundred (300) square feet Indoor Sales Area 1.0 space per two hundred (200) square feet Outdoor Sales, Display, or Storage Area (3000 sq ft or less) 1.0 space per seven hundred fifty (750) square feet Outdoor Sales, Display, or Storage Area (over 3000 sq ft) 1.0 space per one thousand (1000) square feet Indoor Storage / Warehousing / Vehicle Repair / Manufacturing Area ≤ 3000 sq ft 1.0 space per two hundred (200) square feet 3000 ≤ 5000 sq ft 1.0 space per five hundred (500) square feet 5000 ≤ 10,000 sq ft 1.0 space per seven hundred fifty (750) square feet > 10,000 sq ft 1.0 space per one thousand two hundred fifty (1250) square feet (e) Parking Stall Requirement: Schedule #2 Uses subject to Off-Street Parking Schedule #2 have widely varying parking demand characteristics, making it very difficult to specify a single appropriate off-street parking standard. Upon receiving a development application for a use subject to Schedule #2 standards, the Community Development Department is authorized to apply the off-street parking and loading standard specified for the listed use that is deemed most similar to the proposed use or establish minimum off-street parking requirements on the basis of a parking study prepared by the applicant. The study must include estimates of parking demand based on recommendations of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) or other acceptable estimates as approved by the Community Development Department, and should include other reliable data collected from uses or combinations of uses that are the same as or comparable with the proposed use. Comparability will be determined by density, scale, bulk, area, type of activity, and location. The study must document the source of data used to develop the recommendations. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening Subsection (F) Standards for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping Page 154 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (F) Standards for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping Except where exempted by Section 4.1(F)(1) below, all vehicular use areas shall include landscaping both within the interior of the vehicular use area and around its perimeter, as a means of mitigating the parking area’s microclimate and visual impacts. (1) Exemptions The following uses shall be exempt from the requirements to provide vehicular use area landscaping: (a) Single-family detached residential development; (b) Two- to four-family dwellings; (c) Off-street surface vehicular use areas with four or fewer spaces; (d) Parking structures; and (e) Vehicle display areas for vehicle sales uses. (2) Interior Vehicular Use Area Landscaping Standards All vehicular use areas shall provide and maintain landscaped planting areas within the interior of the vehicular use area in accordance with the following. (a) Configuration Interior planting areas shall be designed in accordance with the following standards: (i) Islands shall be located at the end of parking bays and have a minimum size of 180 square feet when adjacent to single loaded parking spaces, and a minimum size of 360 square feet when adjacent to double loaded parking spaces (see Figure 4-1: Interior Parking Islands). Vehicular use area landscaping DOES count towards overall required site landscaping. [Section 4.1(H)(3)] CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening Subsection (F) Standards for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 155 CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening Subsection (F) Standards for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping Page 156 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (ii) The maximum length of a parking bay to be bounded by interior planting islands shall be in accordance with Table 4-1. TABLE 4-1: LANDSCAPED ISLAND REQUIREMENTS Use Type Maximum Number of Parking Stalls Between Islands Residential Uses Multi Family Uses 12 stalls between islands Commercial, Civic, and Institutional Uses Commercial Uses 24 stalls between islands Civic & Institutional Uses 24 stalls between islands Industrial Uses Industrial & Business Campus District Uses 24 stalls between islands All other Industrial Uses 50 stalls between islands (iii) Landscaped planting areas shall be distributed throughout the parking area for the purpose of heat abatement. (iv) Driveway and primary drive aisle medians shall have a minimum width of four feet for medians containing shrubs and six feet for medians containing both shrubs and understory trees. (v) Each interior planting island shall contain at least one canopy or understory tree per every 180 square feet, or portion thereof, of the total landscape island area. (vi) Shrubs shall be planted within landscaping islands at a minimum rate necessary to ensure that at least 25 percent of the total land area occupied by landscaping islands is planted with shrubs. (b) Protection of Planting Areas Except as exempted by the Community Development Department, all planting areas shall be protected from vehicle damage by the installation of curbing, wheel stops, or other comparable methods. This standard shall not prohibit the use of planting areas as on-site stormwater management devices. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening Subsection (F) Standards for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 157 (3) Perimeter Vehicular Use Area Landscaping Standards Where a vehicular use area serving a use subject to these standards abuts a street right-of-way, vacant land, or any other development (except another vehicular use area), perimeter landscaping strips shall be provided and maintained between the vehicle use area and the abutting right-of-way or property line in accordance with the following standards. (a) Location (i) Perimeter landscaping strips shall be located on the same land where the vehicular use area is located, and shall be placed to assure visibility and safety of pedestrians on the public street, as well as those within the vehicular use area. (ii) Perimeter landscaping strips may not be placed within future street rights- of-way as may be identified on the City’s Official Map. (b) Minimum Width When a vehicular use area is located within 50 feet of a street right-of-way, the perimeter landscaping shall be located within a planting strip at least six feet wide. In all other instances, the strip shall be the minimum width necessary to assure required landscaping is not damaged by vehicles or other on-site activity. In no instance shall the strip be less than three feet wide. (c) Protection of Landscaping Strip Except as exempted by the Community Development Department, the perimeter landscaping strip shall be protected from vehicle damage by the installation of curbing, wheel stops, extra width in the landscaping strip, or other comparable methods. This standard shall not prohibit the use of perimeter landscaping strips as on-site stormwater management devices. (d) Required Materials (see Figure 4-3) Each perimeter landscaping strip shall include at least eight aggregate caliper inches (ACI) of canopy trees per 100 linear feet of landscaping strip, and the remaining ground shall be landscaped (sod, mulch, etc). (e) Adjacent to Perimeter Buffers Perimeter landscape strips associated with a vehicle use area may be credited towards perimeter buffer standards [See Section 4.1(G), Standards for Perimeter Buffers], provided the minimum buffer standards of this section are met. Perimeter vehicular use area landscaping counts towards overall required site landscaping. [Section 4.1(H)(3)] CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening Subsection (F) Standards for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping Page 158 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (f) Adjacent to Off-Street Surface Parking on Other Lots Where two or more off-street surface vehicular use areas are located adjacent to one another, but upon different lots, no perimeter landscaping strip shall be required between the two vehicular use areas. (4) Incentives for Improved Design (a) The total aggregate caliper inch requirements for canopy and understory trees in subsection 4.1(F) may be reduced by five percent when: (i) At least sixty-five (65) percent of the provided parking is located to the side or rear of the building; (ii) At least thirty (30) percent of the total required parking is subject to a shared parking agreement; and (iii) When pervious parking surfacing is used for twenty (20) percent or more of the total vehicular use area. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening Subsection (G) Standards for Perimeter Buffers City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 159 (b) The above incentives may be combined to achieve a cumulative reduction in the amount of required tree ACI. (G) Standards for Perimeter Buffers (1) Purpose and Intent Perimeter landscape buffers are intended to mitigate potential negative effects of different contiguous uses. (2) Applicability Except for adjoining single-family detached residential uses and uses in the CCD district, all development shall provide a perimeter landscape buffer to separate it from uses in a different use classification in accordance with Table 4-2: Buffer Types, and Table 4-3: Buffer Type Application. (3) Types of Buffers Table 4-2: Buffer Types, describes four different buffering types in terms of their function, opacity, width, and planting requirements. Where a particular buffer type is required in Table 4-3: Buffer Type Application, the requirement may be met with the combination of minimum buffer width and minimum screening requirements specified under either Option 1 or Option 2. Where an option utilizing a fence or wall is selected, the fence or wall shall comply with the standards of Section 4.3, Fences and Walls. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening Subsection (G) Standards for Perimeter Buffers Page 160 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 4-2: BUFFER TYPES ACI = AGGREGATE CALIPER INCHES Minimum Screening Requirements Within the Perimeter Buffer [1] [2] [3] [4] Buffer Type and Configuration Option 1: Minimum Width of 20 feet Option 2: Minimum Width of 10 feet [5] TYPE A – BASIC BUFFER This perimeter buffer functions as basic edge demarcating individual properties with a slight visual obstruction from the ground to a height of ten feet. 2 ACI of canopy trees + 10 ACI of understory trees + 15 small shrubs per 100 linear feet TYPE B – AESTHETIC BUFFER This perimeter buffer functions as an intermittent visual obstruction from the ground to a height of at least 20 feet, and creates the impression of special separation without eliminating visual contact between uses. 8 ACI of canopy trees + 10 ACI of understory trees + 15 small shrubs per 100 linear feet 2 ACI of canopy trees + 14 ACI of understory trees + 35 small shrubs per 100 linear feet TYPE C – SEMI-OPAQUE BUFFER This perimeter buffer functions as a semi-opaque screen from the ground to at least a height of six feet. 12 ACI of canopy trees + 14 ACI of understory trees + 25 small shrubs per 100 linear feet One 4-foot high berm or one 4-foot high solid fence + 2 ACI of canopy trees + 16 ACI of understory trees per 100 linear feet TYPE D – OPAQUE BUFFER This perimeter buffer functions as an opaque screen from the ground to a height of at least six feet. This type of buffer prevents visual contact between uses and creates a strong impression of total separation. 18 ACI of canopy trees + 20 ACI of understory trees + 55 small shrubs per 100 linear feet One 6-foot high solid fence + 12 ACI of canopy trees per 100 linear feet [1]: Any required perimeter buffer width can be reduced to five feet with the provision of a solid masonry wall at least five feet in height along with ten large shrubs per every 100 linear feet. [2]: Perimeter buffer widths (but not vegetation amounts) may be reduced in accordance with Section 2.4(G), Administrative Adjustments. Alternatively, applicants may submit an Alternate Landscape Plan under the provisions of Section 4.1(E) if adhering to these requirements is not possible. [3]: In cases where an adjacent use is designed for solar access, understory trees can be substituted for canopy trees. [4]: Required plantings shall conform to the planting standards outlined in section 4.1(C)(2). [5]: Fences and walls shall comply with the standards in Section 4.3, Fences and Walls. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening Subsection (G) Standards for Perimeter Buffers City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 161 (4) Determination of Required Buffer Type Table 4-3 specifies the type of perimeter landscape buffer that new development shall provide between it and adjacent property, based on the uses present on the development site and that on the adjacent property. The buffer type is indicated by a letter corresponding to one of the four buffer types depicted in Table 4-2, Buffer Types. TABLE 4-3: BUFFER TYPE APPLICATION Existing Use Type on Abutting Land [1] Proposed use Type Single Family Residential All Other Residential Civic and Institutional Uses Office and Commercial Uses Industrial Uses Single-Family Residential n/a A B C D All Other Residential A n/a A B D Civic and Institutional Uses B A n/a A D Office and Commercial Uses C B A n/a C Industrial Uses D D D C n/a [1]: Letters in cells correspond to the buffer types listed in Table 4-2, Buffer Types. [2]: Multi-family, townhouse, multi-building campus or shopping center type developments shall provide buffers around the perimeter of the development instead of around individual buildings. (5) Location of Perimeter Buffers (a) Perimeter buffers required by this section shall be located only along the outer perimeter of the parcel where it abuts another parcel, and shall extend to the parcel boundary line or right-of-way line. (b) In an industrial district, perimeter buffers are not required along lot lines abutting streets except as provided for in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 when abutting non-industrial districts. In such cases, the outdoor operation or storage components shall include perimeter buffers as necessary to screen outdoor use areas from off-site views. (c) A perimeter buffer may be located along shared access easements between parcels in nonresidential developments. CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening Subsection (G) Standards for Perimeter Buffers Page 162 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (6) Responsibility for Buffer Installation (a) Vacant Parcels Where a developing parcel is adjacent to a vacant parcel and a perimeter buffer is required in accordance with this section, the developing parcel shall provide a minimum of one-half of the perimeter buffer required adjacent to the vacant land. (b) Existing Land Uses Where a developing parcel is adjacent to an existing use and a perimeter buffer is required in accordance with this section, the developing parcel shall provide the full perimeter buffer required adjacent to the existing use in accordance with Table 4-2, Buffer Types, and Table 4-3: Buffer Type Application, unless a portion or all of a perimeter buffer that complies with the standards of this section already exists between the lots. Where all or part of a perimeter buffer exists, but the buffer does not fully comply with the standards of this section, the developing parcel shall be responsible for providing all the additional planting material necessary to meet the standards of this section. (7) Development within Required Buffers (a) The required buffer shall not contain any development, impervious surfaces, or site features (except fences or walls) that do not function to meet the standards of this section or that require removal of existing vegetation, unless otherwise permitted in this ordinance. (b) Sidewalks, trails, and other elements associated with passive recreation may be placed in perimeter buffers if all required landscaping is provided and damage to existing vegetation is minimized to the maximum extent practicable. (c) Overhead and underground utilities required or allowed by the City are permitted to cross a required buffer in a perpendicular fashion, but shall minimize the impact to vegetation to the maximum extent practicable. Where required landscaping material is damaged or removed due to utility activity within a required buffer, the landowner shall be responsible for replanting all damaged or removed vegetation necessary to ensure the buffer meets the standards in this ordinance. To: Monticello Planning Commission and Cargill Kitchen Solutions From: Scott and Pam Campbell Re: Industrial Use Parking Lot in the CCD Date: December 29, 2011 I am unable to be at the meeting on January 3, 2012. I have a family matter to attend to in the state of Washington. In any case, I have concerns regarding the industrial parking lot proposed for 400 West 4"' Street in Monticello. My husband and I own the house adjacent to the proposed parking lot at 406 West 4"' Street, and we rent it to our daughter, Jennifer Gerads. The demolition of the house at 400 West 4"' on Thursday December 15 was a complete surprise. Previously, only neighborhood rumors suggested a possible demolition. On a related note, the east side of our house was covered with dust, fiberglass insulation and other debris. When possible, I would like the exterior of the house cleaned. Your proposed parking lot is in the CCD and certain rules apply. Parking lots must be screened by hedges or fences to minimize the visual impact on streets, sidewalks and neighboring properties. A parking lot, while a necessity, can certainly be an eyesore. What do you have planned for screening? I assume there will be security lighting in this lot. Will that be glaringly visible from our house next door? How do you intend to provide parking lot security without compromising the neighborhood quality to our property? Also, what will be parked in this lot? The idling semi -trucks parked at the rear of 406 West 0' Street are noisy and annoying. Will there be semi trucks allowed to idle at 400 West 4"' Street? My main concern is that our property at 406 West 4"' Street will decrease in value because it is now adjacent to an industrial site not nestled in a residential neighborhood. I would like to see a site plan with the landscaping and lighting issues addressed. The lot should be sufficiently screened to shield the streets and our adjacent lot from light and noise pollution. I would like you to prevent idling semi trucks from disturbing the neighbors evenings, nights and weekends. These requests should be relatively easy and inexpensive. I will return from Washington state on January 14, and will be in touch with City Hall on the 15". Thank you for your consideration. CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2012–002 Date:January3rd,2012ResolutionNo.2012-002 MotionBy:SecondedBy: ARESOLUTIONRECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFANAMENDMENTTO CONDITIONALUSEPERMITFORPLANNEDUNITDEVELOPMENTFORA PROPOSEDPARKINGLOTEXPANSIONFORANINDUSTRIALUSE. WHEREAS,CargillKitchenSolutionshasrequestedanAmendmenttoConditionalUsePermit forPlannedUnitDevelopmentforaproposedparkinglotexpansionforthepropertylegally describedasBlocks18,19,andLots1-6,Block20,OriginalPlatMonticello,whichislocatedin theCentralCommunityDistrict;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionhasreviewedtheapplicationforConditionalUsePermit forConditionalUsePermitpursuanttotheregulationsoftheMonticelloZoningOrdinance;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonJanuary3rd,2012onthe applicationandtheapplicantandmembersofthepublicwereprovidedtheopportunitytopresent informationtothePlanningCommission;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionhasconsideredallofthecommentsandthestaffreport, whichareincorporatedbyreferenceintotheresolution;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionoftheCityofMonticellomakesthefollowingFindings ofFactinrelationtotherecommendationofapproval: 1.Thesubmittedapplicationisincompliancewiththe2008ComprehensivePlanandthe 1997DowntownRevitalizationPlan. 2.Theproposedsiteimprovementsprovideneededadditionaloff-streetparkingsupplyto addressexistingparkingconflictsduringmultipleshiftoverlap,andextensiveuseofon- streetorotherpublicparkinginthearea. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof Monticello,Minnesota: 1.PursuanttoMinn.Stat.§462.357,theapplicationforAmendmenttoConditionalUse PermitforPlannedUnitDevelopmentforaproposedparkinglotexpansionwithinthe CCDisherebyrecommendedtotheCityCouncilforapproval. a)TherecommendationforapprovalissubjecttothoseConditionsasfollows: b)CityOfficialsfindtheproposednorth,southandeastparkinglotsetbacks(allless than6feet)tobeacceptable. c)Considerationbegiventomodifyingtheparkinglotdesigntoeliminatetheproposed dead-enddriveaisleconditions.Inthisregard,adesignsimilartothatdepictedupon attachedExhibitIbeconsidered,orasimilarplanwithareversedpatternoftraffic flow. d)TheapplicantaddresstheState’sdisabledparkingrequirements. e)Landscapingisintensifiedalongthewesternboundarywithevergreenshrubsatleast 36”to48”ininitialplantingheight. f)Nosemi-trailerparkingoroutdoorstorageshallbepermittedintheproposedparking area. g)Issuesrelatedtogradinganddrainageshallbesubjecttoreviewandcommentbythe CityEngineer. h)IssuesrelatedtoutilitiesshallbesubjecttoreviewandcommentbytheCityUtilities Department. ADOPTED this3rddayofJanuary2012,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof Monticello,Minnesota. MONTICELLOPLANNINGCOMMISSION By:_______________________________ RodDragsten,Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 8. Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Cross Parking for a commercial use in a B-3, Highway Business District. Applicant: Croaston, Ray/Landform for McDonalds. (NAC) Property: 100 Oakwood Drive East Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Monticello I-94 Tri Plaza The subject site is located south of Interstate I-94 and east of State Highway 25 Planning Case Number: 2011-033 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Conditional Use Permit for cross parking Deadline for Decision: January 31, 2012 (60 days) Land Use Designation: Places to Shop Zoning Designation: B-3, Highway Business District The purpose of the B-3, Highway Business District is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle - oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. Current Site Use: The subject site is currently occupied by an existing McDonald's restaurant. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Interstate Highway 94 East: Commercial, zoned B-3, Highway Business District South: Commercial, zoned B-3, Highway Business District West: Commercial, zoned B-3, Highway Business District Project Description: McDonald's wishes to replace their existing 4,500 square foot restaurant with a new restaurant measuring 5,158 square feet in size. The subject site overlays two parcels of Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 land. The restaurant building and related automobile parking is proposed to be located upon Lot 1 to the west. Oversized vehicle parking is proposed to occur upon Lot 2 to the east. The requested conditional use permit is necessary to allow cross parking/access between the two lots which comprise the subject site. Ordinance Requirements: The Zoning Ordinance allows cross parking only by conditional use permit. In addition to the referenced conditional use permit, the new restaurant is subject to the City's site plan review procedures. ANALYSIS Access. The subject site is presently accessed from Highway 25 via a shared access with the adjacent Super America. To be noted is that Lot 2 to the east lacks direct public street access. Thus, access is provided via easement. No physical changes to the site's existing access is proposed. Access -related issues should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer and MnDOT, where applicable. Lot Area and Width. Lot 1, upon which the new restaurant building is proposed, measures 53,522 square feet in size and exhibits a width of 280 feet along Highway 25. Lot 2, upon which oversized vehicle parking is proposed, measures 40,587 square feet in size and 226 feet in width (as measured along I-94 frontage). Within B-3, Highway Business zoning districts, a minimum lot area is not established and minimum width of 100 feet is required. Thus, both lots meet the minimum area and width requirements of the B-3 District. Setbacks. The following table provides a comparison between the building setback requirements of the B-3 District and those illustrated on the proposed site plan. Required Proposed Front 30 feet 70 feet Side 10 feet* 47 feet Rear 30 feet 62 feet * 20 foot setback required along side yards which abut public streets. 