Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 10-04-2011 AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 4th, 2011 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann 1. Call to order. 2. Citizen Comments. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Consideration of approving the minutes of September 6, 2011 and September 20, 2011. 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7, Special Use Overlay District, including amendments to the official zoning map of the City of Monticello. Applicant: City of Monticello 6. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC 7. Consideration of an Update regarding the Planned Unit Development Ordinance Workshop 8. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 6,2011 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison Absent: Lloyd Hilgart Staff. Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman-NAC Others: Wayne Elam 1. Call to order Commissioner Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of August 2nd, 2011 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 2ND, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. (Bill Spartz abstained.) 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3 Section 7, Special Use Overlay District, including amendments to the official zoning map of the City of Monticello Applicant: City of Monticello In June 2011, the Planning Commission called for a public hearing regarding an amendment of the Special Use overlay district relative to the pending bowling alley site rezoning. Although progress continues to be made on the transition from City ownership to ownership by the Quarry Church, no actual change in ownership has occurred. It is unnecessary to take any action on this item at this time. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, SPECIAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO OCTOBER 4TH, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business) for Lot 1. Block Riverwood Bank Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 The applicants are seeking a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the property at 9766 Fallon Avenue to match the existing and proposed tenant uses with the zoning designation. The 3.15 acre site is used as an office building with multiple tenants and a common parking lot. Existing tenants are a combination of administrative offices and commercial office -service businesses, many of which deal directly with "retail" clients and customers on-site. A request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment must address specific requirements. This request deals most directly with items (f) & (g) of Chapter 2AA (5) Approval Criteria: (f) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject property; whether the proposed design and land uses are appropriate for the land; and whether the proposed amendment will maintain or improve compatibility among uses and ensure efficient development within the City; (g) Whether the proposed amendment will result in a logical, orderly and predictable development pattern; The purpose of the amendment is to accommodate the existing uses on the property and the trend toward a more commercial retail focus in the vicinity of the parcel. This amendment will change the future land use designation from "Places to Work" to "Places to Shop", and rezone the subject parcel - Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center 5th Addition - from I-1, Light Industrial to B-4, Regional Business. A request for a Zoning amendment must also address specific requirements. This request deals most directly with item (b) of Chapter 2AB (5) Approval Criteria: (b) Whether the proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area. Charlotte Gabler asked Steve Grittman if changing the zoning of this parcel from I-1 to B-4 would affect the number of parcels in inventory designated as appropriate for the Adult Use ordinance. He indicated that such action would impact the inventory however not significantly. Steve Grittman stated that the IEDC informally forwarded a comment indicating that they have no objection to the rezoning of the site. The public hearing was opened. Wayne Elam of Commercial Realty Solutions, representing Riverwood Bank responded to Commission questions. He noted that this request is driven from a marketing and usage standpoint and that B-4 zoning is consistent with adjacent property. To market it for leasing and for sale it was important to bring it forth in the broadest use perspective. The types of tenants and use over time has changed from construction related to more service related businesses. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 The public hearing was closed. Brad Fyle indicated that the zoning should not be changed at this time based on the assumption that Mills Fleet Farm would someday develop in this area. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #2011-82 RECOMMENDING THE REDESIGNATION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM "PLACES TO WORK" TO "PLACES TO SHOP", AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS, BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH BRAD FYLE OPPOSED. 7. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi -tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Hi2hway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC DOJO/Cornerstone Properties requested an extension of the conditional use permit issued for a Planned Unit Development for a multi -tenant commercial development in 2008. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for the CUP was set to expire on August 5th, 2011. The proposed development included the construction of two retail commercial buildings located on a 1.7 acre site located south of Dundas Road and east of State Highway 25. There was some discussion about consideration of a time -limit for the extension of development projects in general. There were specific questions about how this project fits the code at this time. Staff noted that this application is likely far from the current zoning ordinance standards. There was some discussion as to how to best proceed with the request for extension and whether or not it would be more appropriate to deny or revoke the request and allow the project to be resubmitted with up-to-date conforming standards. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND A THREE-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MULTI -TENANT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR DOJO/CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION, AND ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE PROJECT BE INCORPORATED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. THERE WAS NO VOTE ON THE MOTION. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION WAS RESCINDED BY BRAD FYLE. 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING FOR THIRTY DAYS SO THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT AN UPCOMING CUP EXTENSION REQUEST HEARING AND TO OBTAIN CITY ATTORNEY INPUT IN CONSIDERING THE REQUEST. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 8. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive - Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access Applicant: SA Group Properties, Inc. SA Group Properties, Inc. requested a one-year extension of the conditional use permit issued for a commercial development project at Broadway Market. Due to non-use, the CUP for cross parking, cross access and a drive—through for the commercial development proposed at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39, originally approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council in 2006, will expire on September 25, 2011. The property owner has taken steps to properly maintain the site in accordance with City Code. Any extension of the CUP is conditioned on continued compliance with City codes relative to public nuisances. The request is consistent with current and proposed objectives for the B-4 District. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR OF THE SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2006 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE- THROUGH FACILITY, JOINT PARKING AND JOINT ACCESS FOR THE BROADWAY MARKET DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 9. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-through facility in the Central Communitv District and to allow joint par and drives. Applicant: Masters 5th Avenue Masters 5th Avenue requested an extension of the conditional use permit for the commercial development project known as Landmark Square II, located at the corner of 3rd and Locust Streets. The site is .75 acres in area and is zoned CCD. The Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for cross parking, cross access and a drive-through for the commercial development proposed, in addition to the variance from parking lot standards in 2005. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for the CUP will expire on September 15th, 2011. Staff pointed out that this property is unique in that it is part of the overall concept plan included in the Embracing Downtown Monticello report. In that plan, the site is intended to be utilized as parking for anticipated future retail development. The applicant is actively involved in addressing options for moving forward with development on this property. There was some discussion about the impact of approving the full -year 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 extension in that it would enable development to move forward in conflict with the vision of the Embracing Downtown Plan. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR OF THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE- THROUGH FACILITY, JOINT PARKING AND JOINT ACCESS FOR THE LANDMARK SQUARE II DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION WAS NOT SECONDED. MOTION FAILED. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION FOR 6 MONTHS OF THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE- THROUGH FACILITY, JOINT PARKING AND JOINT ACCESS FOR THE LANDMARK SQUARE II DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH BRAD FYLE OPPOSED. 10. Consideration of a request for amendment to Final Stage PUD for Quad Development. Applicant: Monticello -Big Lake Pet Hospital The Planning Commission was asked to approve an amendment to the final building elevation plan for the proposed Monticello -Big Lake Pet Hospital. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Veterinary Facility and an amendment to Planned Unit Development for Quad Development during its regular May meeting, and subsequently approved a final stage PUD for the detailed elevation plan for the development. The applicant has been working with their architect and contractor to finalize building plans has proposed the removal of the stone wainscot along the west, north and south sides of the building, leaving the wainscot along the front elevation, or east side. The Planning Commission considered and discussed the staff recommendation to retain the wainscot along the highly visible north elevation, which fronts School Boulevard. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDED BUILDING ELEVATIONS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: RETAIN THE WAINSCOT STONE TREAMENT ALONG THE NORTH AND THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING AS WELL AS ON THE PILLARS AND ELIMINATE THE WAINSCOT STONEWORK ON THE WEST AND SOUTH ENDS OF THE BUILDING AS A PART OF A FINAL STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR QUAD DEVELOPMENT. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 11. Tabled Item - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zonin2 Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 13 - Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, Chapter 5, Section 1 - Use Table, Chapter 5, Section 2 — Use Specific Standards and Chapter 5, Section 3 - Accessory Uses. Applicant: City of Monticello Commissioners had indicated support for the Telecommunication Towers and Antennas ordinance amendments as previously proposed at the August Planning Commission meeting and had opened and closed the public hearing on the amendment itself at that time. They had requested however that staff provide clarification on the need for the ordinance requirement that all switching equipment to be located within the FiberNet head -end building when within 1000' of the building itself. Ordinance section 4.13(E)(2) requires that any new antenna structures be co -located when within 1/2 mile of an existing co -location site. Public Works felt strongly that all switching equipment should be centralized to avoid a cluttering of small utility structures under the water tower, which presents both maintenance and security issues for the City. It was determined that the requirement for co -location of the antenna structures themselves necessitates the co -location of the switching and power equipment. A summary of the proposed changes to current regulations follows below: Section 4.13, Telecommunications Towers and Antennae This section constitutes a revision of the entire section, primarily through reorganization, with some limited revision to the specific standards applying to these structures. Telecommunications facilities have been made accessory uses wherever they occur, and have been specifically broken into antennae and antenna support structures (towers and the like). The purpose of this subdivision is that antennae are proposed to be treated differently from support structures, depending on location. In some cases, one or the other may be permitted or conditional, again depending on location. The reorganization creates the following subsections: • Purpose — largely carried over from current language. • (A) Private Amateur Radio — this section establishes amateur radio (primarily Ham and similar Short -Wave amateur radio operators) as permitted accessory structures in all districts, and creates nominal standards for adherence to the minimal standards that the