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 As shown above, all applicable building setback requirements of the B-3 District have been satisfied. According to the Ordinance, parking lot curb barriers may not be closer than six (6) feet to any lot line as measured from the lot line to the face of the curb. Excepting shared drive areas, all perimeter curbs exceed the minimum 6 foot setback requirement. Parking Supply. In regard to restaurants, the Ordinance provides off-street parking requirements for both drive-through and sit down types. These requirements are as follows: Drive -Through Restaurants - One space for each 15 square feet of gross floor area but not less than 15 spaces. Sit Down Restaurants - One space for each 40 square feet of gross floor area of dining and bar area and one space for each 80square feet of kitchen area. The proposed restaurant measures 5,158 gross square feet in size. Utilizing the "drive through restaurant" requirement of 1 space per 15 gross square feet, a total of more than 300 off-street parking spaces would be required. This is significantly more than the 77 spaces provided and well beyond what is considered a reasonable supply. Utilizing the "sit down restaurant" requirement, a total of 75 spaces would be required Under this analysis, the restaurant would meet the City's requirement. Also to be noted, the existing restaurant provides 75 off-street parking spaces. Historically, this supply has proven to be adequate. Further, additional parking could be added on the adjacent lot if necessary. There should be more than adequate parking for this site, even during peak periods. Dimensional Requirements. Proposed parking stalls measure nine feet in width and 20 feet in depth and satisfy the minimum dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. Circulation. Vehicle circulation patterns within parking areas will be similar to that of the existing restaurant with the following improvements: • Vehicle access to the drive-through lane will occur at the rear (east side) of the restaurant rather than the south side of the building. This change will eliminate pedestrian interface with stacked vehicles within the drive through lane. The oversized vehicle parking area has been redesigned to make more efficient (and logical) use of the space provided. 3 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 Cross Parking. As noted previously, the processing of a conditional use permit is necessary to accommodate cross parking and/or access. In such cases, the Ordinance states that the following conditions must be satisfied: The required island and landscaping requirements in Section 4.1 of the Ordinance are met. 2. The vehicular use area meets the required setback at the perimeter of the parcels in question. 3. The curb cut access locations to the parking lot(s) are approved by the City. 4. A shared parking/access and maintenance agreement is provided by the parking owners and recorded against all subject properties. The applicant has submitted a copy of the existing easement agreement executed in 2001. As a condition of CUP approval, all easement related documents should be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Disabled Parking Requirements. The site plan illustrates four parking spaces which are to be specifically reserved for use by the disabled. Such quantity satisfies State Council on Disability supply requirements. Drive -Through Lane. The Zoning Ordinance does not include any development standards which are specific to accessory drive-through lanes. The submitted site plan illustrates approximately 150 feet of stacking space within the drive-through lane, enough to accommodate seven vehicles. The drive-through lane provides ample vehicle stacking space and is configured to minimize impacts upon pedestrian traffic within the parking lot. Loading and Trash Handling. Loading activities are to occur toward the rear of the building. Assuming loading activities do not occur at peak business times, no vehicular conflicts are anticipated. All trash handling equipment is to be stored within the restaurant building. Impervious Surface Coverage. The B-3 District does not impose a maximum impervious surface coverage requirement. The submitted development plan does however, call for a reduction in the amount of impervious surface coverage upon the site. Presently, 83 percent of the site is impervious. This compares to 77 percent impervious coverage depicted upon the submitted site plan. The reduction in impervious surface coverage, resulting in additional green space, is considered a positive site change. 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 Landscaping. As required, a landscape plan has been submitted for review. The plan calls for new landscaping on both the perimeter of the site and around the restaurant building. Tree plantings include five Spring Snow Crabapples along the north side of the site, three Skyline Honey Locust on the south side of the site and two Swamp White Oaks along the eastern edge of the site. A variety of shrubs are proposed around the building including spreading yews, dwarf cranberry bushes, junipers and spirea. Site landscaping is considered well-placed and is expected to visually enhance the site and building. Lighting. As required, a photometric lighting plan has been submitted. According to the plan, six light poles are to be erected upon the site each measuring 30 feet in height. According to the Ordinance, the height of outdoor lighting, whether mounted on poles or walls or by other means, must be no greater than 25 feet in business districts. As a condition of CUP approval, light fixture heights should not exceed 25 feet as required by Ordinance. The Ordinance also states that outdoor lighting associated with commercial uses must be designed and located so that the maximum illumination (measured in footcandles at ground level) at a property line or right-of-way center line not exceed 1.0 footcandles. This requirement has been satisfied. As a condition of CUP approval, "cut-off lighting" must be designed to direct light downward (e.g., shoe box style). Building Materials. The new restaurant is to be finished primarily in brick ("red blend" in color). To provide visual interest, the following exterior feature/accents are proposed: • Aluminum composite material (ACM) affixed to the front facade and south building entry (white in color). • Corrugated metal banding along the top of the structure (3 feet wide and "Cityscape" in color). • Aluminum canopies (yellow in color) above building windows. • Windows on the north, south and west sides of the restaurant's dining room. All proposed building materials have been found to meet Ordinance requirements. Signage. The following signs have been proposed upon the subject site. 5 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 Location Sign Type Height Area Comment Corner of I-94 & Freestanding (Pylon) 51.1 395 s.f. Existing sign to remain Hwy 25 Sign feet Freestanding 395 s.f. Sign Sub -total South Building Wall Sign NA 41.25 s.f. Affixed to corrugated metal Facade (McDonald's Text) band West Building Wall Sign NA 41.25. Affixed to corrugated metal Facade (McDonald's Text) band South Building Wall Sign NA 14 s.f. Affixed to aluminum composite Facade (McDonald's Logo) material West Building Wall Sign NA 14 s.f. Affixed to aluminum composite Facade (McDonald's Logo) material North Building Wall Signs (2) 5 s. f. Each sign measures 2.5 s.f. in Facade (window position signs) size (assumed) Wall Sign Sub- 115.5 s.f. total East of Building Informational Signs (2) 6'-9" 82 s.f Each sign (menu board) (Menu Boards) measures 41 s.f in size Southeast of Informational Sign 11'-0" 8 s.f Referenced as "Welcome Point Building (Drive Thru) Gateway" sign on sign plan East of Building Informational Sign 11' -3" 8 s.f. Twin poles (Canopy) Not specified Informational Sign 5' 3" 9.9 s.f. (Directional) Informational 108.2 s.f. Sign Sub -total TOTAL SIGN 618.7 s.f. AREA Note: In addition to the signs identified above, pavement signs are also proposed. As shown above, 619 square feet of signage is proposed upon the subject site. Of this total, 395 square feet is devoted to the freestanding sign and 115.5 square feet is devoted to wall signs. The balance of the total sign area (108.2 square feet) is devoted to informational signage, not regulated by the sign ordinance, provided that it provides communication for on-site use only. The Ordinance allows one freestanding sign per lot and stipulates that the area of the sign may not exceed 100 square feet on each side with a maximum height of 22 feet. As noted above, the applicants wish to retain the existing pylon sign on the property. At 58.1 feet in height and 395 square feet in size, the sign significantly exceeds the maximum height and area requirements of the Ordinance. The sign is however, afforded grandfather rights and therefore may continue to exist in accordance with the City's nonconforming structure requirements. The freestanding signs does meet applicable 0 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 setback requirements of the Ordinance (15) feet from any property line abutting a public right-of-way and five (5) feet from any side or rear property line). The Ordinance stipulates that the total area of wall signs may not exceed 15 percent of the total building facade fronting not more than two public streets. Using this calculation, a maximum of 458 square feet of wall signage is allowed for the restaurant. The proposed amount of wall sign area (115.5 square feet) is significantly less than that allowed by the Ordinance. Grading and Drainage. As required, the applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan for review. As a condition of CUP approval, the plan should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Utilities. As a condition of CUP approval, issues related to site utilities should be subject to review and approval by the City's Utility Department. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to approve Resolution 2012-003 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit contingent on compliance with those conditions specified in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny Resolution 2012-003 recommending for approval of the Conditional Use Permit, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION With the exception of the site's freestanding sign (which holds grandfather rights), the proposed restaurant has been found to be generally consistent with applicable requirements of the Ordinance. In relation to the existing restaurant, the site plan is considered much improved from a f inctioning/circulation standpoint. With this in mind, Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based on the findings of fact contained within Resolution 2012-003 and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 7 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Image B. Zoning Map (see map included with Item 9) C. Applicant Narrative D. Site Plan E. Grading, Drainage, Paving and Erosion Control Plan F. Utility Plan G. Lighting Plan H. Landscape Plan I. Building Elevations J. Floor Plan K. Sign Plan L. Resolution 2012-003 Z. Conditions of Approval 93 Planning Commission Agenda — 1/03/12 Exhibit Z — Conditions of Approval McDonald's Restaurant Conditional Use Permit Access -related issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and MnDOT. 2. All easement related documents shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 3. Exterior light fixture heights be reduced from 30 to 25 feet as required by Ordinance. Such fixtures shall be designed to direct light downward. 4. Issues related to grading and drainage shall be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. 5. Issues related to site utilities shall be subject to review and approval by the City's Utility Department. 9 m AREA LOCI rR as Sr. Pw1 NNN. Le Nom'. w� wrY tY L�'O1ac' L,. f.ux SCi. kvskw k, Qrrr ;•gyp inLlww >R Gnvnrn � Vwlr fal}pp f W M �m / MNrnW e3] P• .IOPI M GLN u. (� 114WL< YSr; EAMwv1 WL. �,w E [�V [avmv II YAfL4 vwkE a FM �. 41�N � vsu. ONTE w k P E..... �. w r� Yn. x LM�rLaYV :t. yal V•uM E. w McDONALD'S,, USA LLC. MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Dwni4 wtwvw ^X. J mAncil f.ux SCi. kvskw k, Qrrr ;•gyp inLlww >R Gnvnrn � Vwlr fal}pp N� Syw� Y• M yam, yy e., Sem RkvA+m PYVI haFM �. wML W LMn soar cum, / aemwic (� 114WL< ,j, ✓NV [�V [avmv II YAfL4 vwkE is [wrnw �. 41�N � vsu. ONTE vu. � f.RCR,[ PPC NI... V..M.... A., Yn. —��P� M.rf- l'1 Lirr Yp yal V•uM E. w McDONALD'S,, USA LLC. MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA Dwni4 wtwvw ^X. J mAncil ® cavae OLoavPLAn ,PNIG RV ' HAL IPt /�R.IJ fal}pp dl sm NPVA,w e., Sem RkvA+m T ync cArlw, / orteYAre Q :.. --. soar cum, / aemwic (� 114WL< ,j, VIiYY'.VE • k� rnwAY+ YAfL4 vwkE �'$I FLAQE061O SILf[N Rl %tliPR"fRl i %1n!]RN cPC•,E ONTE HIJMIa � f.RCR,[ PPC (d) m\AIEz wP Axcomw aA3 —��P� kRk p O.wnw LxPYVr[ —ri—e— wor' --- - e.vuc Rakx � tmuu wrAMC vAu a MIRSrpP u*.»n wuL »WNW Pvosw"' vAax Rar I�YiI ICM Houle .-�-,-•,F. -- ]kLCI ZYF4 Ikf Q••. ttN[Q GPE i, pAPGfPPP INERtl! • 00.VAO - I. VMRLPpVO kIIC(PC E� �.—E9 —a)—L! CibT%YK 4A9 LM >— YPCirRl Sk144-vtlY r --:- 4PCPt1k CWC RCV LRM' alalbt -- I vL,MEP rrP. �+� Em wu cwaec]aI p %1/T I W Qw H4 .- CILkEkI f NP RCIW N1KR .Ma] � C.V IIE • B'll KMCENI FPAO `A'a3C�'�'� %l SITYMI ♦ RAzrEr mL IwwA.Nau �•— const-acatw � EIEnK-IILLL@MP I\ - k4,PPG0.F �— — ,urDne-onPYw •- M rR ilR¢(PpID CARE/1V �_ ey(p pq, �ny],V— orkwa <aNM �a9 1aW194rgfII yk1vE — ffAF:R CNV0. NKQ i -i@ ratr M1VhG'VI fAS IF,ac ^X. J ,PMbpM[ ® w.rK aklf-tie vN Vf OLoavPLAn ,PNIG RV a HAL IPt SI Lprt e0.0 dl N]LL11F3 e., PvaamDwc,vlmMa Cll CIYl L649MWIRM W]ACE 1' iRf P! (� 114WL< ,j, VIiYY'.VE • k� rnwAY+ YAfL4 vwkE �'$I FLAQE061O SILf[N Rl %tliPR"fRl i %1n!]RN M1IL/Ca ONTE NIb3 14A[ (d) m\AIEz wP Axcomw aA3 — ffAF:R CNV0. NKQ i -i@ ratr M1VhG'VI Lp3k,IWk NJ tiCYY MAYK AN OA 6LNYiA, R ]OR IIP NMPUY.E. LIMtt rO1,IN MYPANakVf]b)1 Kill MOTH CC"kC ,WCi eAai A M f w Im f CLMV i p w M, Lt%WMO Af gLmt an�Insim.v`I.s�p}°ikP�"Lmva w`�`A s�iMc aii pm s �Ivulu w zcam Ya, . mrPrs p %DP REp ,NrCt xw,x n a!v ae recrlu n ss<PDa Em . mIAXx p ]an HEr. ,Im Nw,x % okm3s N Hama a zcwkn Ynr MeuuL vnx rr L>E cPElek re w a AO LPi f A m]uvY o- Pe.m wkr ,e rr Ls eenw ]a Ler] i AID s. rlaaCY WPIN >, RGRLa ]] IM)li] 91 fG'lM kA]r IIpC Y➢Llt LPPW i0 Le1a I MD f A GINNC( P- P10 k&] f0 rK COLiY CPrM1 f0 LRS L P ]M 2 iMKt MYCI m RC6U. Al IW,ES SI %CQN YL, NPE NE VF Lpa,M ,O WP NP P A ©,YR R 6.e W,: ,IC14 SLIX %Lf Yf! N ICNM A IbYHlfkLf 11 TF%VINEr ATT9lY LM CA65rPCRAI:TEKi a%VM RtlEkf aS MLItl aP %CPVS YHiµ ]PP rNIMb]KLr R.,A mrAW2 p 6l r] Mli: I,E,Lt SpIrX A RGtlES 11 al ]Wlk, SLPOS YHi N[11C SID SMIEA )L•.r Pe A m,uCk p ,»: Naxr p wLMaC, Aw lOi 2 MA L ]UrtKK40 W I- ..k L1tt Q IVIIICittOi V¢Y.M fdM]\ MLaPrA SCSEm SLAttM W.IE. OWe K X Igil6LL0. N 4NK N %MEAS, G(BaII 6 ]RaC r Al Ps e@x IS)wE aNm ora Nlws*An Io�wA. a. A, �(�� IV>HRUwr M4 Pbk Sr6i CRrtNFAT p 6EVA,{N - 9RT (wLq ml ,W Ml! p a0 Irv[Rylr VKAttN LLYARC w SNL Wi YA' 4 TE tMYNG's ,C M Sn w ,.e IExPI ]m p wErow oMx mr bEVAM4- b>]O IwW ml MCDONALUS USA LLC. lNParzDellffr! iLPIkY]0.MSYT! Rpm WIP mme�.mnm •ffrrw rUR RHkI¢tiLF �O 9iN1 MT e1P]IC L ® V02 Y l R,K OLoavPLAn vwlr @I •IEMY l�/��W/�y/�!�✓\� kELEO Avtf. trro CSLLI Lp3k,IWk NJ tiCYY MAYK AN OA 6LNYiA, R ]OR IIP NMPUY.E. LIMtt rO1,IN MYPANakVf]b)1 Kill MOTH CC"kC ,WCi eAai A M f w Im f CLMV i p w M, Lt%WMO Af gLmt an�Insim.v`I.s�p}°ikP�"Lmva w`�`A s�iMc aii pm s �Ivulu w zcam Ya, . mrPrs p %DP REp ,NrCt xw,x n a!v ae recrlu n ss<PDa Em . mIAXx p ]an HEr. ,Im Nw,x % okm3s N Hama a zcwkn Ynr MeuuL vnx rr L>E cPElek re w a AO LPi f A m]uvY o- Pe.m wkr ,e rr Ls eenw ]a Ler] i AID s. rlaaCY WPIN >, RGRLa ]] IM)li] 91 fG'lM kA]r IIpC Y➢Llt LPPW i0 Le1a I MD f A GINNC( P- P10 k&] f0 rK COLiY CPrM1 f0 LRS L P ]M 2 iMKt MYCI m RC6U. Al IW,ES SI %CQN YL, NPE NE VF Lpa,M ,O WP NP P A ©,YR R 6.e W,: ,IC14 SLIX %Lf Yf! N ICNM A IbYHlfkLf 11 TF%VINEr ATT9lY LM CA65rPCRAI:TEKi a%VM RtlEkf aS MLItl aP %CPVS YHiµ ]PP rNIMb]KLr R.,A mrAW2 p 6l r] Mli: I,E,Lt SpIrX A RGtlES 11 al ]Wlk, SLPOS YHi N[11C SID SMIEA )L•.r Pe A m,uCk p ,»: Naxr p wLMaC, Aw lOi 2 MA L ]UrtKK40 W I- ..k L1tt Q IVIIICittOi V¢Y.M fdM]\ MLaPrA SCSEm SLAttM W.IE. OWe K X Igil6LL0. N 4NK N %MEAS, G(BaII 6 ]RaC r Al Ps e@x IS)wE aNm ora Nlws*An Io�wA. a. A, �(�� IV>HRUwr M4 Pbk Sr6i CRrtNFAT p 6EVA,{N - 9RT (wLq ml ,W Ml! p a0 Irv[Rylr VKAttN LLYARC w SNL Wi YA' 4 TE tMYNG's ,C M Sn w ,.e IExPI ]m p wErow oMx mr bEVAM4- b>]O IwW ml MCDONALUS USA LLC. lNParzDellffr! iLPIkY]0.MSYT! Rpm WIP mme�.mnm •ffrrw �iIN @] _ GVl11RFY@a.. LY., F.L8111166TIYltll116 L1S CBIAl11LM @I •IEMY Cl1 •PA�le.wtlW,]XMGtENMMI CONIRI dl N]LL11F3 e., PvaamDwc,vlmMa Cll CIYl L649MWIRM W]ACE P) tlNCO161WCIpNEfl4b gt] MlSHm0161KK.Y ,j, VIiYY'.VE NOT FOR CONMUMON e gg�5i� :�tawaP E,m�3 prnvuP '. Sm vuwr amrr I= E g E BBGE Vf3kIM1 NOT FOR CONMUMON e L A M D F O R M Fw Lle•Miq • E N 1m Y11mF ME SL}PSP�Ip •rwa ra E1xmx+on wloaECESNkwl Sabt wN IErEtIwnM gg�5i� :�tawaP E,m�3 prnvuP '. Sm vuwr amrr rvruALP. IN zza E g E BBGE Vf3kIM1 LPnuM] rEi ]anl)rn Mt fAM .' H•LemtfalualNeuar. y - �E� ank A $ eMEApI.C, SSWI ]tlfrolLRMf516) M Rl %tliPR"fRl i %1n!]RN 14A[ Z L A M D F O R M Fw Lle•Miq • E N 1m Y11mF ME SL}PSP�Ip •rwa ra E1xmx+on wloaECESNkwl Sabt wN IErEtIwnM A WO mi 19 4-p SrB 60.4il L-345. 6 - 41 1 - n 14 NOT FOR CONSMUCTION Sit 4e O g JIM S, 4� L 1, N D F 0 R M NORTH Knave Wtxft Below.F- �M� CIA Coll b0m ym dig. 0 30 60 - ._ d• -: R-1532.88 g [;; N�g9ya _ ;�-�." _� _ L 918 36 _ - - �.-�• ' -mr-r �. ' I ..� Tu4F RY uryrtl twye�l qX, Aa 14 !O -w IV YAw YH XRIffO.M000W 'Yb,.' .a•bl p2VR0 R@t EA)i )NM1�RNf2ONf2 M1C9RWOSML(VDm/m+l �reAa•M v II 1 0 o, ?ln Or B�IF Np. 6fpOIlMO ei N[[Km n9r£ Wl 1q�pt4O, M )S]N> P.IR n4 vKIKN),ILC F 4 - Know wldY Below. Cd91 11 youdig. t OJiw rEPlm) rm RAM1IttAI q[.RE. x0 LW 054 RR f0 @mML. ] CM)CT Nlll'f S0.vILE XRPRC] r412 HYG 1CGiW 6 YQLYt9 R MAC) fa]e rL Raeee Rminw .•o Lull@Ic. Delver a k.m..]lX mea lw+wwe.w aal EEef@v R @eaARo IRIe@ua venae +re6)R n,Rm: ce oero)e.. E6)TC nmc.a cwuw come] rmno, w.wArcw, m wr Amc]•.+Ea Laerewxw N m urRery perR4]6 sew. rm roma A@ Iwaam.R- Cm6aNR wX @. coemLrnal lL Nau@ wXeserrz @mvu > em+ee rwrtee. f�WER i0 Ri4) M MWfM Y,YLN Y110.! CPGiIE YNR) m0 Cti@G O M @MHi 6mIV) YME @iR0 CObMICTm LT). G % ]IC'f LSI f@ LMOMAI IRNMMI Y0» LMR1 RA]iLl fW! lyi M N V.IR ICm 10 p9RgrWS fO TE. 1. � SR MgIMI MX IMW. WeVIgE OE RNiC. LOpRMIE LMF @ElMimt IVIWtlII NO vlOrR RWYCE 10E(C/.im f0 YEECTM FRQSKi @YPR V4mAY]. �RR rEmGµp} IL ), yb, iNwIL LOMM, um OIMII R.AO) IlLbNRI fm W01FCttN YO LMTL R of RITC AW IWIIMI fWPKM/I CLb1641XM ONV.1. YV1L )E PtXWO i0 fQNl m MiP¢ LWAIW Al W /OATLW.I COS. p. gePT i@d Mllp KYpe lWl )I0e11II@ fN61 :K TE LRYRUIE ^� OMf fO IVEI 1@l! i0 6 Y.tO m 1NN6lIM)p MP 10 0.M@G. Vim_•- E®IK 91F NARPF) KWK. M NT VERS M U@P@YIO N)RU, MMIC Cl@ML MRV.6, r4R'aLG @IIMG VNI ). 19P1N VNLI. Y)p6. Ipl@e, @LAitO Fp}4y16 9YR yA 1.VG1 u0 tYO%r@'e fnra' [11BiBICIp 4T) 4E!]] MiIO Oir)YICE. ©CDSMR @ftVN. @40.'.1YM 1MIlNlI(M MO R -IPF R FRM M/.lE ylilR EEQyRU 4p WlP1WYIR9 VIfN M V(4EY CSM!) @)iIH E1X1K IOlPOH. PYL'LL9 VPhPolALA PMM) M'R61 {6fIYR] T CCb1RIMlYM N )fLLWMLt MN VERY MC 6YmFHA U `AENG rpl[ uD LPWI] IM. @ .C..OPfD N.A.CF) M4P-0 wX ])M MD NR N Lm.rol R rrmoan ..Re m M carE<) vIR wv-mm w•m) �)Rv.'*ae. lelrwR Eml)e xeren Ar 1M a.)vL. v N msanwr.E NANRK) )fMOAB3 M MMa mI+RRlal Rem ora -ale io . r.cvE..rvvaw r. atuumr MmNme� rm ,le wEe6ea R+wRI Rees uan] MmR m@a.a. e�carawp� rao@ar• R.]IE6 @crwNc R16nm R rrartea ^V'V VMtl A. WSRRM1 YE. /\ lHfi 6KNK Da„� gs =0I �� OIMR IeWWH CM}+ttM 4- . I� A L 1'i. Aad ��/ 6 �•r/,. f .. U e]e �V Np. 6fpOIlMO ei N[[Km n9r£ Wl 1q�pt4O, M )S]N> P.IR n4 vKIKN),ILC F 4 - Know wldY Below. Cd91 11 youdig. t OJiw rEPlm) rm RAM1IttAI q[.RE. x0 LW 054 RR f0 @mML. ] CM)CT Nlll'f S0.vILE XRPRC] r412 HYG 1CGiW 6 YQLYt9 R MAC) fa]e rL Raeee Rminw .•o Lull@Ic. Delver a k.m..]lX mea lw+wwe.w aal EEef@v R @eaARo IRIe@ua venae +re6)R n,Rm: ce oero)e.. E6)TC nmc.a cwuw come] rmno, w.wArcw, m wr Amc]•.+Ea Laerewxw N m urRery perR4]6 sew. rm roma A@ Iwaam.R- Cm6aNR wX @. coemLrnal lL Nau@ wXeserrz @mvu > em+ee rwrtee. f�WER i0 Ri4) M MWfM Y,YLN Y110.! CPGiIE YNR) m0 Cti@G O M @MHi 6mIV) YME @iR0 CObMICTm LT). G % ]IC'f LSI f@ LMOMAI IRNMMI Y0» LMR1 RA]iLl fW! lyi M N V.IR ICm 10 p9RgrWS fO TE. 1. � SR MgIMI MX IMW. WeVIgE OE RNiC. LOpRMIE LMF @ElMimt IVIWtlII NO vlOrR RWYCE 10E(C/.im f0 YEECTM FRQSKi @YPR V4mAY]. �RR rEmGµp} IL ), yb, iNwIL LOMM, um OIMII R.AO) IlLbNRI fm W01FCttN YO LMTL R of RITC AW IWIIMI fWPKM/I CLb1641XM ONV.1. YV1L )E PtXWO i0 fQNl m MiP¢ LWAIW Al W /OATLW.I COS. p. gePT i@d Mllp KYpe lWl )I0e11II@ fN61 :K TE LRYRUIE ^� OMf fO IVEI 1@l! i0 6 Y.tO m 1NN6lIM)p MP 10 0.M@G. Vim_•- E®IK 91F NARPF) KWK. M NT VERS M U@P@YIO N)RU, MMIC Cl@ML MRV.6, r4R'aLG @IIMG VNI ). 19P1N VNLI. Y)p6. Ipl@e, @LAitO Fp}4y16 9YR yA 1.VG1 u0 tYO%r@'e fnra' [11BiBICIp 4T) 4E!]] MiIO Oir)YICE. ©CDSMR @ftVN. @40.'.1YM 1MIlNlI(M MO R -IPF R FRM M/.lE ylilR EEQyRU 4p WlP1WYIR9 VIfN M V(4EY CSM!) @)iIH E1X1K IOlPOH. PYL'LL9 VPhPolALA PMM) M'R61 {6fIYR] T CCb1RIMlYM N )fLLWMLt MN VERY MC 6YmFHA U `AENG rpl[ uD LPWI] IM. @ .C..OPfD N.A.CF) M4P-0 wX ])M MD NR N Lm.rol R rrmoan ..Re m M carE<) vIR wv-mm w•m) �)Rv.'*ae. lelrwR Eml)e xeren Ar 1M a.)vL. v N msanwr.E NANRK) )fMOAB3 M MMa mI+RRlal Rem ora -ale io . r.cvE..rvvaw r. atuumr MmNme� rm ,le wEe6ea R+wRI Rees uan] MmR m@a.a. e�carawp� rao@ar• R.]IE6 @crwNc R16nm R rrartea ^V'V VMtl A. WSRRM1 YE. /\ lHfi 6KNK 4- A d O 0 U ►] x 0 . m LA N DF O R M y NORTH tMllaRmEEwx r e IasRmm�Mwrve rr. eEatmmro C1.2 OI I� 3060 sr n] ru' alaa]aan MY/+@dle rel sslm vMe bMmlm nm ntxxa clm I OI fOiMC It2gWD, IM1W YM o,T�6WpA,rW L•6LMA.. l�A., ,.�¢L .�, � „¢¢•�, MA�, crux Qi rauerawan vw asau cwnau*p ro La'an • IeruL x sur vnnv cavort Aanp+n. Qi wAxe r eWcwe a1w.A ,aa ono Ll y¢ Iw >pfr n.f Qa realP nnaxvs, !p uolrenu:u. ©cu MiN LN'].ipt OptiRp lB5 .. Qwmp c v m euln. v""_ r¢ uarfcnau PL.M, vn W+W, O9 p+µ W16 LP ,10•!. 66HP i0 Y{ti f]l ,p p!W ~ �xwo r0 Mal A➢A ILLV.SE HQI[IaMx OIIOI{4 6' PAID N4 ,GLLI85 RN R+)1 GI.)/). Q. v aPe eros. fL+,i!) QN 0.IMML 116.r S£ ,NEt L],r TA•.flL P.1v Qp TI.rt µ9 /M .L.*PTO aWlPp aLpbpe' 1 .. ! tl Vf M1 Ij a/.r/I. OT/.R uv wr. lsnvwa upa,au aw ..n m ueus rtP pro n)n OPMrt Ia+1NW - IUIIN RLLGw OPJalltp ppN7 - Iryn,4 i,l! pv Q�p °m umun'nwv.Ei °vo xe �n:r pvLP. P« sPLcvc6ma ,L. ®p�"`p�Pvim uo �r n � �Q io ao,ea.+Lu asp+.ce a�a• v¢6 vunfa ar®6 - miAu ®ps¢-,� AA..p-zs ]waWvs waft+ �L.r.aa roa p, W. ®r.W6sn vuur arrtu v.r/e. ®ae wrr Arve¢ sa ®•axrox ••r,a.,rcx - coouaarE .++r. I.mwu�! .rn ®rn caaan Pw va: mu. aLwucLE A,+[a c aan-rw o ixw is E LR Mh wnu MWw➢� fM,rPUCIM MWLG[¢ 4. Kn wws Below. Call beWaym aq. r. Wrw uL w=aisle+ vfiems vp cArsree+vA rnW6 a � W. nnlc ] ra Pmµ .p..K'+r [W p p,.rM fe0n M WG1aM. ,rW.. p rIXv MR x/[LC Wb,P1NS9 p,WH M taI.YK9 ND M M111 il6 AWL p 0[Pp1N i0 TE W9MII. ,+k MAIL FWLF6f11. I.9 }OM W tN8 IRa ,P xuerrt WTµ ,lt AWL tl CaV WO i0 +Ia a+PIC+KK p�NCx ]. Wt+NH 4VIN W3 w ,ALF 6 LtRa NO ft,tPCR ,Mi W AeA1E Yaf99 NJ,M OaRVIX. AMIP.Y:rp M, iA 1'g041A, eRRPM ]1LeYa.! 10' PAGEM IVP.WL9 - AMKT v6vLrom TEK4 cay.w eoraw . v� Lu w eoo-zw�al,] .r.n� meI s].rs nxoxclA ]P.Eu roAaD MODc: afµOIID TIJla l4r]O] )6 f/. TMON9 xµ4 W,e) :M. uaaafi Tu4 M.•) fA an/�.uu sou fA.6s) ifs rpx vlPlre sou ,acvpP n p. MAfw Me6w! ceP u. ¢.ax mauve nw u. n]m nWefo rta6tae z6e• aP. nxx rMavM N.Ar !r. xn L A N; F O R M x6msMmmw • • ,mep•s•• x naaasamo s,I.eM P•L eueman t- , All t� a GPYRVrt YKltr Mi T•Y / / 4B. K1 wlrsa BOW. COO beWe yW dig. i Loxrrn wam zarn veavkes wa wo ucYa R :vv�s n wxa vaPx ra eeuYP: naw¢. ] � k10 1�RY�� w wvwrc .4oum er K wrm Y/Vis as a rau �.rP•u xn LeLvmY.srwncaranee. a mkaw 1� wm nwc RVPa ..o naYaP arve•eY awmn vn 'N°`neae Ym�iue an.c weiieatYOfLRm � � av1°avemwu M° a. e+IiE MAW.ttx NIaSY RYefYX`lP %ia .4 iUm. �NEIY 4Ri9 W are al¢CN4 ]4[RC.rtlM iPt Fk¢rwwa Ma@ItNke ka YLRc rw, L. vx xawprn lnkxc vPn>au veer ne wmlu w nLlakL rao x �aa�� a. as La�nax xv cw+.c+m wo wow nwfs aYa*] anvrMOav m•k�`Rnr`w*a �r aec�cwws+wroRn rkkaa www u1 e. fdxPLr nnrzwL x vswv Yatl +o n4a a x/wan oar a.err, nawaw IRyfER (A!T e{V) YwT M im a rEfl YNw Y4l 6 CwRK'R9 10 ILVi. CQPIGI 10 Q w+a4kY maQF FLL wRN kACLLN tl Mi. ]qf mtvAYYN .t NRW' kYC.it hT1IFf uatY mXkO Oir[¢'AF. Rk Sfti G.I KP WI dlV1rM 6 [PIw BM' 6. ]. Rkr aq r•.rw Paan m wnok a � re..axex. �velatl acmY tre eR urRaaee) PnaaPa• aLwtl acxr wrr) cw� a .._. aLmsen ars (Roca au4.Lws 41 [wvl.Lim xsaVL Ok. M1afnL YYam 6.1Yr MY) LILT GpY F.Y JILx M% C+M 1rdw1[ u7< lrkWi J2. (1µf a) w✓.Y71Ofm c Cwi%iL YWYAt] +p� cwmNf YNi k�a�eLPre u¢ pwvi aP0. IXhn a1 arn6 assn 6 Gro'R W�r� MP ParKYY x164 lyL1i ,MMGR ML 6W1 ]ae. [L]9 4) MP.kC'Im eelt Glf r. m' n[aa+aCiw akM'[ CMiaS YM�1� �aPrMr vw Gvr Y[ MOMMLY afMQm Mm [FOfk 6 Ri aR. r IRRt�kFMCIYr R'6wYbalar a Wr�®m aREI.] LLIELUE WP.1tlB r0 1 M4fEN1 HVG1Kp amr11 Il! xE IMV1 YF0.RErLM, aM Mx+NI MAIi'OYl LLMMa N YLkR RMPIS r0 FaE4M fNM! Ib L0XY6 YLRErn LIMEe el RM ce V11fi YLSYQLL LOtIR(0 TfN IPFA] mfN IF14MM¢r ZYI B Ym X1NE ]1 MM6 V LwRkRG LRbIL x tlLN ISA ,Y�, MLd NO kE¢iaR¢ SNVL Rif rhe aWP/r4 nEGTY L+ICR. r9 Yp IYLVf YR akm RWr TR . Mmuw. •w 1L rvw • m kens mtw lim i t•L rrioK[nl nwi fw% raLm 6 4Et 1MmxIRC vk[t] a4¢ RawExr iuV EnIA6M£NI. 1 XpM4 /yyRY. '.rH'EL9 LIFAV 6b Y Mp 4WD G1F�.' KblY . — meraYL+w uns 6m« wasan Ya w>vv +mm oiwaYeP. s� cweaa wek 00 ur wG rex were ark � Rn 2 x 9 S 2 0 L A N D F O R M �o NORTH rran skkmnxn e g msee•i rxn Awxa rK as C3.1 Bilaeli ll Fac eibLI1AP 0 30 60 MpmsPKYN 64w Wa6. wM M Z.. 1 6 1 6m •UdY Bwow. 1 Ne �„NaM, YMKWN W IL NS T] SMIIIIY XYN P!G fPMl2 b WfAf IYAP XINCY NY fCtl]E W 4fAP xvlP WC ,MNf b Yw LIAE , [M.LI M+li fMCt RTdtl WP (!lD ICCAIpI P XMPS r] rv,C 4Y4C 10 SONG. S CPPIamw6 XPKV 1° 1•d�i`0 IR0.(.E C1EL110C. IMTR4 CAS 40 Ofl•C V y fN1A+W1. 9 10 HbifR MLfYN! pewmiY M1P°II CYMO ,. � m ww pa�Ywra Pem cu ce w e+nens ro come w emcfua 6. /PIEI S+WIGIWES +0 MMt WMR Me@ 1G+10D. [PPV Y1M PipR&p�) P Vllni. RFl efa®nvn M1R re.f1C 1°MYC N PIdRp N3AS. i. rB1ALL MKFR KE YRw vlfnk, MM rrt PRC Pnl4-YI.I d f.]N(MS. e. ertci'iv ai w i�mmm1OYrmewxeefe�� AL w.ta•.sna M1W morn rnr P mNCH1a Pd Ys] rw rbNciaN. _ wssHfrw Cam dYufa. p ouuci vine ro �MrtAN •+cP nevi owsf xpuArax A] xvfe cemxn. cvnce pvs wow +a PPwse Wu+en XPieAixY xLN:d wxn. R CLMILr Qf! 6 IKMgt1° NAC YCB] 6pieRW1 iLR HY41K NO B9AY8 LF]i MY'fCMO. o. Paan 1� wn w.n eaunY] d ].muY xrm u,s rwN a Me+ ww. °seam r� m1�W �e xbo°sri R *o mosYMyaWrAY+ui'. J°i n mNen La vannavf Y1m IVA]wm� ro era � we m mxf ro sari © sumx Bene r° x v x],cAA W Nrc M me iAe, ae° r• eauv CYYh. Sfn£, 1° rt l°L.xO Al }NY d NYl H16O X,EM1e, , YYM 14 [°R w PAteRM, l<LIAY..f MP mCAM1 mIIGKfaP� Lrt ItlWY fYCAY M1tlO. ./MONEe uB re1Y .A I9aR° MO SaiWlm m ".Y, •giber. nR +nMwaxm p.o PfJOi a Mwca m Lee wfm Mo cwe+wcrw • m LK cdPAmab cdirsr wail rd Pu offu, ne xcwwx. euciac ..° movn Yw1 x rorwcv ar Lx Aen•cu dieurW. �T{ �• IYMk�I b°�WCiGOWM� i� Nt P.W�Mc w+A'wwMa im eYc <onw rW mio >'a] ]e ewtl•cr]. an N., wP .oma.+. era•Nra ® ab'ce Paert euen � N»eb ]]a eerw cR Xevca r.,a fvm Lu rueau fo ve rerzb MD rye JeJca w Xevcs fam rx emW Xiva x IO1Ayep by 1X R41WLN GWISKiW. ® LW AW6 � 1W P�RrV��NI W1K tIX.LOe w XAVCE p caafwum nuNax Yin+axee+ nP.Ymua ro nan reuPae Xevm Y/, pedal [eP.rtl EW c.aE r[ILYIe'M NO errt! fuLtYwIC ePMiC.ra ©asu m pJ„•1 w:s Pae ftlf0'e esrse NmnerW xru, rc a °ooxxi rwi NWr u�i° Lo�,r iOau�+Ps�?wcww�cs .nwic K1eU M1eOI PetlDC iIY M! CPRV YnM Ms WC4 MO m.if CPf. S. JM1. of ,nirs uo cwnaw N Lra nom xw ,oim Xuu m cA,ren w vvnrfR°ara'c'nP cwf•Mnw�e n NMe.a�ir�eme+w oi°�rtai,°m�wiws. a. w Poema w m mom xYu mJn wow Ym« w rai w LXE MN Ar ^ p'Kb W M+ w +Hw N ACCC4W14t MX MRS°�� L A N D F . O R M Jwe JT.m • 10JBWTHMAwne re el199tl10 6VM 61J Fu eIFffiF111 rawxu.. eP: swm nee •�gMnM 0 9 p t �I L � % uv[ 6 1 6m •UdY Bwow. 1 Ne �„NaM, YMKWN W IL NS T] SMIIIIY XYN P!G fPMl2 b WfAf IYAP XINCY NY fCtl]E W 4fAP xvlP WC ,MNf b Yw LIAE , [M.LI M+li fMCt RTdtl WP (!lD ICCAIpI P XMPS r] rv,C 4Y4C 10 SONG. S CPPIamw6 XPKV 1° 1•d�i`0 IR0.(.E C1EL110C. IMTR4 CAS 40 Ofl•C V y fN1A+W1. 9 10 HbifR MLfYN! pewmiY M1P°II CYMO ,. � m ww pa�Ywra Pem cu ce w e+nens ro come w emcfua 6. /PIEI S+WIGIWES +0 MMt WMR Me@ 1G+10D. [PPV Y1M PipR&p�) P Vllni. RFl efa®nvn M1R re.f1C 1°MYC N PIdRp N3AS. i. rB1ALL MKFR KE YRw vlfnk, MM rrt PRC Pnl4-YI.I d f.]N(MS. e. ertci'iv ai w i�mmm1OYrmewxeefe�� AL w.ta•.sna M1W morn rnr P mNCH1a Pd Ys] rw rbNciaN. _ wssHfrw Cam dYufa. p ouuci vine ro �MrtAN •+cP nevi owsf xpuArax A] xvfe cemxn. cvnce pvs wow +a PPwse Wu+en XPieAixY xLN:d wxn. R CLMILr Qf! 6 IKMgt1° NAC YCB] 6pieRW1 iLR HY41K NO B9AY8 LF]i MY'fCMO. o. Paan 1� wn w.n eaunY] d ].muY xrm u,s rwN a Me+ ww. °seam r� m1�W �e xbo°sri R *o mosYMyaWrAY+ui'. J°i n mNen La vannavf Y1m IVA]wm� ro era � we m mxf ro sari © sumx Bene r° x v x],cAA W Nrc M me iAe, ae° r• eauv CYYh. Sfn£, 1° rt l°L.xO Al }NY d NYl H16O X,EM1e, , YYM 14 [°R w PAteRM, l<LIAY..f MP mCAM1 mIIGKfaP� Lrt ItlWY fYCAY M1tlO. ./MONEe uB re1Y .A I9aR° MO SaiWlm m ".Y, •giber. nR +nMwaxm p.o PfJOi a Mwca m Lee wfm Mo cwe+wcrw • m LK cdPAmab cdirsr wail rd Pu offu, ne xcwwx. euciac ..° movn Yw1 x rorwcv ar Lx Aen•cu dieurW. �T{ �• IYMk�I b°�WCiGOWM� i� Nt P.W�Mc w+A'wwMa im eYc <onw rW mio >'a] ]e ewtl•cr]. an N., wP .oma.+. era•Nra ® ab'ce Paert euen � N»eb ]]a eerw cR Xevca r.,a fvm Lu rueau fo ve rerzb MD rye JeJca w Xevcs fam rx emW Xiva x IO1Ayep by 1X R41WLN GWISKiW. ® LW AW6 � 1W P�RrV��NI W1K tIX.LOe w XAVCE p caafwum nuNax Yin+axee+ nP.Ymua ro nan reuPae Xevm Y/, pedal [eP.rtl EW c.aE r[ILYIe'M NO errt! fuLtYwIC ePMiC.ra ©asu m pJ„•1 w:s Pae ftlf0'e esrse NmnerW xru, rc a °ooxxi rwi NWr u�i° Lo�,r iOau�+Ps�?wcww�cs .nwic K1eU M1eOI PetlDC iIY M! CPRV YnM Ms WC4 MO m.if CPf. S. JM1. of ,nirs uo cwnaw N Lra nom xw ,oim Xuu m cA,ren w vvnrfR°ara'c'nP cwf•Mnw�e n NMe.a�ir�eme+w oi°�rtai,°m�wiws. a. w Poema w m mom xYu mJn wow Ym« w rai w LXE MN Ar ^ p'Kb W M+ w +Hw N ACCC4W14t MX MRS°�� L A N D F . O R M Jwe JT.m • 10JBWTHMAwne re el199tl10 6VM 61J Fu eIFffiF111 rawxu.. eP: swm nee •�gMnM 0 9 p t �I PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP NO e u" ® CONCRETE RIBBON CURB Np80VE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER NoaruE ie`mi . n ram .carc.f cuae swu R HOYfD L— -1 BEc M -A-A' nw CONCRETE DRIVE APRON NoscAu uu" roman fE6u pe' aro. ]/e rmcn xErt Ve' au. �yv 1. E JO N910N CCNTFtAOTICN JOBiT DOME cdfe.crw .qn_ AVM Tw�frniw ry[ WIN W19! ], iM! M.W.fYf f0 0® hW1 wr(N O.® YM A.GNC. M.:ATf l"Ir: lwlaYlEV.ee� avr u vxu z .v w aura wmn CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND SIDEWALK JOINTING EH)$IAIE E.aa� PLAN L LWB IfY]n t a ELEVAT ON CURB OUTLET N06V1E srw r-ron .n FN F Ii1V.1 �I �I 1 !/6'- ] ]/0' 6/1 • lrfa.� 1 000 a6 , i 00000000 lox.m N w ate 0000000 00000000 o 00 0 ]/F'- LR 6Y limJ �` fYR9 f]Qfx BKRIEI DOME SPAO Dom 5ECTION avov �ylq�/ PFY.SIq.W Nq ROUP � lOsi PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP NO e u" ® CONCRETE RIBBON CURB Np80VE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER NoaruE ie`mi . n ram .carc.f cuae swu R HOYfD L— -1 BEc M -A-A' nw CONCRETE DRIVE APRON NoscAu uu" roman fE6u pe' aro. ]/e rmcn xErt Ve' au. �yv 1. E JO N910N CCNTFtAOTICN JOBiT DOME cdfe.crw .qn_ AVM Tw�frniw ry[ WIN W19! ], iM! M.W.fYf f0 0® hW1 wr(N O.® YM A.GNC. M.:ATf l"Ir: lwlaYlEV.ee� avr u vxu z .v w aura wmn CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND SIDEWALK JOINTING EH)$IAIE E.aa� PLAN L LWB IfY]n t a ELEVAT ON CURB OUTLET N06V1E srw r-ron .n FN F Ii1V.1 1 !/6'- ] ]/0' 6/1 • lrfa.� µ !i/bpp iFplatfu.. 000 F M EnmEP ce 00000000 lox.m 0000000 00000000 o 00 0 ]/F'- LR 6Y limJ �` fYR9 f]Qfx BKRIEI DOME SPAO Dom 5ECTION avov r PXE ua wmEwL viwaca ttase.fm PaEsl r w.o r� e.n a ays. v.avc vwsn na nsara m.e:n] .n .zaa .v. uE' +imw�e.Em"! suu x cur aLv A DETECTABLE WARNINGS ADA 4.7.7_ rioacv€ A THICKENED BITUMINOUS EDGE AND CONCRETE SURFACE "oma fIDu, 4M N9. VNtM S"CONCRETECURB AND GUTTER Nos 3" HIGH CURB CURB AT DRIVE•THRU N09CAIE I;'I I 1=1 I ^-vewfa ]rsn wre br4L w LM0.4 .i LG6rMR fISa.RN .lff. LLL FE�rr..oa amfEUE rYPf rfwv a .rt.wv.P SLT FENCE rm erHN SO scan 4FmfFM IXY NLI VEHICLE TRACM PAD wa rune rFlrs rnNm %Eae.rEw ]!Eu xavn ca." Ntr IRTECIW - NM N{ bKi' - asxo as¢ ¢eon v_zso-. w a-YMa-� 4+wr earl celt� c.m¢ Nkl90FE - T1' OE009 CAlECiION ceNLf .E.env.%e ruono �! .nvsaro s. e;�.r¢ unwmes INLET PROTECTION N0a seortx� eu+rtP l+w+ .r E.ca .came ]ru.. anea " 19W[RILMM V.YOJf IWIL C[N [0� la ie 6a PIQI %. .R(.PV I�. ..Ev.i NL..xl ue vmx xwa % sxsruv ye a ars.0 .Eevr INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OFACCESSIBILTTY NoscuE ►� III cpr iL a n •� ru2kP kARM T � nms SEcno.o kW ePlp MSF O GATE VALVE AND BOX INSTALLATION nowue fournnm )f A1Y VY'llwiLC1Wffi 1—� eLfYfV6a 23 NO b.r jAl S4FRCI.rpa 4OlW kbreiC 0.P9 IIA MR WGLVH� PPOIOE 6VN Ai Yi IMNL @NF xE2/WIL6k3 � as m ark * rw •sex f P OmT SOY w VALVE BOII O4W W cpr iL a n •� ru2kP kARM T � nms SEcno.o kW ePlp MSF O GATE VALVE AND BOX INSTALLATION nowue fournnm )f A1Y VY'llwiLC1Wffi 1—� eLfYfV6a 23 NO b.r jAl S4FRCI.rpa 4OlW kbreiC 0.P9 IIA MR WGLVH� PPOIOE 6VN Ai Yi IMNL @NF xE2/WIL6k3 � as m ark 40NL MIWL) t r2H Ir N.Y PE M eLLt s,• Y P.4a xo-x5 OmT SOY w Na5�R4x IiSrExl 4 YiM � S). %.NYEO ".H r—i R 5000 fxrfMaC nowve Y7k4:: r/� cpr iL a n •� ru2kP kARM T � nms SEcno.o kW ePlp MSF O GATE VALVE AND BOX INSTALLATION nowue fournnm )f A1Y VY'llwiLC1Wffi 1—� eLfYfV6a 23 NO b.r jAl S4FRCI.rpa 4OlW kbreiC 0.P9 IIA MR WGLVH� PPOIOE 6VN Ai Yi IMNL @NF xE2/WIL6k3 � as m ark 40NL MIWL) t r2H Ir N.Y PE M eLLt s,• Y P.4a xo-x5 Na5�R4x IiSrExl 4 YiM Cenrto woe 21 . L� 4 a nowve >m FLARED END SECTION O WITH RIP RAP WWALE RfA� ,a rB LASMC I2! Er..ry Aw . v PJIfR 4 RMG9 �R L GP591F �PW1fE0 W xca SRM SEWER CATCH BASIN MANHOLE MO wVE 2tllYr .. n LQAVLAQ fOECLiW dLRCMtk41 tt ss c BE04lS M wt a efnpa u LRIK R9 NMyf MlYV1 @ W y LOOT v MMIFM1 w (O k �f Y( kG1LL rO Oa-9tt M P W.R2R 4 M LR. M pW)N 6 M pµrYG MRfO't OhOY M ryk 8 A IMV16 Y ktR TT yp YWIIY AF. 6' iLY Y� RA'ElE¢�L �11fR MO fp MERFPA2535 MD uanl M1f0LL e r AcrzP M(IR Seu. h � MP Wielue . a14.LL amR LeofE en aka s RNc t 2ss afE) cYA45 B eff%JNc M wR 6 RLRa u GRVILYfa 4Axxw M2w. nxfo w ra .New EOLt iE M-wly M MSE aVi)K 4 M R4. ^2� 4 irk LRIxE/2 YSNC 2LCN M Rt 8 4 S Faf 'T kWIM yy SMyER �, 6' KY N' RYf2¢ Mp LM4k Wk. ArV V f!N Mf06W2 33y M MYl W M1N1LL Y)LL 2 R.4LY CaOL[lfa IyYLLY rp 10 . rEY! 4 Q' 0148 rN i44M{R. PPE BEDDBIG nowve 6�L 4rK5 gR x. MMMR. 2 LWryRC RkG9. � ma4aa GRf+.en xLf w w sae,La af• - ca w. VRKL91 [aY@Ik rNVUE SkCIUe IWE1lF SIp9 rE1R4r RPxJ (R f Wk . 141MA. S2ff API40V10 wPpae55�.� deorN f aT M M[Ri ' x kYNtlF ,0 w2 'T .. Ok R.eMN CABLES STORMSEWERCATCHBASINMANHOLE no was wr MxS�lo krar wRc�Yff s1uE wn .w xo wim au ROUND BOLLARD WI ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE mows I4� Mhk GGM K'r Ab.k<GP9W. K. w1�) fVi M Lfrl ra e€ erewfa x cPea2-� � � Noe yLUL 2 Eauaa Lowe 4Pw 40NL MIWL) t r2H Ir N.Y PE M eLLt ap 1' CMCRif kNA 0 Mid IW1 p(µE �T grkRS) Na5�R4x IiSrExl 4 YiM �kIN-PIA O CLEA"UTSTRUCTURE nowve LQAVLAQ fOECLiW dLRCMtk41 tt ss c BE04lS M wt a efnpa u LRIK R9 NMyf MlYV1 @ W y LOOT v MMIFM1 w (O k �f Y( kG1LL rO Oa-9tt M P W.R2R 4 M LR. M pW)N 6 M pµrYG MRfO't OhOY M ryk 8 A IMV16 Y ktR TT yp YWIIY AF. 6' iLY Y� RA'ElE¢�L �11fR MO fp MERFPA2535 MD uanl M1f0LL e r AcrzP M(IR Seu. h � MP Wielue . a14.LL amR LeofE en aka s RNc t 2ss afE) cYA45 B eff%JNc M wR 6 RLRa u GRVILYfa 4Axxw M2w. nxfo w ra .New EOLt iE M-wly M MSE aVi)K 4 M R4. ^2� 4 irk LRIxE/2 YSNC 2LCN M Rt 8 4 S Faf 'T kWIM yy SMyER �, 6' KY N' RYf2¢ Mp LM4k Wk. ArV V f!N Mf06W2 33y M MYl W M1N1LL Y)LL 2 R.4LY CaOL[lfa IyYLLY rp 10 . rEY! 4 Q' 0148 rN i44M{R. PPE BEDDBIG nowve 6�L 4rK5 gR x. MMMR. 2 LWryRC RkG9. � ma4aa GRf+.en xLf w w sae,La af• - ca w. VRKL91 [aY@Ik rNVUE SkCIUe IWE1lF SIp9 rE1R4r RPxJ (R f Wk . 141MA. S2ff API40V10 wPpae55�.� deorN f aT M M[Ri ' x kYNtlF ,0 w2 'T .. Ok R.eMN CABLES STORMSEWERCATCHBASINMANHOLE no was wr MxS�lo krar wRc�Yff s1uE wn .w xo wim au ROUND BOLLARD WI ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE mows I4� Mhk GGM K'r Ab.k<GP9W. K. w1�) fVi M Lfrl 1 � ap 1' CMCRif kNA p S ROUND PIPE BOLLARD AND COVER NOEMi C7.z rwn rxl u«ana von SREUTILITYTRENCHING �Y�YT xo� r �.r —Ilw---IN — rorola muc I recrlca .e a Im nr w rroxrcr sRn MMI f Hli. 1AIT1G ]. RIQ Ll.@R LLf[ UCIf HL LLR Y4Rf .-� ASPHALT PAVEMENT TRANSITION xoscvF A CONCRETE CURB TRANSITION NOSCAE TYPICAL MEGALUG LOCATION _ xoweE �BUILDINGSTORMDRAINSYSTEM NM" t7 9 �S C7.3 11 UGxnxG SCtEJ_t � nuns tris nsa. •vxmrt mF¢ aw••r'. uXe.e ve rrre wwnrr MIN, fm1C•NAC Rflf rm fIWICL4b M � PCP24064 N.l pEA4 MINLf fKrKr FCR RRYII MS }[LY1LxKN NO KR4 WIEi. AS MIPL M r.M IOID RntW fXRp! BO NTC Ml ^Y Mr1L{S rO IE MtNVA RRO ..t ^ M if�e ui�+ rlluf OM3Ya fi6brv. re urns axrmx xYRevn� awwm uYxs can tm rea. �xwXar wt^. um mnnun rnoNm N xzwmxn YM LLVweK FwFec wurr ME �errvf .crux wmwcr s ..x wurcnas uvre N.r vxn ut ra M. M tllCrS.4 YS n3. •MXr[E x tuff. MO Nom• YxW! itlD [P•10C. 0. Kl whaft BelOW. Call e•ror• ra+ag. NOT FOR CONSMUMON Ei A N D F O R M Hum ANbfWE s r 1b MA xa kwnw T•'. HPZStJY10 6uh6ti is 0t}�.i011 �XXNtotlN. itl114Bt YrNI: N110A !rM EP2.1 MIN, fm1C•NAC Rflf rm fIWICL4b M � PCP24064 A N D F O R M Hum ANbfWE s r 1b MA xa kwnw T•'. HPZStJY10 6uh6ti is 0t}�.i011 �XXNtotlN. itl114Bt YrNI: N110A !rM EP2.1 g yah, �f k� a.L m rar •a••na Ca { .. AF12'54'38" S8955�84xE• q R-1532.88 _ .�.�.,aZ-*l/c1!11 All �a • ,�LfIYl Y -d 4 f ]f \ a'f';\ \ \ aNCJ ] r L LPRKi VMi xRYY.4 PYMQPf IB ItlD LMN. P xM.'f! R wlID wR 10 YCeNG 2 CIXPLw.rt bTN1AMN Mx CyN4+CY Rp(@NK WAnO wL0_ ] r..vn rviwM1� awi rns@n ra ce vPmcu uwwfal P Nv]evwul xNOA➢m rAP eP P mm. xat_ wx Pm�n bLM1x. tlf @P.W', lK WM1Vy, 91W1 M1C d, @ (gL@pM1NCT IpiV(gl M NIOtP P 0.NIA W 1� Y+PPY YD rIk N,6V AVMN @ ., 0.AMNC 36 }Wl CPmf OF I IPPi, iWxA. f0 IA¢i FLi NPSB. MN ] MI103 P CPRRML NYiNII'➢ KRO RP PK i,,®. ! �Ap S. 1@MN.LO 1MLl fD M1 IMNi RVfp P C IOtl IF@1 NPItW LW30. y reign 10 N=E IY M11 N-YM1NA. XO u mr�o n cwmmcmN 6 14K4 0.M3 KLLWSC iD IAVWf Mx RP£P N9lIN 9PKN:. N NCx V@O RtCx N !YM mV M1gb B. b(ILL A�iW1 PN6M fQFYe NPPYLW NA[ M1l[M LBx TAMP itl'[f Mi itWO MW A yQA @ NNxAt RANK' %D 9 N1 }qp Cfm eIMLL m IDGD WM i-fLX 4M1R VNiI (MTG (0.A0. WMP @ MaA'W PPW) p' ir. uP1ea r�i<Mlntci°�°LroDLeuu�Oirlox, PPicArz evler M1eoox.In'a wmsrf. NgArP1 cwrerer@ ro xe+r aw oe�a¢ Lo 0 z.i NORiN mom Kr whops Selw. vvvJ Call wtur•yMaq. 0 30 80 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION a.L m rar •a••na ••vv wrlmev � rwrt@ ePauwc m IAv] r ro• TNMrP! n . av i L A N D P O 0. M 9VMV N(R OK UlPL@ 0.-GLR WM . ,6V ` m, me •uv @NwWLe mLm'xa+: am PPN r my ] n, xve Nven@vn awlr +eM1ex•xoe xcae' mN. aW n u+r reM1rlce xiv @u, PL.IULamm . vuar, cua raw,ur m . n 9 VPI MKh FQMM [¢M•L94.m1F bHLI TL! WMX ,N . ,Y m .mc eue L]• ],PPLa Ae•P••.n•axrue w Pv ov. ry ,yw Vtl[iY ,A4A P'PAPAY mMYO3'NIIWMY WARRN' JN. TV L LPRKi VMi xRYY.4 PYMQPf IB ItlD LMN. P xM.'f! R wlID wR 10 YCeNG 2 CIXPLw.rt bTN1AMN Mx CyN4+CY Rp(@NK WAnO wL0_ ] r..vn rviwM1� awi rns@n ra ce vPmcu uwwfal P Nv]evwul xNOA➢m rAP eP P mm. xat_ wx Pm�n bLM1x. tlf @P.W', lK WM1Vy, 91W1 M1C d, @ (gL@pM1NCT IpiV(gl M NIOtP P 0.NIA W 1� Y+PPY YD rIk N,6V AVMN @ ., 0.AMNC 36 }Wl CPmf OF I IPPi, iWxA. f0 IA¢i FLi NPSB. MN ] MI103 P CPRRML NYiNII'➢ KRO RP PK i,,®. ! �Ap S. 1@MN.LO 1MLl fD M1 IMNi RVfp P C IOtl IF@1 NPItW LW30. y reign 10 N=E IY M11 N-YM1NA. XO u mr�o n cwmmcmN 6 14K4 0.M3 KLLWSC iD IAVWf Mx RP£P N9lIN 9PKN:. N NCx V@O RtCx N !YM mV M1gb B. b(ILL A�iW1 PN6M fQFYe NPPYLW NA[ M1l[M LBx TAMP itl'[f Mi itWO MW A yQA @ NNxAt RANK' %D 9 N1 }qp Cfm eIMLL m IDGD WM i-fLX 4M1R VNiI (MTG (0.A0. WMP @ MaA'W PPW) p' ir. uP1ea r�i<Mlntci°�°LroDLeuu�Oirlox, PPicArz evler M1eoox.In'a wmsrf. NgArP1 cwrerer@ ro xe+r aw oe�a¢ Lo 0 z.i NORiN mom Kr whops Selw. vvvJ Call wtur•yMaq. 0 30 80 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION • • < L A N D P O 0. M ` Rmn»meal • • L2.' rmaeunNmnmw. rm en.mz.mLo Gb N] %u' 61?2SEBOII NpPmLPr.epssLOL wem IeMA nml of iIPIE Ia' A Ti c.n EIEYEW 0 REAR ELEVATION (1) FRONT ELEVATION 4 = _p 1 4 = 1-0 %31 NON-DRIVE-TNRU ELEVATION O 3 16 = 1 -0 KEY NOTES ra �� rna�E n er �-rnax pl - RO BIE1d OR 6VW Bt YWY rM90r .6 [� NYWNY GU My SK,fV p MAmA uErK WPI _ P.r,T ,0 w1LM ,LNuuP YmNf 'm51cN 91SY ]mi -M tll miul OAV9 FWFA ro w swwvaw w� ❑[ [r1. mAMfiul rMSN SKIEu �ExrtE BY O4mT d1 FPW r, �•.Wi. ,ux cce .ui We B.m. s«[usE Ms w.m) W � ,W d M BOr (EOPu sPmPE M. rm le) - cv.vu u;r eml .W xaxcr NuuoEs �� C�i.0 scroxal ❑ro .:oE ez.uw - rrv,M, nuns s¢ rcTaa n/m.o IMU ) Wm CCLLEnim Lr' PWF W EiMM 9r n`XRS J wml.IwT zswu w m.rns _ µNMA PRUS SYSTEM i/x00f f,P E[E.G . rvMM ETN. ♦ ]J' -a xrwrx CtEV 21"-4- A. 1-aA. T/VauPET GEV. ♦ ,C -B t/] /j T/W,BxM _. q E[EV ♦ 5•_ar i MWS Im,G . PAMPEI EV �B NG tr Ens MYFK B n5 M— EIEV.. IY-0• 8 i E45 EIEVI-4 .. -a B. ,'- f5 M EK :TEV.R 3 a _ 8 Gr5 MVFAL aw . 0-0 T `suE ErEv. o h r/su0 q1 DRIVE—TNRU ELEVATION 3 16 = 1 =0= i 0 VI z og N - 0.nw n rsx cx[aau ,r a.r J0, b. SS]a1 A2.0 � PROPOSED FLOOR m. 1,6 , is=,a \ ( \ m§)/ _j «|!2 0) Z;5 Ld o§�! @w o�2, 0a §|!r A2 UKAWN UT CHECKED HT juH A1.0 Planning Commission Agenda: 01/03/12 10. Consideration to complete an annual review of the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to complete an annual review of the adopted 2008 City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and to provide recommendations for amendment, if desired. The Comprehensive Plan states that an annual review of the plan "keeps an active and current focus on achieving the vision for Monticello and the use of the Comprehensive Plan." Staff (with the input of the Planning Commission Chair) has focused the 2012 annual review on three primary areas: 1. Core Annual Review Areas — areas specifically cited for annual review 2. Growth Policies - overall land use policies of the City 3. Chapter 6 — Transportation — Update on planning called for within Core Annual Review Areas 1. Development trends and projects from the current years. The Comprehensive Plan states the following: "Updating growth projections is an important part of an annual review. The City should lead an annual and collaborative approach to updating these projections. An annual update should be based on a discussion among key stakeholders including the City, developers, the business community and the School District. This approach ensures that the projections are based on the best possible information and that all stakeholders are using common assumptions about future growth. Another benefit of this approach is an ongoing forum for the discussion of recent trends and the future of Monticello." This statement supports the need for frequent review of the stated growth projections is an important factor in understanding the balance between growth pressure and Comprehensive Plan policy. In 2010, the Commission requested that staff complete a housing study to better understand changes that could be made to the growth projection. A housing report was completed and is provided for reference. In January of 2011, staff recommended that release of 2010 Census data would also be helpful in updating the projections. Such detailed data is also now available. With the newly available data and the statement of the Comprehensive Plan in mind, as in past years, staff would highly recommend consideration of an adjustment to the Chapter 3 — Land Use Growth Projection table. Planning Commission Agenda: 01/03/12 Recommendation/Action Requested: If Commission agrees that an update should proceed, staff would recommend setting a small Commission task force to organize and lead direction of the Growth Projection update consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation. Additionally, with the full release of detailed Census data (and pending the outcome of the above discussion), staff anticipates there may need to be an update to Chapter 2, Community Context, to incorporate findings of the 2010 Census and American Community Survey results. 2. Summary of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. In 2011, there were three comprehensive plan amendment applications, two of which were incorporations of additional planning documents. The three amendments are: The 2011 Park & Pathway Plan was adopted by the City Council in June and has been incorporated as an appendix document to the 2008 Comp Plan. The Commission will receive a copy of the final plan during the January meeting reflecting all changes requested by the Parks, Planning or Council bodies. The Embracing Downtown Plan is scheduled for adoption by the City Council in January of 2012. That document has been recommended for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission. Upon approval by the City Council, a full final copy will be provided to the Planning Commission. In September of 2011, the City Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment for a land use change from industrial to commercial. That amendment was for a parcel located at the southeast corner of Fallon Avenue and Chelsea Road, just west of the proposed Mills Fleet Farm project. A copy of the amended Land Use Map reflecting that change is included for reference. Action Requested: No further large-scale planning amendments are anticipated at this time and the City will continue to address individual comprehensive plan application requests as they arise. 3. Discussion of current development issues and implications for the Comprehensive Plan. In 2011, the City adopted a new Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance provides a set of land use controls that enable the City to realize its policies and goals. The update required that the City carefully review each component of the code, from application 2 Planning Commission Agenda: 01/03/12 to development to enforcement. The evaluation of current and future development issues was a large part of the City's analysis in the crafting of the new ordinances and served to meet this third review criteria. Another development issue for the City is the recent requests for reductions in square footage and other design standards in residential developments. The question for the City is how such adjustments are indicative of larger development trends and how they meet Comprehensive Plan objectives. This questions is best addressed specifically within the context of each planning application request, but should be considered as part of the larger discussion on growth trends and how such standards impact growth potential. Growth Policies The Comprehensive Plan lays out four main policies that provide an overarching guide for the general growth of the City. The Commission should review these policy statements are reaffirm or adjust the statements based on the analysis of the previous information from the core annual review. 1. The City will consistently review recent development trends and update growth projections to serve as a basis for public and private planning. 2. Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth will occur within the boundaries of the current municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation area. 3. Future development should be guided to locations that utilize existing infrastructure and locations that facilitate the construction of street and utility systems that meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate action by Monticello to annex or extend utility systems to property immediately north of the Mississippi River. Development in this area will place additional traffic on STH 25 (particularly in the Downtown area) and channel investment away from other parts of the City, especially the Downtown. Recommendation/Action Requested.• Staff believes that each of these growth policies continue to be valid and do not require amendment. In fact, the economic climate of the last decade has given further credence to policies 1-3. It has become clear that the placement, financing and maintenance of major municipal infrastructure in growth areas should be carefully reviewed within the context of the Comprehensive Plan. The expense of major municipal infrastructure systems (water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, roads) requires that the City understand the growth needed to support such systems long term. Planning Commission Agenda: 01/03/12 Chapter 6 — Transportation City Engineer Bruce Westby will be on hand to present an overview of the recent planning efforts related to the Transportation Plan. These include an overview of the ultimate build -out design for the intersection of CSAH 75/TH 25, as well as planning is currently taking place for the Fallon Avenue overpass, and the second river crossing. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion as directed by the Planning Commission. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the Comprehensive Plan document continues to accurately represent the goals and objectives outlined by the City. The document has been complimented with the recent additions of the Park & Pathway Plan and by the pending adoption of the Embracing Downtown Plan. At this time, staff has recommended the following specific action steps: • Review Chapter 2, Community Context to incorporate findings of the 2010 Census and American Community Survey results. • Direct the organization of a task force for discussion and recommendations on the Comp Plan Growth Projection. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2: Community Context B. Excerpt, Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3: Land Use, pages 1-4 a. Includes Land Use Map, Post-Riverwood/Fallon Office Comprehensive Plan Request C. Housing Study, Updated December 20th, 2010 For the full version of the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Plan (Chapter 6) please visit www.ci.monticello.mn.us. Click on "City Departments ", then "Community Development", "Planning", and then "2008 Comprehensive Plan ". 4 Directional with arch Boxed Sq. Ft. 9.76 OP O O u t do o r M en u B o ar d Bo x ed S q. Ft . 4 0 . 9 7 Mc D o na l ds 42 ” A rc h L E D Bo x ed S q. Ft . 1 4 . 0 0 Existing 70/200 Road Sign Boxed Sq. Ft. 394.97 Wi n do w P o s i t i o n S i g n s Bo x ed S q. Ft . 5 . 0 0 We l co m e P o i nt Ga t ew a y Tw i n P ol e Ca n op y w i t h L CD CO D Wo r dm a r k L E D Bo x ed S q. Ft . 4 1 . 2 5 42 ’ 8 ” OA H 23’ GC Dr i ve Thru Appendage 1’ 8 . 5 ” x 9’ 11” NS N # 5 2 8 7 1 0 0 O a k wo o d D r . M on t i c el l o , M N 5 53 6 2 CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2012–004 Date:January3rd,2012ResolutionNo.2012-004 MotionBy:SecondedBy: ARESOLUTIONRECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFACONDITIONALUSE PERMITFORCROSSPARKINGFORACOMMERCIALUSE WHEREAS,LandformEngineeringhasrequestedanConditionalUsePermitforCrossParking foracommercialuse atthepropertylegallydescribedasLots1and2,Block1,MonticelloI-94 TriPlaza,whichislocatedinaB-3District;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionhasreviewedtheapplicationforConditionalUsePermit forConditionalUsePermitpursuanttotheregulationsoftheMonticelloZoningOrdinance;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonJanuary3rd,2012onthe applicationandtheapplicantandmembersofthepublicwereprovidedtheopportunitytopresent informationtothePlanningCommission;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionhasconsideredallofthecommentsandthestaffreport, whichareincorporatedbyreferenceintotheresolution;and WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionoftheCityofMonticellomakesthefollowingFindings ofFactinrelationtotherecommendationofapproval: 1.Theapplicationisconsistentwiththe2008MonticelloComprehensivePlanforPlacesto Shop. 2.Theproposedrestauranthasbeenfoundtobeconsistentwithapplicablerequirementsof theOrdinance,withtheexceptionofgrand-fatheredrightspertainingtotheexitingfree- standingpylonsign. 3.Theproposedsiteplanpresentsanimprovedcirculationplanforthepropertyand propertyuse. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof Monticello,Minnesota: 1.PursuanttoMinn.Stat.§462.357,theapplicationforConditionalUsePermitforCross Parkingforacommercialuse withinanB-3(HighwayBusiness)Districtishereby recommendedtotheCityCouncilforapproval. 2.TherecommendationforapprovalissubjecttothoseConditionsasfollows: a)Access-relatedissuesshallbesubjecttocommentandrecommendationbytheCity EngineerandMnDOT. b)Alleasement-relateddocumentsshallbesubjecttoreviewandapprovalbytheCity Attorney. c)Exteriorlightfixtureheightsbereducedfrom30to25feetasrequiredbyOrdinance. Suchfixturesshallbedesignedtodirectlightdownward. d)Issuesrelatedtogradinganddrainageshallbesubjecttoreviewandcommentbythe CityEngineer. e)IssuesrelatedtositeutilitiesshallbesubjecttoreviewandapprovalbytheCity’s UtilityDepartment. ADOPTED this3rddayofJanuary2012,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof Monticello,Minnesota. MONTICELLOPLANNINGCOMMISSION By:_______________________________ RodDragsten,Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator Planning Commission Agenda- 01/03/12 1 9. Public Hearing – Consideration to recommend for the adoption the 2012 City of Monticello Official Zoning Map. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed 2012 City of Monticello Zoning Map and recommend the map for adoption by the City Council. The City Attorney has recommended that the City adopt an official zoning map each year. The draft attached as supporting data has been reviewed by the Community Development Director, Deputy City Clerk and Consulting City Planner for accuracy. Records of all official boundary adjustments, annexations and rezoning actions have been reviewed. The map reflects the three rezoning actions taken in 2011. These include:  Rezoning from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-2 (Neighborhood Business) for  Rezoning from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business) for  Rezoning from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business) Upon review, staff has noted one parcel that will require additional attention. The Bondhus Tool property, located at 1400 East Broadway, was incorrectly zoned R-2 with the 2011 Zoning Ordinance update and map revision. The property is guided industrial and was zoned I-1 on the pre-2011 zoning maps. Staff have not had the opportunity to discuss the need for corrective rezoning action with the property owner. Once that has occurred, staff will place the required hearing on the Commission’s agenda for rezoning. With those notations, staff believe the map presented is an accurate reflection of all zoning action. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend adoption of the 2012 City of Monticello Official Zoning Map. 2. Motion to recommend tabling of action on the 2012 City of Monticello Official Zoning Map for further study. 3. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the City of Monticello Official Zoning Map as proposed. This draft represents an accurate picture of Monticello’s zoning based on a review of all available records, subject to the upcoming review and hearing related to the Bondhus tool property. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A: Draft 2012 City of Monticello Zoning Map Planning Commission Agenda: 01/03/12 10. Consideration to complete an annual review of the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to complete an annual review of the adopted 2008 City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and to provide recommendations for amendment, if desired. The Comprehensive Plan states that an annual review of the plan "keeps an active and current focus on achieving the vision for Monticello and the use of the Comprehensive Plan." Staff (with the input of the Planning Commission Chair) has focused the 2012 annual review on three primary areas: 1. Core Annual Review Areas — areas specifically cited for annual review 2. Growth Policies - overall land use policies of the City 3. Chapter 6 — Transportation — Update on planning called for within Core Annual Review Areas 1. Development trends and projects from the current years. The Comprehensive Plan states the following: "Updating growth projections is an important part of an annual review. The City should lead an annual and collaborative approach to updating these projections. An annual update should be based on a discussion among key stakeholders including the City, developers, the business community and the School District. This approach ensures that the projections are based on the best possible information and that all stakeholders are using common assumptions about future growth. Another benefit of this approach is an ongoing forum for the discussion of recent trends and the future of Monticello." This statement supports the need for frequent review of the stated growth projections is an important factor in understanding the balance between growth pressure and Comprehensive Plan policy. In 2010, the Commission requested that staff complete a housing study to better understand changes that could be made to the growth projection. A housing report was completed and is provided for reference. In January of 2011, staff recommended that release of 2010 Census data would also be helpful in updating the projections. Such detailed data is also now available. With the newly available data and the statement of the Comprehensive Plan in mind, as in past years, staff would highly recommend consideration of an adjustment to the Chapter 3 — Land Use Growth Projection table. Planning Commission Agenda: 01/03/12 Recommendation/Action Requested: If Commission agrees that an update should proceed, staff would recommend setting a small Commission task force to organize and lead direction of the Growth Projection update consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation. Additionally, with the full release of detailed Census data (and pending the outcome of the above discussion), staff anticipates there may need to be an update to Chapter 2, Community Context, to incorporate findings of the 2010 Census and American Community Survey results. 2. Summary of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. In 2011, there were three comprehensive plan amendment applications, two of which were incorporations of additional planning documents. The three amendments are: The 2011 Park & Pathway Plan was adopted by the City Council in June and has been incorporated as an appendix document to the 2008 Comp Plan. The Commission will receive a copy of the final plan during the January meeting reflecting all changes requested by the Parks, Planning or Council bodies. The Embracing Downtown Plan is scheduled for adoption by the City Council in January of 2012. That document has been recommended for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission. Upon approval by the City Council, a full final copy will be provided to the Planning Commission. In September of 2011, the City Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment for a land use change from industrial to commercial. That amendment was for a parcel located at the southeast corner of Fallon Avenue and Chelsea Road, just west of the proposed Mills Fleet Farm project. A copy of the amended Land Use Map reflecting that change is included for reference. Action Requested: No further large-scale planning amendments are anticipated at this time and the City will continue to address individual comprehensive plan application requests as they arise. 3. Discussion of current development issues and implications for the Comprehensive Plan. In 2011, the City adopted a new Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance provides a set of land use controls that enable the City to realize its policies and goals. The update required that the City carefully review each component of the code, from application 2 Planning Commission Agenda: 01/03/12 to development to enforcement. The evaluation of current and future development issues was a large part of the City's analysis in the crafting of the new ordinances and served to meet this third review criteria. Another development issue for the City is the recent requests for reductions in square footage and other design standards in residential developments. The question for the City is how such adjustments are indicative of larger development trends and how they meet Comprehensive Plan objectives. This questions is best addressed specifically within the context of each planning application request, but should be considered as part of the larger discussion on growth trends and how such standards impact growth potential. Growth Policies The Comprehensive Plan lays out four main policies that provide an overarching guide for the general growth of the City. The Commission should review these policy statements are reaffirm or adjust the statements based on the analysis of the previous information from the core annual review. 1. The City will consistently review recent development trends and update growth projections to serve as a basis for public and private planning. 2. Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth will occur within the boundaries of the current municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation area. 3. Future development should be guided to locations that utilize existing infrastructure and locations that facilitate the construction of street and utility systems that meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate action by Monticello to annex or extend utility systems to property immediately north of the Mississippi River. Development in this area will place additional traffic on STH 25 (particularly in the Downtown area) and channel investment away from other parts of the City, especially the Downtown. Recommendation/Action Requested.• Staff believes that each of these growth policies continue to be valid and do not require amendment. In fact, the economic climate of the last decade has given further credence to policies 1-3. It has become clear that the placement, financing and maintenance of major municipal infrastructure in growth areas should be carefully reviewed within the context of the Comprehensive Plan. The expense of major municipal infrastructure systems (water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, roads) requires that the City understand the growth needed to support such systems long term. Planning Commission Agenda: 01/03/12 Chapter 6 — Transportation City Engineer Bruce Westby will be on hand to present an overview of the recent planning efforts related to the Transportation Plan. These include an overview of the ultimate build -out design for the intersection of CSAH 75/TH 25, as well as planning is currently taking place for the Fallon Avenue overpass, and the second river crossing. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion as directed by the Planning Commission. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the Comprehensive Plan document continues to accurately represent the goals and objectives outlined by the City. The document has been complimented with the recent additions of the Park & Pathway Plan and by the pending adoption of the Embracing Downtown Plan. At this time, staff has recommended the following specific action steps: • Review Chapter 2, Community Context to incorporate findings of the 2010 Census and American Community Survey results. • Direct the organization of a task force for discussion and recommendations on the Comp Plan Growth Projection. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2: Community Context B. Excerpt, Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3: Land Use, pages 1-4 a. Includes Land Use Map, Post-Riverwood/Fallon Office Comprehensive Plan Request C. Housing Study, Updated December 20th, 2010 For the full version of the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Plan (Chapter 6) please visit www.ci.monticello.mn.us. Click on "City Departments ", then "Community Development", "Planning", and then "2008 Comprehensive Plan ". 4 Community Context | 2-12008 Comprehensive Plan Planning for the future does not start on a clean slate. Th e future will be built on the foundation of Monticello as it exists today. Th e Monticello of today has evolved over time, shaped by a variety of forces. Th ese forces will continue to shape the community into the future. Th e Community Context section of the Comprehensive Plan examines a variety of forces and factors aff ecting development of Monticello. A clear understanding of these infl uences provides the context for planning decisions. Physical Characteristics Location Monticello’s location is a critical factor for the future. Monticello is cen- trally located between the Minneapolis/St. Paul and St. Cloud metropolitan areas on the Interstate 94 corridor (see Figure 2-1). State Highway 25 is a key north/south corridor on the west edge of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Th is highway (with the Mississippi River bridge) connects Sherburne County and other exurban areas with jobs and services in the Twin Cities. STH 25 is an important route to recreational areas in northern Minnesota. In the future, this highway will serve as the connection with commuter rail transit service in Big Lake. Th is location presents both opportunities and challenges to Monticello’s future: Th e highway system provides convenient access to employment, goods and services in the Twin Cities region. Th is location allows people to enjoy the small town environment and lower housing costs of Monticello while drawing upon employment and amenities of the Twin Cities. Th is location makes Monticello vulnerable to increased fuel costs, traffi c congestion and travel time to work. Location and accessibility allow Monticello to become an important center for employment, services and shopping between St. Cloud and Minneapolis. Figure 2-1: Regional Setting Monticello 2 es not start on a clean slate. Th e future will be Monticello as it exists today. Th e Monticello of me, shaped by a variety of forces. Th ese forces communityintothefuture Community Context Chapter Contents Physical Characteristics .............2-1 Location .....................................2-1 Planning Context .....................2-2 Existing Land Use ....................2-2 Street System ............................2-4 Orderly Annexation ................2-4 Growth ..........................................2-9 Housing ........................................2-9 Housing Type ............................2-9 Age of Housing ......................2-10 Age of Householder ..............2-11 Demographics ...........................2-12 Age ...........................................2-12 Mobility ...................................2-13 Households .............................2-14 Income.....................................2-18 Educational Attainment .......2-19 Marital Status .........................2-19 Employment ...........................2-20 St. Cloud Big Lake St. PaulMinneapolis Twin Cities Region 2-2 | Community ContextCity of Monticello Th ousands of cars travel through Monticello every day. Th ese vehicles increase the potential market for local business. On the downside, these trips add to traffi c congestion in Monticello. Th e Comprehensive Plan seeks ways to seize the op- portunities and to mitigate the threats created by Monticello’s location. Planning Context Th e map in Figure 2-2 is a composite of key physical factors infl uencing future growth and development: Existing land use. Potential future street corridors, highway inter- changes and highway bridges. Planned expansion of the sanitary sewer system. Existing powerline corridors. Watershed breaklines. Public waters and wetlands. Th is map illustrates the location and type of physical factors that will shape future development of Monti- cello. Th is map was used to form and evaluate land use alternatives during the planning process. Th e section that follows explains these physical factors in greater detail. Existing Land Use Th e planning process began with the investigation and analysis of existing land use. Monticello is constantly changing. Development converts vacant land to built uses. Redevelopment changes the character and, at times, the use of land. Th e map in Figure 2-2 is a snap- shot of Monticello in 2007. Th is information forms the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan by describing: Th e nature and diversity of land uses in Monti- cello. Th e relationships between built and natural fea- tures of the community. Areas with potential capacity to accommodate future growth. Th e map of existing land uses divides Monticello into a series of residential, commercial, industrial and public use types. A brief description of each category of exist- ing land use follows. Single Family Residential - Traditional single family neighborhoods where housing units are “unattached” to one another. 2 to 8 Units - Forms of housing with two to eight units attached to one another or in a common structure, most commonly duplexes, twin homes and townhouses. 8+ Units - Higher density residential land uses with structures containing multiple housing units including apartments and condominiums. Manufactured Home Park – Areas that are exclusively designed for manufactured housing units. Commercial – Primarily retail and service businesses. Th e map shows properties that are currently planned for commercial use, but have not yet developed. Industrial - All forms of businesses with manufacturing, distribution, warehousing or other industrial use. Th e map shows properties that are currently planned for industrial use, but have not yet developed. K-12 School – Elementary, middle and high schools. Institutional – Churches, cemeteries, hospitals and other quasi-public land uses. Public – Property owned by local (not school), state and federal governments. Park - Property in the public park system. Private Recreation Facility – Golf courses and the YMCA camp. Railroad – Rail right-of-way. Utility – Power plant. Agricultural - Land outside of the city limits and not occupied by some other land use. Community Context | 2-32008 Comprehensive Plan Figure 2-2: Planning Context Le g e n d Po t e n t i a l I n t e r c h a n g e Po t e n t i a l B r i d g e Sa n i t a r y S e w e r E x p a n s i o n 5 Y e a r s 10 Y e a r s 20 Y e a r s Be y o n d 2 0 Y e a r s Wa t e r s h e d B r e a k L i n e Or d e r l y A n n e x a t i o n A g r e e m e n t Pr o p o s e d H i g h w a y 1 0 B y p a s s Ex i s t i n g A r t e r i a l o r C o l l e c t o r R o a d Pr o p o s e d A r t e r i a l o r C o l l e c t o r R o a d Po w e r l i n e Mo n t i c e l l o C i t y B o u n d a r y Ri v e r s a n d S t r e a m s Pu b l i c W a t e r s I n v e n t o r y Na t i o n a l W e t l a n d I n v e n t o r y Ag r i c u l t u r a l Si n g l e F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l 2 t o 8 U n i t s 8+ U n i t s Ma n u f a c t u r e d H o m e P a r k Va c a n t - C o m m e r c i a l Co m m e r c i a l Va c a n t - I n d u s t r i a l In d u s t r i a l K- 1 2 S c h o o l In s t i t u t i o n a l Pu b l i c Pr i v a t e R e c r e a t i o n F a c i l i t y Pa r k Ra i l r o a d Ut i l i t y 2-4 | Community ContextCity of Monticello Natural Features Th e natural environment has shaped Monticello’s past and will infl uence its future. Th e original community grew along the Mississippi River. As Monticello grew away from the River, fl at land and reasonable soils facili- tated suburban growth. Looking to the future, natural features will continue to infl uence development: Much of the prime farm land (as classifi ed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Wright County) is located in the southeastern sec- tions of the community. Abundant aggregate resources create the potential for mining in future growth areas. Lakes, wetlands and wooded areas off er amenities to attract development and also to be protected. Th e map in Figure 2-4 shows these natural features in and around Monticello. Street System Th e street system continues to play a key role in the form and function of the community. Streets provide access to property and the ability for land to develop. Commercial and industrial land uses rely on this ac- cess to conduct business. Streets allow people to move throughout the community. Th e physical design of streets infl uences the character of residential neighbor- hoods and commercial districts. Th e best way to describe the street system is in terms of its functional classifi cation (see Figure 2-5). Each street serves a specifi c function. Th e pieces of the street system must fi t together to achieve the desired functional outcomes. Monticello’s street system con- sists of fi ve functional classifi cations: Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, and Local Streets. Major Arterial streets represent regional transpor- tation corridors that connect Monticello with other cities. Only I-94 is in this classifi cation. Minor Arterials are roadways connect Monticello with the surrounding region. Within Monticello, Minor Arterials connect districts and other des- tinations. The safe and efficient movement of vehicles is the most important function of these streets. State Highway 25 and Broadway/County 75 east of Highway 25 are minor arterials. Collector streets form the link between arterials and local streets. As the name suggests, these streets are intended to “collect” traffi c from an area and channel it into the arterial system. Collector streets are typically limited in distance to discour- age use for longer trips. Th eir design typically places equal emphasis on mobility and access. All other streets in Monticello are local streets. Th ese streets emphasize access to property. Th ey are typically designed for shorter distances and lower speeds. Orderly Annexation In 2005, the City of Monticello and Monticello Town- ship entered into an orderly annexation agreement covering the property surrounding the City. This agreement provides a means for the orderly develop- ment of the community without contentious annexa- tions. It also protects rural portions of the Township from urbanization. All of the development shown in the Comprehensive Plan occurs within the orderly an- nexation area. Th e boundaries of this area are shown in Figure 2-6. Community Context | 2-52008 Comprehensive Plan Figure 2-3: Existing Land Use (2007) 10 10 2 5 14 11 43 50 68 5 81 94 25 75 18 117 39 10 6 37 1 3 1 Or d e r l y An n e x a t i o n Ar e a 00 . 5 1 0. 2 5 Mi l e s Ju l y 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 Da t a S o u r c e : M n D N R , S h e r b u r n e C o u n t y , W r i g h t Co u n t y , a n d W S B & A s s o c i a t e s . 39 Le g e n d Mo n t i c e l l o C i t y B o u n d a r y Or d e r l y A n n e x a t i o n A r e a Ag r i c u l t u r a l Si n g l e F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l 2 t o 8 U n i t s 8+ U n i t s Ma n u f a c t u r e d H o m e P a r k Va c a n t - C o m m e r c i a l Co m m e r c i a l Va c a n t - I n d u s t r i a l In d u s t r i a l K- 1 2 S c h o o l In s t i t u t i o n a l Pu b l i c Pr i v a t e R e c r e a t i o n F a c i l i t y Pa r k Ra i l r o a d Ut i l i t y 2-6 | Community ContextCity of Monticello Figure 2-4: Natural Resources 10 10 2 5 14 11 43 50 68 5 81 94 25 75 18 117 39 10 6 3 7 1 3 1 Or d e r l y An n e x a t i o n Ar e a 00 . 5 1 0. 2 5 Mi l e s Ju l y 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 Da t a S o u r c e : M n D N R , S h e r b u r n e C o u n t y , W r i g h t Co u n t y , a n d W S B & A s s o c i a t e s . Le g e n d Mn D N R F E M A F l o o d p l a i n Na t i o n a l W e t l a n d I n v e n t o r y Pr i m e F a r m l a n d Ag g r e g a t e R e s o u r c e s Mo n t i c e l l o C i t y B o u n d a r y Or d e r l y A n n e x a t i o n A r e a Community Context | 2-72008 Comprehensive Plan Figure 2-5: Street System Le g e n d Pr i n c i p a l A r t e r i a l Mi n o r A r t e r i a l Ma j o r C o l l e c t o r Mi n o r C o l l e c t o r Mo n t i c e l l o C i t y B o u n d a r y Or d e r l y A n n e x a t i o n A r e a 2-8 | Community ContextCity of Monticello Figure 2-6: Orderly Annexation Area 10 10 2 5 14 11 43 50 68 5 81 94 25 75 18 117 39 10 6 3 7 1 3 1 00 . 5 1 0. 2 5 Mi l e s Ju l y 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 Da t a S o u r c e : M n D N R , S h e r b u r n e C o u n t y , W r i g h t Co u n t y , a n d W S B & A s s o c i a t e s . Le g e n d Mo n t i c e l l o C i t y B o u n d a r y Or d e r l y A n n e x a t i o n A g r e e m e n t A r e a Community Context | 2-92008 Comprehensive Plan Growth Monticello celebrated its 150th birthday in 2006. For most of this time, Monticello was a small town on the banks of the Mississippi River. Over the past 30 years, the suburban expansion of the Twin Cities has brought new growth in Monticello. In 1970, the City’s population totalled 1,636. By 2000, the population had grown to 7,868 (see Figure 2-7). Th e combination of new housing development and annexation has pushed the current population over 10,000. Th ese growth trends continued into the fi rst half of this decade. From 2000 to 2005, the City issued an average of 219 new housing permits per year (see Figure 2-8). In 2006, the overall slowdown in the housing market dropped new growth to just 77 new units. Th is growth trend continued into 2007 with 47 permits issued. Recent growth trends have seen an important shift in the type of new housing development. In 2000-2004, 86% of all new housing was the traditional single-family detached home. In 2005 and 2006, more single-family attached housing was built. Th e Land Use chapter of the Plan discusses projections for future growth and housing development. Housing Housing is a critical part of the context of planning for the future of Monticello. It is the single largest form of built land use. Housing shapes the form and character of the community. It infl uences who lives in Monticello today and in the future. Housing Type Figure 2-9 shows the growth in Monticello’s housing stock from 1990 to 2000. Th e Census reported 1,097 new housing units in Monticello over this decade, a 57.5% increase in the total number of units. Single family detached housing (1-unit detached) accounted for 79% of this growth. Th is type of housing is occupied by a single family and is not physically connected to any other housing unit. It is the typical home found in Monticello. An additional 20% of the growth came in the form of single family attached housing (1-unit attached). Th is housing type is a structure containing a single housing unit that is physically connected to one more compa- rable housing units. Twinhomes and townhomes are 1,636 1,830 4,941 7,868 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 1970198019902000 Figure 2-7: Population Trends 1970-2000 Figure 2-8: Building Permits for New Housing 145 224 184 156 82 126 67 22 18 31 48 147 130 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 2000200120022003200420052006 Single-family detached Single-family attached 90 3 13 1 12 6 92 44 7 20 9 1, 7 7 1 34 7 14 5 53 47 9 21 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 1-unit detached 1-unit attached 2 to 4 units5 to 9 units10 or more units Mobile home, trailer, or other Al l H o u s i n g U n i t s 1990 2000 Figure 2-9: Housing Type (1990 and 2000) 2-10 | Community ContextCity of Monticello 1, 6 6 7 23 6 0 21 0 0 0 0 18 2 0 81 73 33 91 53 18 5 25 4 23 28 00 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 1, de t a c hed 1, at t a c h ed 2 3 or 4 5 to 9 10 to 1 9 20 to 4 9 50 or m o r e M o b i l e hom e Boa t, RV , va n, et c . Al l H o u s i n g U n i t s - 2 0 0 0 Own Rent Figure 2-10: Housing Type and Tenure (2000) Figure 2-11: Housing Type and Tenure - City/County/Region (2000) Population in Units 66 % 3% 6% 2%3%5%6%7% 80 % 4% 2% 1%2%3%3% 7% 70 % 3%5% 2% 5%5% 9% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% SF detached - own SF detached - rent SF attached - own SF attached - rent 2 to 45 to 1920 or moreOther Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA common examples single family attached housing. In 2000, single family housing (de- tached and attached) made up 70% of Monticello’s housing stock. 27% of the 2000 housing supply was classifi ed as rental (see Figure 2-10). Th e vast majority of rental housing was a type other than single family detached. Only 81 units (4.6%) of all 1-unit detached housing were rental. There were very few options for owned housing with a density above one unit per building. Only 21 units (3.1% of all units with 2 or more units in a structure) were classifi ed as owner occupied. Monticello’s housing stock is more diverse than the rest of Wright County. 86% all housing in Wright County was single family detached and attached (see Figure 2-11). Monticello has more multiple unit housing than the County, but in proportion to the overall regional housing supply. The distribution of the housing stock is indicative of where Monti- cello residents live. 66% of the 2000 population lived in single family detached housing (see Figure 2-11). 12% of the population lived in rental housing with fi ve or more units in the building. Age of Housing Given the growth of Monticello, it is not surprising to fi nd that the housing stock is relatively new. Forty-two percent (42%) of the 2000 housing supply was built in 1990 or later (see Figure 2-12) and only 18% 17 7 58 1 32 0 39 8 21 7 10 5 13 5 17 3 6 91 31 38 4 20 1 25 51 32 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1999 to March 2000 1995 to 1998 1990 to 1994 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1940 to 1959 1939 or earlier Year Built Ho u s i n g U n i t s Own Rent Figure 2-12: Year Built/Tenure (2000) Community Context | 2-112008 Comprehensive Plan 1990 or later - Own 1970 to 1989 - Own Before 1970 - Own 1990 or later - Rent 1970 to 1989 - Rent Before 1970 - Rent 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Ye ar Bu il t/Te nu re Ag e o f H o u s e h o l d e r Figure 2-13: Year Built/Tenure/Age of Householder (2000) of all units were built before 1970. Sixteen percent (16%) of all rental units were built in 1990 or later. Age of Householder Figure 2-13 connects the age of the housing with the age of the house- holder. A householder age 44 or young- er occupied 75% of all owned housing built in 1990 or later. 62% of senior households (householder age 65 and older) lived in owned housing. The majority of rental units (63%) are occupied by house- holds headed by persons age 44 or younger. Th is data provides insights on both the housing supply and the age of the population attracted to Mon- ticello. Th e chart in Figure 2-14 off ers an- other perspective on the relation- ship between housing and the age of the householder. Th is chart shows the distribution of housing type and tenure by age of householder. With the exception of the youngest (15-24) and oldest (75+) age groups, the vast majority of Monticello’s population lives in single fam- ily owned housing. Th e 15-24 age group is most likely to live in rental housing. Th e oldest residents live in either single family housing or in larger rental structures. 1 - O w n 2 t o 4 - O w n 5 t o 1 9 - O w n 20 o r m o r e - O w n Ot h e r - O w n 1 - R e n t 2 t o 4 - R e n t 5 t o 1 9 - R e n t 20 o r m o r e - R e n t Ot h e r - R e n t 15 - 2 4 25 - 3 4 35 - 4 4 45 - 5 4 55 - 6 4 65 - 7 4 75 + 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Units in Structure/Tenure A g e o f H o u s e h o l d e r Figure 2-14: Housing Type/Tenure/Age of Householder (2000) 2-12 | Community ContextCity of Monticello 507 1,303 1,915 697 519 799 1,846 3,333 1,192 698 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Under 5 years5 to 19/20 years19/20 years to 4445 to 64Over 65 years 1990 2000 Figure 2-15: Age of Population 1990 and 2000 Figure 2-16: Age Distribution City/County/Region (2000) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA 65 and older 35 to 64 20 to 34 5 to 19 Under 5 508 767 1,108 648 298 229 137 130 490 927 1,078 678 331 270 190 245 1,5001,000500005001,0001,500 Under 6 6-19 20-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 and older Male Female Figure 2-17: Age and Gender Distribution (2000) Demographics A comprehensive plan focuses most closely on the physical aspects of community - land use, parks, streets, and utilities. Planning must recognize that the physical and social aspects of community are intertwined. It is impossible to plan for the future without a careful examination of the demographic, social and economic characteristics of the community. Age Monticello’s population increased from 4,941 in 1990 to 7,868 in 2000, a 59% increase. The population grew in all age brackets (see Figure 2-15). An issue raised at community meetings was that Monticello is a “starter” community. Young families buy their first home in Monticello, but move away later in life. Much of the Census data, beginning with the age of popula- tion, supports this characterization of Monticello. Th e most population growth occurred in the age brackets representing families with school age (or younger) children. Monticello has a smaller population of older residents. Only 6% of the 2000 population was age 65 or older. Th e elderly population is smaller than for Wright County (8%) or the Twin Cities region (10%) - see Figure 2-16. Monticello is a relatively young community. Th e 2000 median age of Monticello’s population was 29.8 years. Th is compares with 33.1 years Community Context | 2-132008 Comprehensive Plan 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Same houseDifferent House in same county Different House in same state Different stateElsewhere 1985 (1990 Census)1995 (2000 Census) Figure 2-19: Residence Five Years Ago 41 % 23 % 32 % 5% 1% 58 % 17 % 20 % 5% 0% 54 % 21 % 13 % 9% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Same house in 1995 Same county Different MN county Other state Other location Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-18: Residence in 1995 - City/County/Region 82% 11% 4%3% 67% 16% 10% 7% 67% 16% 9%8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1990 or later1980 to 19891970 to 19791969 or earlier Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-20: Year Moved Into House (2000) for the County and 34.2 years for the region. Figure 2-17 shows the age distri- bution of the 2000 population. In 2000, women made up 52% of Monticello’s population. Women outnumbered men in all age groups except 20-34 years old. Mobility Mobility is an important character- istic of Monticello’s population. In the 2000 Census, only 41% of the population (age 5 and older) lived in the same house in 1995 (see Figure 2-18). Th is compares with 58% for all of Wright County and 54% for the region. Th e Census does not report movement within Monti- cello (the population that moved to a diff erent house in Monticello) during this period. People moving to Monticello from a diff erent house in all of Wright County made up 23% of the 2000 population. Th e greatest shift from 1990 to 2000 came in the share of the population that moved to Monticello from out- side of Wright County. In 1990, 23% of Monticello’s population reported living in another Minnesota county. Th is group made up 32% of the 2000 population. Th ese statistics suggest that Monticello was successful in attracting people Minnesotans relocating to and within the Twin Cities region. Monticello was less attractive to people moving from other states. Less than 5% of the 2000 population lived in another state in 1995. Another measure of mobility is the year moved into the 2000 residence. 82% of Monticello’s 2000 population 2-14 | Community ContextCity of Monticello 1,777 1,285 987 2,944 2,066 1,550 878 698 394492 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Total householdsFamily households (families) Married-couple family Nonfamily households Householder living alone 1990 2000 Figure 2-22: Household Type (1990 and 2000) 30 % 23 % 14 % 4% 30 % 34 % 30 % 8% 4% 24 % 26 % 26 % 8% 5% 35 % 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Married - children <18 Married - other Other family - children <18 Other family - other Nonfamily Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-21: Household Type - City/County/Region (2000) A Family Household includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. A family household may contain people not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder’s family in census tabulations. This means that the population living in family household may exceed the population of families. Nonfamiliy Households contain a group of unrelated people or one person living alone. The Householder is the person in whose name the home is owned or rented. moved into their current house in 1990 or later. Th e Census does not distinguish among people moving to Monticello and people moving into a new house within Monticello. Given the other Census data, it is reasonable to conclude that many of these households were new to Monticello. Th is degree of move- ment is signifi cantly higher than County and regional levels (see Figure 2-20). Th ese mobility statistics suggest that Monticello’s population is relatively new to the community. Th ese resi- dents have had limited time to form connections to the community. Th e sense of community history has a short time horizon. Th ese trends are also important for the future. If people move in and stay, the com- munity will grow proportionately older. If the population continues to move up and out, then the future Monticello may show many of the same characteristics as in 2000. Households A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence. House- hold characteristics off er another perspective on the characteristics of people living in Monticello: 70% of Monticello households are family households (see Fig- ure 2-21). Th is compares with 76% for the entire County and 65% for the region. 53% of all Monticello family households include a married couple. 44% of all households included children under the age of 18. Community Context | 2-152008 Comprehensive Plan 2.73 3.04 2.26 2.64 2.90 1.97 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 All householdsOwned housingRental housing 1990 2000 Figure 2-23: Household Size (1990 and 2000) 2.64 3.13 2.90 1.97 2.83 3.26 2.98 2.04 2.56 3.15 2.75 2.04 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Average household sizeAverage family sizeAverage household size - own Average household size - rent Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-24: Household Size - City/County/Region (2000) Figure 2-25: Population Per Housing Type and Tenure (2000) 3. 4 2 2. 6 6 1. 5 8 1. 8 2 1. 8 9 1. 7 7 1. 6 7 3. 7 0 2. 4 6 3. 1 4 2. 1 7 0. 0 0 1. 2 9 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 2. 5 8 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 1, detached 1, attached 23 or 45 to 910 to 1920 to 4950 or moreMobile home Rent Own Only 34% of all households in the region contained children. Of the 1,167 households added from 1990 to 2000, two-thirds were family households (see Figure 2-22). Of these new fam- ily households, only 72% were married couple families. Monticello has a smaller proportion of nonfamily households than the region as a whole (30% to 35%), but more than Wright County (24%). Monticello’s nonfamily households consist largely of the householder living alone (79% of nonfamily households). Th e Census shows several trends about the size of each household: Th e average size of a household is getting smaller. From 1990 to 2000, the average size of all Monticello households dropped slightly from 2.73 people to 2.64 people (see Figure 2-23). Th e average household living in owned housing is larger (2.90 people per household) than the typical household in rental housing (1.97 people). For each household and family type in Figure 2-24, Monticello has fewer people per house- hold/family than for Wright County as a whole. Th ese statistics come from specifi c household size data. Th e Census also reports the population living in various types of housing. Th is data can be used to calculate the average number of people living in diff erent housing types. Th e chart in Figure 2-25 compares average population by housing type and tenure (own or rent). Th is data provides some 2-16 | Community ContextCity of Monticello 4, 8 7 7 15 16 26 7 0 7, 6 2 9 26 16 44 50 10 3 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 WhiteBlack or African American American Indian or Native Alaskan AsianSome other race Two or more races 1990 2000 Figure 2-26: Race (1990 and 2000) 97% 0%0%1%1%1% 98% 0%0%0%0%1% 86% 5% 1%4%2%2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% WhiteBlack or African American American Indian and Alaska Native AsianSome other raceTwo or more races Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-27: Race - City/County/Region (2000) - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY MONTICELLO SENIOR HIGH MONTICELLO MIDDLE LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY En r o l l m e n t 2 0 0 6 / 0 7 S c h o o l Y e a r White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Figure 2-28: Race of Elementary School Population (2006/07) interesting observations about the use of housing in Monticello: More people tend to live in a single-family home (1 detached and 1 attached) when the unit is rented instead of owned. Owner-occupied townhouses (1 detached) do not appear to be producing family housing with an average size of 2.17 people/unit. Structures with 2 to 49 units are primarily occupied by one and two person households. Th e average population of owner oc- cupied single family is equal to the average family size in Monticello. Th is data suggests that other hous- ing types (except mobile homes) are typically occupied by one and two person households. Th e population per housing unit shows little varia- tion between structures with two or more units. Race It is important to understand how the Census addresses racial issues. Th e Census allows people to select the race or races with which they most closely identify. Th e standards for collecting and presenting data on race and ethnicity were revised for the 2000 Census. The new guidelines are intended to refl ect “the increasing diversity of our Na- tion’s population, stemming from growth in interracial marriages and immigration.” As a result, race data from the 2000 Census is not directly comparable with any prior census. Despite the data diff erences, it is useful to compare the racial compo- sition of the population in 1990 and Community Context | 2-172008 Comprehensive Plan 15 % 11 % 0% 69 % 5% 27 % 20 % 7% 33 % 14 % 16 % 42 % 14 % 22 % 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Born in EuropeBorn in AsiaBorn in AfricaBorn in Latin America Born other place Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-30: Place of Birth Foreign Born Population - City/County/Region (2000) 80 % 17 % 0%1%1% 82 % 16 % 0%1%1% 66 % 26 % 1%3%4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Native - born in MNNative - born in other State Native - born outside US Foreign born - naturalized citizen Foreign born - not a citizen Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-29: Place of Birth - City/County/Region (2000) 19,229 53,566 45,384 21,844 60,940 53,945 26,219 65,450 54,304 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Median householdMedian familyPer capita Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-31: Income - City/County/Region (2000) 2000 (see Figure 2-26). Th is chart shows little change in the diversity of Monticello’s population. In 1990, 98.7% of the population was white. The 2000 Census reported that 97.0% of Monticello’s population identifi ed itself as white. Th e racial diversity of Monticello’s population is similar to Wright County, but less than the region as a whole (see Figure 2-27). Another factor in understanding race data is the reporting of the Hispanic population. People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino are not classi- fi ed as a separate racial category. Th ey may be of any race. In the 2000 Census, 160 people were reported as Hispanic or Latino (of any race). This represents 2% of the total population. School enrollment data collected and reported by the Minnesota De- partment of Education provides a more current look at the racial com- position of Monticello’s population. For the 2006/2007 school year, the six elementary schools located in Monticello reported that 7.1% of total enrollment was a race other than white. (In this data, Hispanic is classifi ed as a category of race) Th e chart in Figure 2-28 shows the racial composition for each school. Th e non-white portion of the stu- dent population ranges from 4.5% to 10.2%. Another way of looking at the eth- nic characteristics of the popula- tion is place of birth. Only 1.9% of Monticello’s 2000 population was foreign born. As with race, the ratio of foreign born residents is similar 2-18 | Community ContextCity of Monticello 45 , 3 8 4 53 , 5 6 6 19 , 2 2 9 58 , 2 6 0 63 , 5 7 8 21 , 4 2 4 49 , 5 7 3 59 , 2 5 0 21 , 4 2 4 58 , 1 1 4 65 , 4 7 1 21 , 8 0 8 57 , 4 2 2 59 , 3 1 9 20 , 2 0 9 73 , 1 4 3 76 , 9 8 4 25 , 8 4 5 69 , 9 0 3 74 , 2 3 6 24 , 7 4 2 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 Median householdMedian familyPer capita Monticello Albertville Buffalo Elk River Otsego Rogers St. Michael Figure 2-32: Income - Monticello and Selected Other Cities (2000) - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY MONTICELLO SENIOR HIGH MONTICELLO MIDDLELITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY En r o l l m e n t 2 0 0 6 / 0 7 S c h o o l Y e a r Enrollment Free Lunch Reduced Price Lunch Limited English Proficiency Figure 2-33: Socio-Economic Indicators Monticello Schools (2006/07) Figure 2-34: Household Income by Age of Householder (2000) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 15-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475+ Age of Householder # o f H o u s e h o l d s Less than $35,000 $35,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more to County and well below regional levels (see Figure 2-29). Th e chart in Figure 2-30 compares the place of birth for the foreign born population. Latin America was the most common place of birth for all jurisdictions. 69% of Monti- cello’s foreign born population was born in Latin America. A smaller share of Monticello’s population (compared with the Twin Cities region) was born in Asia or Africa. Income Income infl uences many aspects of community. Income provides the capacity to acquire housing (own or rent) and to purchase goods and services from local businesses. Income infl uences the demand for and the capacity to support public services. Th e Census data on income adds to the profi le of Monticello as an entry level community. All measures of income are below county and re- gional levels (see Figure 2-32). Figure 2-32 compares Monticello with other cities in the northwest sector of the Twin Cities region. For all measures of income (household, family and per capita), income in Monticello falls below each of these neighboring cities. Data about the characteristics of children enrolled in the public school system provide some in- sights about current economic conditions. In the 2006/07 school year, Monticello elementary schools reported that 21% of the student population was eligible for free and Community Context | 2-192008 Comprehensive Plan 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Less than 9th grade 9th to 12th grade, no diploma High school graduate (includes equivalency) Some college, no degree Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or professional degree Po p u l a t i o n 2 5 y e a r s a n d o l d e r 1990 2000 Figure 2-35: Educational Attainment (1990 and 2000) 16 % 29 % 24 % 10 % 16 % 6% 12 % 37 % 25 % 8% 14 % 4% 9% 25 % 24 % 8% 23 % 10 % 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% No H.S. diploma High school graduate Some college, no degree Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or professional degree Po p u l a t i o n 2 5 y e a r s a n d o l d e r Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-36: Educational Attainment - City/County/Region (2000) Figure 2-37: Marital Status - City/County/Region (2000) 24 % 58 % 2% 6% 10 % 24 % 63 % 1% 5% 8% 30 % 55 % 1% 5% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Never married Now married, except separated Separated Widowed Divorced Po p u l a t i o n 1 5 y e a r s a n d o l d e r Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA reduced price lunches. For indi- vidual schools, this segment of the student population ranges from less than 15% to 25% (see Figure 2-33). Another perspective comes from the relationship between income and age. Th e chart in Figure 34 shows the distribution of household income by age of the householder. Less than 1% of all households have income over $200,000. All of these households are in the 55-64 age bracket. The oldest and young- est households have the lowest incomes. Only one in fi ve senior households has income above $35,000. Educational Attainment Th e Census shows a sharp increase in college education among Mon- ticello residents. In 2000, 55.2% of the population (age 25 and older) had attended college. Th is share of the population is up from 34.8% in the 1990 Census (see Figure 2-35). Less than 16% of the 2000 popula- tion did not graduate from high school. Th e chart in Figure 2-36 compares educational attainment in Mon- ticello with Wright County and the region. 21% of Monticello’s population had earned a degree as compared with 18% for the County and 33% for the region. Marital Status Marital status provides another view of the general family orientation of the 2000 population in Monticello. 58% of the population (age 15 and older) was currently married. Th is is a lower level that reported for 2-20 | Community ContextCity of Monticello 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Population 16 years and over In labor force Females 16 years and over Females 16+ in labor force Own children under 6 years All parents in family in labor force 1990 2000 Figure 2-38: Population in the Labor Force (1990 and 2000) 1990 2000 67% 4% 29% 76% 2% 21% 74% 2% 24% 72% 3% 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% EmployedUnemployedNot in labor force % o f P o p u l a t i o n A g e 1 6 a n d O v e r 1990 Monticello 2000 Monticello 2000 Wright County 2000 Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-39: Employment Comparisons - City/County/Region (2000) 70 % 85 %88 % 68 % 31 % 13 % 61 % 82 % 88 % 66 % 30 % 9% 56 % 80 % 85 % 66 % 29 % 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 16 to 19 years20 to 24 year25 to 54 years55 to 64 years65 to 69 years70 years and older % o f P o p u l a t i o n A g e 1 6 a n d O v e r Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-40: Population in Labor Force by Age (2000) the County, but above the regional average (see Figure 2-37). Employment Employment touches many aspects of community life. Jobs provide the income to pay for housing and to purchase goods and services. The location of jobs influences the amount of time Monticello residents are in the community each day. Commuting decisions impact transportation systems. Labor Force Th e Census looks at the potential working population as persons age 16 and older. Th e Labor Force includes all people classifi ed in the civilian labor force, plus members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Th e Civilian Labor Force consists of people clas- sifi ed as employed or unemployed. Monticello’s labor force grew with the population from 1990 to 2000 (see Figure 2-38). Th e share of the working age population in the labor force grew from 66.8% to 76.1%. Th e change in the labor force comes from a smaller portion of the popu- lation reporting itself as not in the labor force (29.3% in 1990 to 21.5% in 2000). Persons not in the labor force typically represent retirees, students and stay at home mothers. Th is change is not due to greater un- employment. Th e percent reported as unemployed fell from 3.9% in 1990 to 2.4% in 2000. More of Monticello’s working age population is part of the labor force than the County or the region (see Figure 2-39). This employment status is consistent with its age and demographic characteristics. Community Context | 2-212008 Comprehensive Plan 70 % 75 % 85 % 64 % 15 % 11 % 66 % 78 % 83 % 62 % 26 % 7% 58 % 79 % 81 % 61 % 25 % 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 16 to 19 years20 to 24 year25 to 54 years55 to 64 years65 to 69 years70 years and older % o f F e m a l e P o p u l a t i o n A g e 1 6 a n d O v e r Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-41: Female Population in Labor Force by Age (2000) 29 % 15 % 29 % 0% 10 % 17 % 29 % 13 % 26 % 1% 12 % 19 % 39 % 12 % 28 % 0% 8% 13 % 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Management, professional ServiceSales, officeFarming, fishing, forestry Construction, extraction, maintenance Production, transportation Ci v i l i a n P o p u l a t i o n A g e 1 6 a n d O v e r Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-42: Occupation (2000)8 Other Place 8% Other Hennepin County 24% Plymouth 7% Minneapolis 6% Other Wright County 15% Sherburne County 6% Stearns County 3%Monticello 31% Figure 2-43: Location of Employment for Workers in Monticello (2000) The Census looks at percent of working age population in the labor force for various age groups. Mon- ticello is generally above Wright County and the Twin Cities re- gion for all age groups (see Figure 2-40). Labor force statistics break out data for the employment status of women. As with the labor force as a whole, the proportion of women (by age group) in the labor force is similar for Monticello, the County and the region (see Figure 2-41). In general, more of the female Monti- cello population tends to be in the labor force. Th e large number in the 25 to 54 age group is indicative of two income households. Occupation Figure 2-42 compares the occupa- tion of Monticello’s population with the County and region. Monticello stands out with over one-half of the working population employed in managerial and professional oc- cupations. Monticello tends to be home to fewer people employed in construction and production fi elds. Location and Commuting Th e Census tracks the location of work place for the population. Only 31% of workers living in Monticello reported a place of employment in Monticello (see Figure 2-43). Hen- nepin County is the largest employ- ment location (37% of all workers). Only a small segment of the labor force (9%) lived in Monticello and worked in Stearns or Sherburne counties. 2-22 | Community ContextCity of Monticello 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Drove aloneCarpoolPublic transportation Other meansWalked or worked at home Wo r k e r s A g e 1 6 a n d O v e r 1990 2000 Figure 2-44: Means of Travel to Work (1990 and 2000) 83 % 12 % 0%1% 1%3% 80 % 13 % 0%1% 1% 5% 78 % 10 % 4% 2% 1%4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Drove alone Carpool Public transportation Walk Other Work at home % W o r k e r s A g e 1 6 a n d O v e r Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-45: Means of Travel to Work - City/County/Region (2000) 6% 31% 49% 14% 4% 22% 47% 27% 8% 32% 43% 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% None123 or more % o f O c c u p i e d H o u s i n g U n i t s Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-46: Number of Vehicles Per Housing Unit (2000) Travel to work data shows a very automobile dependent pattern (see Figures 2-44 and 2-45). Th e per- cent of Monticello workers driving alone to work increased from 1990 (77.9%) to 2000 (82.6%). Th e labor force in Monticello makes limited use of public transportation (0.7% in 1990 and 0.3% in 2000). More people walked or worked at home than used public transportation. Th e share of workers that walked or worked at home decreased from 5.1% to 4.1% from 1990 to 2000. Th ese commuting patterns are re- fl ective of other suburban settings in the Twin Cities regions. Th e employment and commuting patterns contribute to the neces- sity of owning an automobile in Monticello. Only 1.9% of occu- pied housing units did not have a vehicle (see Figure 2-46). Almost three-quarters of all housing units reported two or more vehicles. Th e Census also collects data on the average travel time to work (see Figure 2-47). Th e 2000 Census reported a mean commute time of 24 minutes. (Th is statistic was not reported in the 1990 Census.) There are no significant differ- ences in travel to work for Monti- cello worker in comparison to the County and the region. Employment in Monticello Monticello is a net importer of employment. In the 2000 Census, 4,262 Monticello residents were employed in the civilian labor force. Monticello was the place of employ- ment for 5,111 people. Community Context | 2-232008 Comprehensive Plan Other Place 9%Stearns County 5% Hennepin County 5% Other Sherburne Co. 8% Becker Township 5% Big Lake (city + town) 13% Other Wright County 21% Monticello Townsh 8% Monticello 26% Figure 2-48: Residence of Persons Working in Monticello (2000) 36 % 19 % 39 % 6% 28 % 24 % 37 % 11 % 26 % 41 % 28 % 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% < 15 15 to 29 30 to 59 60 or more Minutes % W o r k e r s A g e 1 6 a n d O v e r Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA Mean travel time to work - 26 minutes Figure 2-47: Travel Time to Work - City/County/Region (2000) Th e chart in Figure 2-48 shows the place of residence for people trav- eling to Monticello for work. Th e bulk of the work force comes from the area surrounding Monticello. 47% of people working in Monti- cello live in Monticello Township, other places in Wright County, Big Lake, Big Lake Township, and Beck- er Township. Th ere is little reverse commuting. Only 5% of workers live in Hennepin County. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Devel- opment collects data and prepares profi les of Minnesota cities. One part of the State’s community pro- fi le is a listing of “major employers”. Figure 2-49 contains major employ- ers reported for Monticello. Th ese employers account for 2,885 jobs. These jobs represent 56% of the people that reported jobs in Monticello as part of the 2000 Census. While this is somewhat an apples-to-oranges comparison, it does provide a sense of the nature of employment in Monticello. Th e employment base is not dominated by several large employers, but spread among a large number of small and medium sized employers in diff erent types of businesses. Figure 2-49: Major Employers in Monticello (2007) Employer Products/Services Employees Monticello-Big Lake Community Hospital Hospital, nursing home and counseling center515 I.S.D. No. 882 (Monticello) Elementary and secondary education455 Xcel EnergyUtility422 Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Food processing396 Wal-Mart Supercenter Discount retail store325 City of Monticello Municipal government and services151 Denny Hecker Monticello Automobile dealership150 Ultra Machining Corp. Machine job shop130 Cub Foods Retail grocery store122 Monticello ClinicClinic98 Bondhus CorporationCutlery and hand-tool manufacturing73 Source: Written/telephone survey (November 2007), 2007 Minnesota State Business Directory, 2007 Minnesota Manufacturers Register 2-24 | Community ContextCity of Monticello This page intentionally left blank Monticello Community Development Department 2010 Monticello Housing report Introduction Comprehensive Plan Annual Review Land Use: Growth Projections Understanding of Current Community Housing Stock Information Sources City Parcel and Platting Records Wright County Building Department State Demographer U of M Minneapolis Association of Realtors US Census Housing: The Basics Total Number of Housing Units, Built:5,352 Includes all occupied and unoccupied single-family, duplex, townhome, tri-plex, individual apartment units and manufactured home units. Source: City building and plat records, Wright County classification information 4002 20 49 19 350 9 Single Family Residential Residential Duplex/TriPlex Multi-Family Residential Buildings (4+ units) Multi-Family Residential Buildings (1-3 units) Manufactured Homes HUD Apartment Buildings Total Number of Housing Units, by Housing Type Source: Wright County classification information, City building records December 2nd, 2010 Housing: Stock Snapshot Total Number of Owner-Occupied Units: 3,207 (Source: Wright County Homestead Designation) Total Number of Rental Units:1,213 2010 licensed units (Source: Monticello Dept. of Building Safety) Vacant Units:365 (Source: US Census ACS 2005-2009) For Sale Units: 102 November 30th, 2010 88 Single-Family (Source: MLS, November 20th, 2010) Total Number of Foreclosed Properties: 78 November 23rd, 2010 Year-to-Year Comparison, Foreclosures: 198 (November, 2009) (Source: Wright County Sheriff’s Sale Data) Homes: Values Median Value Monticello: $192,500 US: $185,400 2000 Monticello Median: $130,200 Source: US Census, 2000 US Census, 2005-2009 ACS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 112 134 128 211 151 165 242 223 206 250 263 85 43 20 9 2 Single-Family Residential Building Permits by Year (Attached and Detached) Building Permits: Our Neighbors Becker: 9 SF First-time home-buyer credit Big Lake: 27 SF NSP Rebate (6-month) Buffalo: 4 SF Elk River: 4 SF Otsego: 73 SF St. Michael: 15 SF Rental Units 1,213 licensed units (2010) Rental ordinance adopted in 2007 595 rental properties 36 Multi-unit (4+) complexes Does not include St. Benedict’s Senior Care 96% occupancy rate as of 12/3/10 Land & Lot Inventory Total Number of Final Platted (Buildable) Lots:4,451 Counts manufactured home park units as individual lots, counts apartment buildings as one lot. Excludes outlots. Total Number of Final Platted (Buildable) Lots, Vacant:483 Ratio of Lots Built-Out to Final Platted Lots Available: 4,451/4,934 or 90% Built-Out Lots to be Final Platted based on Preliminary Plat Approval:498 Ratio of Lots Built-Out to Total Lots Available: 4,451/5,432 or 82% Built-Out (Source: City building and plat records) -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 90 110 130 150 150 150 150 150 891 781 651 501 351 201 51 -99 Lot Inventory Progression -Comprehensive Plan AVAILABLE LOT INVENTORY -2010: 981 COMP PLAN RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TREND LINE Available lot inventory = 981 lots, based on current lots available + preliminary platted lots to be final platted. Assumptions: No additional plat requests and that the comprehensive plan growth trend line is accurate. Source: City Building and Plat Records December 2, 2010 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 R-1A R-1 R-2A R-2 R-3 R-4 RPUD CCD PZM PS 210 2052 93 881 271 409 160 305 629 120 291 2222 164 1043 271 409 160 305 629 120 Final Platted Lots Prelim & Final Platted Lots Total Number of Residential Lots, by Zoning Source: City building and plat records December 2nd, 2010 Carlisle Village Development The Future Monticello’s Vision Comprehensive Plan Seek quality over quantity in residential growth. Reserve areas with high amenities for “move up” Life-cycle housing BR & E Results Zoning Codes Amenities Bertram FiberNet The Market Workforce Housing Development Pressure Growth at any cost? Baby Boom Accessory Housing Choices Impact on younger generation choice The 2010 Census Info from American Community Survey 2005-2009 Statistics mirrored research closely To Come: Full 2010 Data Social Characteristics Economic Characteristics Housing Characteristics Demographics Conclusions Stabilizing housing market Valuations Appraisals Lending Land inquiries increasing Beneficial rental licensing program Updated zoning code –consistent with Comprehensive Plan Clear vision Planning Commission Agenda – 01/03/12 11. Consideration to review and recommend for the expiring terms of Planning Commissioners. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND City records indicate that Commissioner Dragsten, Commissioner Voight and Commissioner Fyle’s terms on the Planning Commission expired in December of 2011. Commissioner Fyle’s term expired after one year due to his mid-term appointment to the Commission. Commissioner Fyle took Lloyd Hilgart’s seat upon Mr. Hilgart’s election to the City Council. The City Clerk has indicated that at some point in the past, the staggering of Commission terms went off course. Planning Commission terms are three years. In order to realign the Commission’s term schedule consistent with City Ordinance, it would be recommended that Commissioner Fyle be reappointed to serve through 2013, another two years. In doing so, Commissioner Fyle will have had the opportunity to serve full three-year term and the Commission’s appointment schedule will be properly staggered. Commissioners Dragsten, Voight and Fyle have all indicted their willingness to serve another term. The City Council would ratify the three appointments on January 9th, 2012. Appointments will be retro-active to January 1st, 2012. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend the appointment of Commissioners Voight and Dragsten for a three-year term on the Planning Commission, and the recommend the appointment of Commissioner Fyle for a two-year term. 2. Motion of other. C. SUPPORTING DATA A. Planning Commission Term Schedule B. City Code Title 2, Chapter 1 - Planning Commission ExhibitB CurrentTermExpirations PlanningCommission RodDragsten3yr12/2011 (3-yearstaggeredterms)BarryVoight3yr12/2011 WilliamSpartz3yr12/2012 BradFyle 3yr 12/2011 CharlotteGabler3yr12/2013 OriginalDateofAppointment RodDragsten2-1-1995 BillSpartz5-24-2004 BarryVight11-3-2006 CharlotteGabler11-27-2006 BradFyle1-24-2011 MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE II/Chpt 2/Page 1 CHAPTER 1 PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION: 2-1-1:Composition 2-1-2:Organi zati on; M eetin gs 2-1-1:COMPOSITION: The Planning Commission shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the Council. No member of the Planning Commission shall hold any ot he r p ub li c o ff ic e i n t he Ci ty. All members shall be appointed for three year terms; however, said term may be terminated earlier by the Council. One member shall hold office until December 31, 2000; two members shall hold office until December 31, 2001 and two members shall hold office until December 31, 2002. Annually thereafter, appointments shall be made for the term of three years. Said terms are to commence on the day of appointment. Vacancies during the terms shall be filled by the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member shall, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. All members who attend at least one monthly meeting shall receive compensation of $50.00 for that month. (1/10/00, #337) All members who attend a special meeting requested by an applicant who pays a special meeting fee set by the City shall received additional compensation of$50 for each special meeting attended. (11/22/99, #336) 2-1-2:ORGANIZATION; MEETINGS: The Commission shall elect a chairman from among its appointed members for a term of one year, and the Commission may create and fill such other offices as it may determine. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one (1) regular meeting each month. This meeting shall be held on the first Tuesday. Regular meetings shall commence at seven o'clock (7:00) p.m. Hearings shall be heard as soon thereafter as possible. The Planning Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, and findings, which record shall be a public record. Planning Commission Agenda – 01/03/12 12. Consideration to review and recommend appointment for positions of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Title 2, Chapter 1 of the City Code, which establishes the Planning Commission and its responsibilities, states that “the Commission shall elect a chairman from among its appointed members for a term of one year, and the Commission may create and fill such other offices as it may determine.” Commissioner Dragsten is currently the chairman of the Planning Commission and he has indicated that if reappointed for another three year term, he would be willing to serve another year as the Chairman of the Commission. Commissioner Spartz is the current Vice Chairman of the Commission and has also indicated a willingness to serve another year in that role. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend the appointment of Commissioner _____________ as Chairman of the Monticello Planning Commission and the appointment of Commissioner ______________ as Vice Chair. 2. Motion of other. C. SUPPORTING DATA A. City Code Title 2, Chapter 1 - Planning Commission (see previous item) Planning Commission Agenda: 01/03/12 1 13. Consideration to adopt 2011 Planning Commission Goals & Objectives Workplan. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As part of continued efforts to accomplish the vision set out by the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission is asked to consider adoption of a set of Goals & Objectives for 2012. In 2011, staff prepared a goals and objectives workplan for review and consideration which was intended to carry the Commission through 2012. A review of that workplan illustrates the accomplishments of the past year:  Adoption of a new Zoning Ordinance with subsequent supporting amendments: o Amendment to the Adult Use regulations of the Zoning Ordinance consistent with State and Federal law and case law. o Amendment to Telecommunications regulations. This item was not on the workplan, but was needed to better define these types of uses and regulate associated land use impacts. o Code tracking ordinance amendments including:  Original Plat/Lower Monticello Standards  Sign ordinance clarifications  M-H/R-4 Revisions  Downtown Monticello o Continue to provide input via Steering Committee and Stakeholder forums. o Review and comment on draft documentation as it is available. o Complete a formal review and recommendation at public hearing level. o Consideration of a resolution for adoption as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan.  Park & Pathway Plan o Review and provide formal comment on athletic complex concept planning. o Review draft Master Plan documentation as it is available o Complete a formal review and recommendation at public hearing level. o Consideration of a resolution for adoption as an amendment to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Parks.  Transportation Planning o Appoint a Commissioner to the newly formed Transportation Advisory Committee For 2012, staff has brought forward those items from the 2011-2012 that remain priorities for the coming year, along with a small number of additional items for consideration. Planning Commission Agenda: 01/03/12 2 As in 2011, Planning Commission is asked to review the attached document and provide: 1. Revisions, comments, questions 2. Additional suggestions 3. Prioritization of the listed items, including feedback on realistic expectations as to what may be accomplished in 2011 and what may need to be staged in future years B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the 2012 Planning Commission Goals & Objectives Workplan as drafted. 2. Motion to approve the 2012 Planning Commission Goals & Objectives Workplan, subject to modifications as directed by the Commission. 2. Motion to table for further discussion. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends adoption of the 2012 workplan, subject to input from the Planning Commission. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. 2012 Planning Commission Goals & Objectives Workplan B. 2011-2012 Planning Commission Goals & Objectives Workplan C. 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan – Found online at www.ci.monticello.mn.us 1 | P a g e The Monticello Planning Commission is established to advise the Mayor, Council and Community Development Department in matters concerning planning and land use matters; to review and make recommendations regarding the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, subdivision and zoning ordinances and other planning rules and regulations; to establish planning rules and regulations; and to conduct public hearings. 2012 Statement: The pace of review related to development proposals and applications has slowed, providing the Planning Commission with the opportunity to focus on long-term land use planning for the community. This opportunity has resulted in the adoption of an update to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and the adoption of a comprehensive amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. For 2012, the Planning Commission will continue work on projects and recommendations which support accomplishment of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan's vision. Land Use Planning Comprehensive Plan  Review Chapter 2, Community Context to incorporate findings of the 2010 Census and American Community Survey results.  Direct the organization of a task force for discussion and recommendations on the Comp Plan Growth Projection.  Define a process for study and recommendations related to the “Interchange Planning Area”. (See also Transportation Planning below) Zoning Ordinance  Interim Ordinances o Monitor the impacts of the adopted Interim Ordinance for Temporary Signage and complete year-end analysis for the purpose of provide final Sign Ordinance amendment recommendations. In progress – review in February o Complete a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop aimed at developing a full understanding of the practical application of the new PUD Ordinance, focusing on the collaborative components of the new code. – COMPLETE. Ordinance amendments to be presented in February as discussed. Monticello Planning Commission 2012 Goals & Objectives Workplan ________________________________________ 2 | P a g e o Complete a Planning Commission workshop aimed at understanding the practical application of the new Performance Zone Overlay on a hypothetical development scenario.  Complete DNR Overlay Amendments o Adopt an amendment to the Mississippi Wild & Scenic Overlay District that provides consistency with State regulations.  Status Update: DNR comments have been incorporated and have been sent back to the DNR for final approval.  Hearing set for February, 2012 o Adopt an amendment to the Shoreland Overlay District that provides consistency with State regulations and provides the Commission with ordinances for future lakeshore development.  Status Update: DNR comments have been incorporated and have been sent back to the DNR for final approval.  Hearing set for February, 2012 o Adopt an amendment to the Floodplain Overlay District that provides consistency with State regulations and provides the Commission with ordinances for future lakeshore development.  Status Update: FEMA Community meeting held in December, 2011 to review preliminary FIRM maps. Key staff attending National Incident Management training. Ordinance amendment to be drafted in late 2012.  Code Tracking o Continue to monitor issues resulting from the adoption of the comprehensive amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and propose amendments as necessary.  Subdivision Ordinance o As directed in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, complete a review and amendment of the ordinance in partnership with Engineering Department. o Complete a review and updating of City Plans & Specifications for consistency with amended Subdivision Ordinance.  Adult Use Ordinance  Complete an annual review of the Adult Use Overlay District and ordinances. Embracing Downtown  Define a process for the amendment of the CCD and CCD-R Overlay provisions of Zoning Code consistent with Embracing Downtown Plan. o Status: Convene a workshop/task force 2nd PC meeting in February, 2012 to review Design Guidelines and set course for update. 3 | P a g e Parks & Trails Planning Park & Pathway Plan  Review park dedication ordinance for currency in dedication and fee-in-lieu requirements. Natural Resource Inventory  Determine needed action steps resulting from the NRI/A outside the scope of zoning ordinance amendments. o Examples: Conservation easements, restoration and management strategies (Mississippi riverbank) Transportation Planning  Define a process for study and recommendations related to the “Interchange Planning Area”. 1 | Page MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION 2011-2012 GOALS & OBJECTIVES WORKPLAN ______________________________________________________________________________ The Monticello Planning Commission is established to advise the Mayor, Council and Community Development Department in matters concerning planning and land use matters; to review and make recommendations regarding the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, subdivision and zoning ordinances and other planning rules and regulations; to establish planning rules and regulations; and to conduct public hearings. 2011-2012 Statement: The pace of review related to development proposals and applications has slowed, providing the Planning Commission with the opportunity to focus on long-term land use planning for the community. This opportunity has resulted in the adoption of an update to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and the adoption of a comprehensive amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. For 2011-2012, the Planning Commission will continue work on projects and recommendations which support accomplishment of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan’s vision. Land Use Comprehensive Plan o Complete an Annual Review of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Plan document. COMPLETE o Complete a Housing Report providing detailed overview of Monticello’s housing inventory. COMPLETE o Define a process for study and recommendations related to the “Interchange Planning Area”. (See also Transportation Planning below) Zoning Ordinance o Interim Ordinances  Adopt an amendment to the Adult Use regulations of the Zoning Ordinance consistent with State and Federal law and case law. APPROVED  Monitor the impacts of the adopted Interim Ordinance for Temporary Signage and complete year-end analysis for the purpose of provide final Sign Ordinance amendment recommendations. In progress 2 | Page o Zoning Ordinance Workshops  Complete a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop aimed at developing a full understanding of the practical application of the new PUD Ordinance, focusing on the collaborative components of the new code.  Complete a Planning Commission workshop aimed at understanding the practical application of the new Performance Zone Overlay on a hypothetical development scenario. o Complete DNR Overlay Amendments  Adopt an amendment to the Mississippi Wild & Scenic Overlay District that provides consistency with State regulations. Status Update: DNR comments have been incorporated and have been sent back to the DNR for final approval.  Adopt an amendment to the Shoreland Overlay District that provides consistency with State regulations and provides the Commission with ordinances for future lakeshore development. Status Update: DNR comments have been incorporated and have been sent back to the DNR for final approval.  Adopt an amendment to the Floodplain Overlay District that provides consistency with State regulations and provides the Commission with ordinances for future lakeshore development. Status Update: The DNR has requested a joint meeting between Community Development, Engineering and Emergency Mgmt. staff and DNR to review draft ordinance.  Adopt amendments to the Official Zoning Map reflecting DNR approved ordinances for Shoreland, Mississippi Wild & Scenic and Floodplain Overlay District ordinances. o Code Tracking  Continue to monitor issues resulting from the adoption of the comprehensive amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and propose amendments as necessary. 3 | Page Code tracking ordinance amendments already identified: o Original Plat/Lower Monticello Standards o Sign ordinance clarifications – APPROVED o M-H/R-4 Revisions – In progress Subdivision Ordinance  As directed in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, complete a review and amendment of the ordinance in partnership with Engineering Department.  Complete a review and updating of City Plans & Specifications for consistency with amended Subdivision Ordinance. Downtown Monticello  Continue to provide input via Steering Committee and Stakeholder forums.  Review and comment on draft documentation as it is available.  Complete a formal review and recommendation at public hearing level.  Consideration of a resolution for adoption as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan.  Define a process for the amendment of the CCD and CCD-R Overlay provisions of Zoning Code consistent with Embracing Downtown Plan.  Long Term Goal: Continue to provide TIF District Amendment/Modification recommendations consistent with Comprehensive plan in order to achieve vision of the Embracing Downtown plan. Parks & Trails Natural Resource Inventory o Determine needed action steps resulting from the NRI/A outside the scope of zoning ordinance amendments.  Examples: Conservation easements, restoration and management strategies (Mississippi riverbank) 4 | Page Park & Trail Plan  Continue to provide input via Steering Committee/ Stakeholder forums.  Review draft plan documentation as it is available.  Complete a formal review and recommendation at public hearing level.  Consideration of a resolution for adoption as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Parks.  Actively support and provide formal recommendations regarding implementation of Park & Trail Plan goals as part of land use initiatives. Bertram Chain of Lakes Master Planning  Review and provide formal comment on athletic complex concept planning.  Review draft Master Plan documentation as it is available (to be included with Park & Trail Plan above)  Complete a formal review and recommendation at public hearing level.  Consideration of a resolution for adoption as an amendment to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Parks. Transportation Planning  Appoint a Commissioner to the newly formed Transportation Advisory Committee - In progress  Review and comment on draft documentation as it is available on the following projects. Fallon Avenue Overpass Mississippi River Crossing  Complete a formal review and recommendation at public hearing level on the above projects.  Consideration of a resolution for adoption as an amendment as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Transportation.  Define a process for study and recommendations related to the “Interchange Planning Area”. 5 | Page COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - INTERNAL DEPARTMENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES Community Development Communications & Customer Relations o Continue to improve overall City communications coordination  Expansion and management of website Develop E-government solutions allowing for the ability to access/apply/pay online. Reinstitute online Projects in Progress tool  Institute Community Development Annual Report  Continue to build/refine City communications coordination – Facebook, Web, Citizen Service Desk, etc.  Use FiberNet to develop local programming capabilities  Sense of Place Initiatives – Synch with Park/Trail Plan and Embracing Downtown Work cooperatively with Engineering Department to build internal and external GIS.  Web-based GIS launch for internal and external use  Development of Shoreland, MWSR and Floodplain layers  Integration of laser-fiche records Develop a Student Mayor Program to foster understanding and interest in local government by youth. Development Process o Update all forms and checklists consistent with revised Zoning Ordinance o Simplify and Revise Development Guide o Work in cooperation with the Engineering and Finance Department to review development finance plan and assessment policy o Support Economic Development’s Concierge Team work. Parks & Trails o Develop and implement river recreation opportunities – strengthening connection between Park & Trail plan, BR & E river recreation group and Embracing Downtown efforts o Support continued efforts to extend and develop Monticello’s trail and pathway system, including improved crossings o Work with Engineering and Wright County Soil & Water to develop a plan for public ROW along river 6 | Page Economic Development See EDA and IEDC workplans, attached Department of Building Safety Building Permit-Related o Update handouts and permit applications o Assist in e-permitting function launch Code Enforcement o Update - Storm Shelter - Kjellberg building violation follow-up o Update - JME Noise violations o Get Thistle under control in advance o Conduct light patrol -- both City and private lighting. o Identify Lawful non-conforming items -- city properties o Inventory CUP properties for on-going tracking Emergency Management Coordination o Develop 4-point emergency management coordination  Engineering, Public Works, Fire, Civil Defense  Nuclear, Natural, Infrastructure, Pandemic o Identify Disaster Relocation facility o Non Nuclear Emergency response coordination and planning - Including comprehensive NIMs Training o Update Building Department Communications - Civil Defense related. Federal Communications requirements - Narrowband o Coordinate purchase of phones via the emergency radiological planning fund o Develop Flood mitigation measures Planning Commission Agenda: 1/03/12 1 14. Community Development Director’s Report. (AS) DNR Ordinances – Mississippi Wild & Scenic and Shoreland Formal notice of public hearing has been sent to the Commissioner of Natural Resources and Monticello’s Regional DNR representative for the revisions to the Mississippi Wild & Scenic and Shoreland ordinances. These ordinance updates were prepared with the comprehensive ordinance update, but were awaiting final comment from the DNR. The hearing has been set in order to expedite that review. The hearing will occur on February 7th. The DNR will be required to submit comments prior to that time and staff will keep the Commission apprised. Temporary Sign Ordinance The interim ordinance regulating temporary signage will expire on January 1, 2012. At that time, the existing ordinance will go back into effect. Recognizing the need to evaluate the effects and impacts of the interim ordinance, staff will be sending a survey to all temporary sign permit holders and will also hold a work session with the business round table that helped to craft the interim ordinance. Commissioner Dragsten attended the first work session in 2011 and has agreed to attend the 2012 session, which is scheduled for January 5th. Staff intends to bring all of the information gathered from the survey and roundtable to the Commission in February, along with any recommended proposed amendments to the temporary sign ordinance. CCD Ordinance Rewrite Pending the final adoption of the Embracing Downtown Plan by the City Council in January, staff would propose that the Planning Commission begin work on the rewrite of the CCD ordinance. Utilizing the Design Guidelines contained within the Embracing Downtown Plan as a basis for update, the Commission’s analysis will likely focus on three primary areas:  Level of flexibility to be provided in the new code  The division of the CCD into specific zones and how that should be conveyed in the new ordinance materials  Extent of impact to other areas of the code – parking, signage, etc. There will also be other areas of focus that arise during the analysis. Members of the Embracing Downtown Steering Committee have begun to discuss pulling together a Downtown Partnership as envisioned by the Embracing Downtown plan. From that group, it would be envisioned that a few key members take part in the code rewrite, to further continuity between the plan and the code. The partnership is just beginning to take shape, so it is Staff’s recommendation is to utilize the second meeting in February as a kick- off for the code rewrite discussion. If the Commission concurs, staff will coordinate with the new partnership. Planning Commission Agenda: 1/03/12 2 PUD Ordinance Update In February, staff will be bringing forward proposed amendments to the PUD ordinance as previously outlined in both the PUD workshop and in the follow-up analysis completed by NAC. Supporting information on the recommended changes from previous agenda items is included with this report, for reference. Sunset Ponds Amendment Update The City Council tabled action on the PUD amendment requested by Sunset Ponds, LLC. The Council requested that staff and the applicant work toward a more agreeable solution for all parties. Staff will therefore be coordinating a meeting between the applicant, resident representatives and City representatives during the first part of January. For the meeting the applicant has been asked to provide images of the home design proposed as built in other communities. Sunset Ponds residents have been asked to provide information on their specific expectations. City staff will pull home plans from previously permitted Sunset Ponds homes for an apples to apples square footage comparison, as well. An update on the outcomes of the meeting will be provided to the Planning Commission as soon as possible. Development Survey The development survey provided to the Planning Commission was emailed to all 2011 applicants (and their architects/engineers/realtors). To date, out of 18 total recipients, 3 responses have been collected. I follow-up reminder was sent on 12/29/11. Staff will provide analysis of all responses with February’s Director’s report. Planning Commission Agenda – 10/04/11 1 7. Planned Unit Development Workshop. (AS) A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND During the September 20th special meeting, the Planning Commission and City Council had an opportunity to review and discuss the newly formatted Planned Unit Development ordinance. During the workshop, the Commissioners and Council members identified a number of items requiring additional clarification within the new ordinance, as well as process details they sought to amend. Listed below is a bullet point listing of these items. During the October meeting, the Planning Commission will be asked to recommend moving forward with a formal amendment process for those items desired for adjustment within the PUD ordinance. .  Minimum PUD Size – 2.4(P)(5) o Size of PUD – currently requires 8 acres  PUD Values – 2.4(P)(7) o Clarify item (j) which requires that PUDs provide a complementary mix of housing to flexibility to provide such housing for the broader neighborhood and community, not just within the PUD  Areas of Flexibility – 2.4(P)(8) o Create additional language allowing for flexibility in general performance standards o Create additional language allowing for flexibility in accommodations for mixed use, additional uses not outlined by ordinance  Collaborative Step – 2.4(P)(9)(a) o Establish two collaborative teams, one for residential and one for commercial/industrial as follows  Residential – 2 PC, 2 CC, 1 Parks  C/I – 2 PC, 2 CC, 1 EDA o Add language requiring a baseline concept plan developed according to ordinance as a reference point for team o Collaborative team will determine whether a neighborhood meeting is necessary, eliminate mandatory step  Concept Stage – 2.4(P)(9)(b) o Clarify that a public hearing is required  Development Stage – 2.4(P)(c) o Specify additional plan requirements consistent with previous development stage application (if not already covered in concept stage)  Signs  Lighting  Elevations/Architecture  Landscaping  Amendments2.4(P)(10) o Under “Administrative Amendments”, move the statement “other circumstances not foreseen at the time of the PUD Final Plan was approved” to the actual “PUD Amendment” area. Planning Commission Agenda – 10/04/11 2 B. SUPPORTING DATA Planned Unit Development Staff Summary Planned Unit Development Staff Power Point City Planner’s Comment Sheet Planned Unit Development Ordinance, 2.4(P) Planned Unit Development Ordinance, previous code, Chapter 20 (4) Permitted Locations for PUD rezoning (a) A rezoning to PUD may be requested for any residential or commercially zoned area. (b) PUDs are prohibited in the industrial districts. I know this has been changed in any updated version – I just don’t have that in Word format. (5) Minimum PUD size Rezonings to PUD will not be considered for areas less than 8 acres of land in single ownership or control, except in the following circumstances: I am not a fan of these arbitrary thresholds. A project either meets the City’s goals for using a PUD process or it doesn’t. These acreage thresholds came into fashion when Cities began to worry that smaller projects were just using PUD to get around ordinance requirements – which was no doubt happening – but the problem was the City’s willingness to dump its principles, not with the size of the project. I have seen many smaller PUDs that were good, and many larger PUDs that were bad – size doesn’t matter! (a) Natural features of the land are such that development under standard zoning regulations would not be appropriate in order to conserve such features; (b) The land is intended to be developed in accordance with a prior PUD adjacent to or across the street from the subject property; or (c) The PUD process is desirable to ensure compatibility and careful consideration of the effect of a development on surrounding land uses. (d) The proposal is in the CCD in which case there shall be no minimum land area requirement. (6) Permitted Uses Within PUDs Uses within a PUD shall be governed by the ordinance establishing the PUD and by the conditions, if any, imposed by the City in the approval process and PUD documents. If a specific use is not established or addressed by a PUD ordinance, said use shall be governed by the underlying zoning district regulations. Same issue with base v. overlay concept. (7) Expectations of a Development Seeking a Rezoning to PUD The provisions of this section are intended to achieve the following public values within a PUD zoning district and associated subdivision: (a) Ensure high quality construction standards and the use of high quality construction materials; zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (b) Promote a variety of housing styles which include features such as side or rear loaded garages, front porches, varying roof pitches, and four sided architecture/articulation; (c) Eliminate repetition of similar housing types by encouraging a housing mixture which separates the same/similar model of homes by a minimum of two lots; Applying this as a standard has always been problematic to me – what about corners, or across the street. And, what is “same or similar”? Different color? Different siding? An additional dormer? I know this is nit-picky, but it’s always seemed like more of a developer’s marketing gimmick than a good measure of planning review. (d) Promote aesthetically-pleasing design which fosters a sense of place within the neighborhood and appears attractive and inviting from surrounding parcels; Trite phrases that would never stand up to a court challenge. I don’t know how you would approve or deny a PUD request based on whether it creates a “sense of place”. (e) Incorporate extensive landscaping in excess of what is required by code; This isn’t a bad goal as long as it is quantified somehow in the ordinance. (f) Provide high-quality park, open space, and trail opportunities that meet or exceed the expectations established in the Comprehensive Plan; Shouldn’t they “exceed”, not just “meet”? If it’s a PUD, the baseline is always to do better than the minimum expectation. (g) Provide a convenient and efficient multi-modal transportation system to service the daily needs of residents at peak and non-peak use levels, with high connectivity to the larger community. (h) Minimize the extent of the development footprint and impervious surfaces to the extent possible to reduce initial infrastructure costs and long-term maintenance and operational costs; Requirement does not necessarily lead to the objective in this item. And I could imagine many PUDs doing the opposite – maximizing the extent of the development footprint when you are looking at a more urban project, which would be offset by a larger contribution to the City’s public open space efforts. This also leads to another issue generally – this PUD ordinance is set up to presume that PUDs are self-contained units, rather than parts of the whole. Every PUD should not be required to have its component proportion of all public services (especially open space). Geographically, you may not want one PUD to provide open space, in exchange for the ability to acquire it on a neighboring piece. This comment also implicates the next item, which presumes that PUDs will be designed to be less urban in nature. This is a view of PUD that has been promoted by rural ecologists, and can have some excellent application for large residential plats, but may be completely inappropriate for a commercial/industrial PUD, or for an extensive multi-family development. Perhaps this could all be mitigated by additional text in the intro to this section, explaining that these elements may or may not be appropriate in all circumstances, and that the City will identify the most applicable goals for the proposed PUD as a role of the collaborative team(?). (i) Maximize the use of ecologically-based approaches to stormwater management, restore or enhance on-site ecological systems, and protect off-site ecological systems including the application of Low Impact Development (LID) practices; See comment above. (j) Foster in inclusive community by providing a complementary mix of lifecycle housing; (k) Preserve and protect important ecological areas identified on the City’s natural resource inventory (NRI); (8) Areas of Flexibility (a) The City shall consider an increase in the number of overall units and associated reductions in lot width and size if the PUD provides substantially more site amenities and public values, as outlined in Section 2.4(P)(7), than could be achieved in a conventional residential development for the applicable zoning district. What about commercial and/or industrial PUD? “Unit” count and “lot size” is not necessarily relevant to many PUD designs – the issue is more likely to be “density” or “intensity”. (b) The City shall consider a decrease in the amount of road width required or right-of-way requirements if the PUD provides substantially more site amenities, as outlined in Section 2.4(P)(7), than are found in a conventional residential development for the applicable zoning district. Specifications and standards for streets, utilities, and other public facilities shall be at the discretion of City Council and must protect the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the city. Personally, I think the City should set reasonable, sustainable road width rules and stick by them. This is a public safety issue, not something to be bartered off because a developer proposes more stone on his house facades. If our street standards are larger than necessary for public safety, then they should be reduced across the board. (c) The City shall consider flexibility with regard to lot size, width, and depth when reviewing a PUD rezoning request. Specifications and standards for lots shall be at the discretion of City Council, and shall encourage a desirable living environment which assists in achieving the goals set out for PUDs. (d) The City shall consider flexibility in the phasing of a PUD development. Changes to the proposed staging or timing of a PUD may be approved by the City Council when necessary or on the showing of good cause by the developer. (9) PUD Procedure All requests for rezoning to Planned Unit Development shall follow the steps outlined below. (a) Collaborative process and project goal setting The collaborative process and project goal setting step is intended to allow the applicant to meet with members of the Community Development Department and appointed and elected officials to gain an understanding of the public values related to development of the subject site. The feedback received during this step will provide guidance to the applicant on things to incorporate into a future concept plan. Elements? Items? (i) Initiation of Proceedings A request for a PUD Concept Plan Review shall be initiated by application of the property owner or other person having authority to file an application pursuant to Section 2.3(B), Authority to File Applications. (ii) Application 1. All applications for a PUD Collaborative process and project goal setting session shall be in accordance with Section 2.3, Common Review Requirements. 2. In addition to common review requirements, a site analysis shall be submitted in anticipation of the pre-application activities which includes the following information: a. Location of wooded areas or significant features (environmental, historical, cultural) of the parcel; b. Indicate the base flood elevation level (if applicable) and show the general location of floodways and/or flood fringe areas; c. Delineation of the ordinary high water levels of all water bodies; d. Delineation of the shoreland district boundary (if applicable); e. General locations of wetlands (if applicable); f. Calculation of gross acres on the site proposed for development; g. Indication of neighboring land uses surrounding the proposed development site. h. Steep slopes? Areas designated by NRI? NET usable/buildable acreage? Estimate of site development capacity under existing zoning! To know whether the City is accomplishing anything, and whether what you are trading is reasonable, you should have a baseline development plan that shows site capacity – almost any developer will have taken this step to give them an idea of what their ROI would be at a certain land price – they have to in order to know whether they can even make an offer on the land. And it can serve as an invaluable baseline for the City’s review of the PUD design. (iii) Collaborative Process and Project Goal Setting Process 1. The applicant shall meet with the city staff for a pre-application conference prior to submittal of a concept plan application to the city. The primary purpose of the conference is to allow the applicant and staff an opportunity to review the comprehensive plan and to make a preliminary determination if the proposal is conducive to a PUD rezoning. 2. City staff and the applicant shall work together to schedule a concurrent worksession with policymakers of the city (applicable commissions and City Council) to discuss the public values on the site using the established public values in Section 2.4(P)(7) as a guideline. The result of this meeting will be a public values statement. This is usually a small group with a rotating membership as new PUD applications come in. At the PC meeting, there was a discussion of not having EDA members on residential projects, and park members on C/I projects. I actually think these members would benefit the collaborative team – an EDA member might have excellent economic value input on a residential project, and a parks member might have excellent open space or recreation input on a C/I project. Just a thought. I also think that the developer should provide a commentary on the economic feasibility of the City’s objectives to help form the Values Statement. Of course, most developers are going to whine about costs, but in most collaborative processes, one of the points of the effort is to get the developer’s input on economic feasibility – otherwise it’s not much different than the typical PUD process where the City asks for additional stuff, and the developer squirms until he wheedles an approval. The collaborative process is intended set out realistic goals early, which in turn are supposed to avoid the need for ongoing negotiations later. 3. At an appropriate point during the process, the applicant shall hold a neighborhood meeting. The city and all owners of property within 1,000 feet of the proposed PUD (or a larger area as determined by the Community Development Department) (Just a minor observation that a specific person, or entity, should be in charge of “determining” here – the Community Development Director, or Zoning Administrator, or City Council, etc. Leaving it to a “Department” can be a little vague). shall be given notice of the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to inform the neighborhood of the proposed PUD, discuss the concepts and basis for the plan being developed and to obtain information and suggestions from the neighborhood. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs incurred by the city for attorney, engineering, or other consultant fees during these pre-concept plan activities. There are probably other fees that just consultant fees – City staff charges, permit application fees, etc.) (b) PUD Concept Plan Prior to submitting formal preliminary plat and rezoning applications for the proposed development, the applicant shall prepare an informal concept plan and present it to the appropriate commissions and City Council at a concurrent worksession, as scheduled by the Community Development Department. The purpose of this meeting is to determine if all parties are on a common track and if the development reflects the stated public values; If the City is going to allow concurrent Concept and Preliminary applications, it needs to be stated explicitly. (i) Initiation of Proceedings A request for a PUD Concept Plan Review shall be initiated by application of the property owner or other person having authority to file an application pursuant to Section 2.3(B), Authority to File Applications. (ii) Application 1. All applications for a PUD Concept Plan Review shall be in accordance with Section 2.3, Common Review Requirements. 2. In addition to common review requirements, applications for a PUD Concept Plan Review shall also include at least the information in Section 2.4(P)(9)(b)(iii) below to be considered complete (except as exempted by the Community Development Department). See note above. (iii) Specific PUD Concept Plan Submittal Requirements In the list below, you should be defining both gross and net density, how density is calculated, unit counts, quantities by land use category, buildings (not just lots), delineation between public and private services (e.g. utilities, open space, etc.). This section should also grant the CDD the authority to require additional information before a Concept Plan app is considered complete for review An applicant shall provide the following information unless waived by staff: 1. A listing of contact information including name(s), address(es) and phone number(s) of: the owner of record, authorized agents or representatives, engineer, surveyor, and any other relevant associates; 2. A listing of the following site data: Address, current zoning, parcel size in acres and square feet and current legal description(s); 3. An updated site analysis incorporating any additional features or requested changes identified during the collaborative process and project goal setting session; 4. A narrative explaining how the identified public values for the site are addressed by the concept plan; 5. A listing of general information including the number of proposed lots and a calculation of gross land area; 6. Calculation of the proposed density of the project and the potential density under standard zoning regulations. 7. Outline a development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the project, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin and be completed (including the proposed phasing of construction of public improvements and recreational and common space areas). 8. A Concept PUD Plan illustrating the nature and type of proposed development. At a minimum, the plan should show: a. Area calculations for gross land area b. Existing zoning district(s) c. Layout of proposed lots and proposed uses. Denote outlots planned for public dedication and/or open space (schools, parks, etc.) d. Area calculations for each parcel e. General location of wetlands and/or watercourses over the property and within 200 feet of the perimeter of the subdivision parcel f. Location of existing and proposed streets within and immediately adjacent to the subdivision parcel g. Proposed sidewalks and trails h. Proposed parking areas i. Proposed parks, common areas, and preservation easements (indicate public vs. private if applicable) j. General location of wooded areas or significant features (environmental, historical, cultural) of the parcel k. Location of utility systems that will serve the property l. Other: An applicant may submit any additional information that may explain the proposed PUD. (iv) PUD Concept Plan Review 1. Upon receiving a complete PUD concept plan application, the Community Development Department shall review the proposal and generate a staff report analyzing the proposal against the expectations for PUDs. The report shall be forwarded to the appropriate commissions—as determined by the Community Development Department (Director)—and the City Council for review. This language implies concurrent commission and Council review – obviously not the intent. Should be reworded to reflect the process below. 2. Commissions receiving the report shall review the PUD rezoning request, and make a recommendation to the City Council with regard to the plat layout, design, density, uses, deviations, and achieved public values of the concept plan; 3. The Council shall consider the recommendations of the commissions that have conducted a review, and provide feedback to the applicant on the proposed public values, proposed deviations, and any other aspect of the application. The Council shall either make a motion that the applicant—if they choose to proceed—move forward with the PUD preliminary plat and rezoning requests, or direct the applicant to submit a development application using conventional zoning district standards This process direction needs to address the impacts of Minn. Stat. 15.99, authority for Council to take action without commission reports (in case they don’t act in a timely manner), authority to table and/or seek amendments, potential referral for EAW/AUAR process, and possibly other outcomes. 4. After the City policymakers have reviewed and commented on the Concept PUD plan, city staff shall meet with other agencies, (such as?) as applicable, to explore opportunities of partnership to enhance the stated public values. This section should explicitly state that Council direction to move forward is NOT at approval that grants any development rights, but rather a willingness to continue exploring the use of the PUD flexibility for the subject site. (c) PUD Preliminary Plat and Rezoning (i) Initiation of Proceedings 1. Concurrent applications for rezoning to PUD and a Preliminary Plat shall be submitted to the City within one year of the City Council’s recommendation on the PUD Concept Plan. Council takes an action or makes a finding, not a recommendation. Failure to submit applications for rezoning to PUD and a Preliminary Plat within the one year timeframe will require the applicant to begin the process anew from that point forward. What point is this referring to? 2. The requests for rezoning to PUD and Preliminary Plat shall be initiated by application of the property owner or other person having authority to file an application pursuant to Section 2.3(B), Authority to File Applications. This constitutes a separate application for purposes of Minn. Stat. 15.99. (ii) Application 1. All applications for rezoning to PUD and Preliminary Plat shall be in accordance with Section 2.3, Common Review Requirements. 2. The application for rezoning to PUD shall be in accordance with Section 2.4(B), Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments. 3. The application for Preliminary Plat shall be in accordance with City Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Data Required for Preliminary and Final Plats; and shall include the additional information requirements listed in Section 2.4(P)(9)(c)(iii) below to be considered complete (except as exempted by the Community Development Department). 4. If the PUD is proposed to develop over a timeframe exceeding two years, a PUD Master Plan (this appears to only be required for a phased project – that is, the “Master Plan” is really only a “Phasing Plan”?) for the entire project (to be completed in phases) may be submitted. Subsequent PUD Final Plan applications would only grant approval for an individual phase. (iii) Specific PUD Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements An applicant shall provide a separate PUD Development Plan clearly delineating the proposed development and all features not consistent with underlying zoning regulations (e.g. setback deviations). At a minimum, the plan should show: Land Uses, Net developable land by land use, building design and materials, landscaping detail, screening, fencing, other site improvements, PROPOSED grading, PROPOSED streets and utilities, impacts on natural resources, This list seems very incomplete to me for PUD at this stage – and it also seems more heavily weighted to a plat review than a PUD review. The required submission list just seems to be missing a lot of information we would normally expect at this stage. 1. Administrative information (including identification of the drawing as a ―Preliminary PUD Development Plan,‖ the proposed name of the subdivision, contact information for the developer and individual preparing the plan, signature of the surveyor certifying the document, date of plan preparation or revision, and a graphic scale and true north arrow); 2. Area calculations for gross land area, wetland areas, wetland buffers, right-of- way dedications, conservation areas, and proposed public and private parks; 3. Existing zoning district(s); 4. Layout of proposed lots with future lot and block numbers. The perimeter boundary line of the subdivision should be distinguishable from the other property lines. Denote outlots planned for public dedication and/or open space (schools, parks, etc.); 5. Area calculations for each parcel; 6. Proposed setbacks on each lot (forming the building pad) and calculated buildable area; 7. Proposed gross hardcover allowance per lot (if applicable); 8. Existing contours at intervals of two feet. Contours must extend a minimum of 200 feet beyond the boundary of the parcel(s) in question; 9. Delineation of wetlands and/or watercourses over the property and within 200 feet of the perimeter of the subdivision parcel; 10. Delineation of the ordinary high water levels of all water bodies; 11. Location, width, and names of existing and proposed streets within and immediately adjacent to the subdivision parcel; 12. Easements and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the subdivision parcel(s); 13. The location and orientation of proposed buildings; 14. Proposed sidewalks and trails; 15. Proposed parking areas; 16. Proposed parks, common areas, and preservation easements (indicate public vs. private if applicable); 17. Any other information as directed by the Community Development Department. (iv) PUD Preliminary Plat and Rezoning to PUD Review This section should include a clause that defines the development rights granted, along with responsibilities, as a result of an approval at this stage. 1. The application for rezoning to PUD shall be reviewed in accordance with Section 2.4(B), Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments. 2. The application for Preliminary Plat shall be reviewed in accordance with City Code Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 2, Preliminary Plat Procedure. 3. As part of the review process for both applications, the Community Development Department shall generate an analysis of the proposal against the expectations for PUDs and the previously established public values statement to formulate a recommendation regarding the rezoning to the planning commission and City Council. Ordinance needs to reconcile the timeframes for review since it is combining a zoning application (15.99) with a subdivision process (462.358). 4. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing and consider the application’s consistency with the intent and purpose of the PUD and comprehensive plan goals. The planning commission shall make recommendations to the City Council on the merit, needed changes, and suggested conditions of the proposed rezoning, preliminary plat and PUD development plan. 5. In approving or denying the ordinance to rezone the subject property to PUD, the City Council shall make findings on the following: This section raises the question as to when the rezoning ordinance is formally effective –the ordinance needs to take effect after the City is ready to approve all of the details of the PUD, which is not likely to be right away. The rezoning ordinance passed by the Council must account for this lapse of time, and give the City the opportunity to rescind – check with City Attorney for a preferred process and timing clause. a. The PUD plan is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan; b. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and greater public benefits than would be achieved under conventional provisions of the ordinance; c. The PUD plan addresses the purpose and intent of the PUD rezoning laid out in Section 2.4(P)(1), and the public values statement established at the beginning of the process d. The PUD plan addresses the expectations of a PUD laid out in Section 2.4(P)(7); e. The PUD plan maintains or improves the efficiency of public streets, utilities, and other public services; f. The PUD plan results in development compatible with existing adjacent and future guided land uses; g. How the PUD plan addresses the purpose and intent of the PUD rezoning laid out in Section 2.4(P)(1), and the public values statement established at the beginning of the process. h. Whether the PUD can be accommodated by existing public services, such as parks, police, fire, administration, and utilities, or the developer has provided for the growth and extension of such services as a component of the PUD . i. Whether the PUD is designed to take advantage of, and preserve, the natural features of the subject property, including waterways, forested areas, natural prairie, topography, views, etc. (d) PUD Final Plat (i) Initiation of Proceedings 1. A final plat that conforms with the preliminary plat and associated PUD rezoning ordinance shall be submitted within 180 days of approval of the ordinance and preliminary plat approval, unless otherwise extended by the City Council. If the applicant fails to submit a final plat application or extension request within this time period, the zoning shall revert back to the underlying zoning district through a rezoning ordinance adopted by the City Council. This language mandates that the Council adopts a rezoning ordinance. What is status of zoning if they don’t? My preferred solution would be to delay the effective date of the rezoning ordinance adopted in the previous step so it doesn’t take effect if certain things don’t happen. 2. The request for PUD Final Plat shall be initiated by application of the property owner or other person having authority to file an application pursuant to Section 2.3(B), Authority to File Applications. (ii) Application 1. All applications for PUD Final Plat shall be in accordance with Section 2.3, Common Review Requirements. 2. The application for PUD Final Plat shall be in accordance with City Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Data Required for Preliminary and Final Plats. 3. In addition to general city code requirements, applications for a PUD Final Plat shall also include at least the information in Section 2.4(P)(9)(d)(iii) below to be considered complete (except as exempted by the Community Development Department). (iii) Specific PUD Final Plat Submittal Requirements 1. If a PUD Master Plan for the entire project was submitted and approved as part of the preliminary plat review, an updated Master Plan shall be submitted incorporating all changes required by the preliminary plat approval. 2. The PUD Development Plan shall be updated to incorporate all changes required by the preliminary plat and rezoning approvals. My sense is that the ordinance mashes together the PUD Plan and the Preliminary Plat. Is there a PUD Development Plan mandated by the previous section? Perhaps I missed it? This document must clearly show all deviations from standard zoning being approved as part of the PUD. 3. The City and applicant shall prepare a developer’s agreement which references all PUD plans, specifies permitted uses, allowable densities, development phasing, required improvements, completion dates for improvements, the required letter of credit, all required development fees, escrows, and warranties, and any other information deemed necessary by the City. This clause will not work as written. A development agreement should list the responsibilities of the developer and the City at the time of approval and platting, and the PUD Ordinance should list the land uses and performance standards of the district. The DA will only be valuable for dealing with the original developer at the onset of the project – the ordinance will need to address the ongoing operation of the district, including subsequent owners, land use changes, new construction requests, etc., etc. 4. Up-to-date title evidence for the subject property in a form acceptable to the City shall be provided as part of the application for the PUD Final Plat. 5. Developer shall provide warranty deeds for Property being dedicated to the City for all parks, outlots, etc., free from all liens and encumbrances except as otherwise waived by the City. CDD? City Administrator? City Council? Should define whose role this is. 6. Developer shall provide all easement dedication documents for easements not shown on the final plat including those for trails, ingress/egress, etc., together with all necessary consents to the easement by existing encumbrancers of the property. (iv) PUD Final Plat Review The application for PUD Final Plat shall be reviewed in accordance with City Code Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3, Final Plat Procedure. (10) PUD Amendments Approved PUD’s may be amended from time to time as a result of unforeseen circumstances, overlooked opportunities, or requests from a developer. At such a time, the applicant shall make an application to the city for a PUD amendment. All such amendments will be processed as one of the following: (a) Administrative Amendment – The Community Development Department may approve minor changes in the location, placement, and height of buildings if such changes are required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen (this is a major trap – if something is unforeseen, shouldn’t that require re-review?) at the time the PUD Final Plan was approved, provided the changes are indeed minor (What is “minor”?) and conform to the review criteria applied by the Planning Commission and City Council. Under no circumstances shall an administrative amendment allow additional stories to buildings, additional lots, or changes to designated uses established as part of the PUD. This section should list a specific set of parameters or circumstances under which a PUD may receive an administrative amendment – a request will either qualify or it won’t. (b) PUD Adjustment – an adjustment to a PUD may be made through review and approval by a simple majority vote of the City Council with or without referral to the Planning Commission. To qualify for this review, the minor adjustment shall not: (i) Eliminate, diminish or be disruptive to the preservation and protection of sensitive site features. (ii) Eliminate, diminish or compromise the high quality of site planning, design, landscaping or building materials. (iii) Alter significantly the location of buildings, parking areas or roads. (iv) Increase or decrease the number of residential dwelling units by more than five percent. (v) Increase the gross floor area of non-residential buildings by more than three percent or increase the gross floor area of any individual building by more than five percent (residential lots not guided for specific structure sizes are excluded from this requirement). (vi) Increase the number of stories of any building. (vii) Decrease the amount of open space or alter it in such a way as to change its original design or intended function or use. (viii) Create non-compliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the Final PUD Plan. I’m not sure how to interpret this. Are there “non-special” conditions? Aren’t all of the requirements a condition of approval? (c) PUD Amendment – any change not qualifying for an administrative amendment or a PUD adjustment shall require a PUD amendment. An application to amend a PUD shall be administered in the same manner as that required for an initial PUD beginning at PUD Preliminary Plat. (11) PUD Cancellation A PUD shall only be cancelled and revoked upon the City Council adopting an ordinance rescinding the ordinance approving the PUD. Rescinding the ordinance would have the effect of “un-zoning” the property. This clause needs some work, since revocation probably should require a public hearing and some due process, presuming that approval confers some development rights. Particularly where there may be some construction that has occurred, rescinding the PUD ordinance would be problematic. In any event, it shall not be necessary for the council to find the creation of a PUD district was in error. (12) Administration In general, the following rules shall apply to all PUDs: (a) Rules and regulations: No requirement outlined in the PUD process shall restrict the City Council from taking action on an application if necessary to meet state mandated time deadlines; (b) Plan Certification: The City may require that PUD plans be certified at the time of submittal and/or upon completion of construction. What does this mean? Who “certifies” PUD plans? This requires more explanation. (c) Preconstruction: No building permit shall be granted for any building on land for which a PUD plan is in the process of review, unless the proposed building is allowed under the existing zoning and will not impact, influence, or interfere with the proposed PUD plan. (d) Effect on Conveyed Property. In the event any real property in the approved PUD Agreement is conveyed in total, or in part, the buyers thereof shall be bound by the provisions of the approved Final PUD Plan constituting a part thereof; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to create non-conforming lots, building sites, buildings or uses by virtue of any such conveyance of a lot, building site, building or part of the development created pursuant to and in conformance with the approved PUD. Again implicates the need to adopt a complete PUD ordinance, since that is the only effective way to track the zoning requirements for some future owner/buyer/tenant, etc.