City can apply. The code provides for antenna to extend up to 20 feet above district height limits, and creates a CUP provision to extend beyond that to 70 feet. • (B) Private Receiving Antenna — this section provides for antennae related to reception only for television and other electronic communications. These antenna are permitted in all zoning districts. • (C) Commercial/Industrial Reception and Transmission — this section establishes ro Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 requirements for larger communications facilities — usually (but not exclusively) related to a media company or similar use. The equipment for this purpose is listed as an accessory Conditional Use in Business and Industrial Districts, requires screening from adjoining streets, and residential and business property, and is otherwise treated as mechanical equipment, whether ground or roof -top mounted. • (D) Wireless Telecommunications Antennae — this section establishes regulations for wireless technology (commonly cellular telephone and similar equipment). The text provides that new freestanding support structures are allowed only by CUP, and only in certain commercial and industrial districts. Co -location of antennae may occur as permitted accessory uses on existing structures in commercial and industrial districts, along with the R-3 District. Staff has raised a point for discussion as to whether the B 1 District should be included in this list since it would most often be embedded in residential areas. Also for discussion would be whether co -location of antennae (not including new freestanding towers) should be allowed in other districts (the code has been drafted to allow such co - location by CUP in these areas). The presumption would be that such co - location might occur on taller buildings in the R-1 area such as churches, or on utility or public structures. • (E) General Provisions are consolidated in this section that apply to any proposed antenna or support structure. Most of these are translated directly, or adapted slightly, from current ordinance text. • (F) Application process and submittal requirements are found in this section. • (G) Outside review of applications at applicant's cost is authorized in this section. • (H) Removal of abandoned installations is covered in this section. Table 5-6 The changes to the table include the deletion of the broader Communications Antennae category in favor of separate listings for each type of antenna, along with specific classification of where each is permitted, conditional and permitted. Chapter 8, Definitions The changes include separate definitions which provide distinction between the antennae classifications provided above. After much discussion and clarification related to new structures, collocation and both broadcast and private antennas the commission summarized their recommendations in the following motion. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #536, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S REGULATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAE AND TOWERS, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 8.4 (DEFINITIONS), SECTION 4.13 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 (TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAE AND TOWERS), AND TABLE 5-6 (ACCESSORY USES BY DISTRICT) WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT NO NEW STRUCTURES ARE TO BE ALLOWED IN THE R3, MH, AND B-1 DISTRICTS; COLOCATION IS TO BE CONDITIONAL IN ALL DISTRICTS; COMMERCIAL TRANSMISSION RECEPTION ANTENNA STRUCTURES (FOR BROADCAST) ARE TO BE CONDITIONAL IN 13342; AND AMATEUR RADIO AND PRIVATE RECEIVING ANTENNAS ARE PERMITTED IN ALL DISTRICTS PROVIDED TREY MEET STANDARDS SET BY CODE. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 12. Community Development Director's Report Embracing Downtown Design Guidelines The Steering Committee met to review the progress on the entire Embracing Downtown project to date. They received a draft "zoning/district" map for the downtown paired with a preliminary set of design guidelines for the preferred alternative land use plan. Commissioners were encouraged to attend a workshop session on the design guidelines on Friday, September 16th at 9:00 a.m., at the community center along with the Embracing Downtown Steering Committee, the Monticello Downtown Business Association, and the Chamber's Downtown Partnership. There will be a follow-up meeting tentatively scheduled for the end of September or the start of October. Special Planning Commission Meeting A public hearing has been scheduled for a Conditional Use Permit amendment for West Metro on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 6 p.m.. A Planned Unit Development Ordinance Workshop will follow the public hearing at that special meeting of the Planning Commission. 13. Adiourn WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:41 PM. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. (Brad Fyle left the meeting just prior to adjournment.) Recorder: Kerry T. Burri _ Approved: October 4, 2011 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - Tuesday, September 20,2011 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: William Spartz, Charlotte Gabler, Barry Voight Commissioners Absent: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staf. Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman-NAC City Council Members Present: Clint Herbst, Tom Perrault 1. Call to order Commissioner Spartz called the special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Citizen Comments None 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for the West Metro Auto Dealership The applicant is seeking an amendment to the existing Planned Unit Development for the 1.21 acre West Metro Auto dealership site which would accommodate the addition of a private accessory car wash facility on the westernmost parcel of the PUD. The property is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection area of I-94 and State Highway 25 at 103 Sandberg Road (Lot 1, Block 2, of the Carcone Addition). The car wash facility is proposed at approximately 1570 square feet. It will be developed along the west -facing elevation of the current building. It would be utilized only for servicing vehicles being serviced or sold at the West Metro dealership. An existing sidewalk along the west elevation is proposed for removal and the site plan does not illustrate its replacement. The drive aisle for the entrance and exit to the car wash is proposed adjacent to an existing drive aisle separating the building from the car inventory parked along the west edge of the property. Materials and colors of the proposed addition are consistent with the existing structure. The applicant is proposing no changes to the site landscaping, lighting, or signage with this application. Standards that are applicable to this accessory are noted below: • All lighting shall be in compliance with Section 4.4 of this ordinance. Photometric plan required at building permit. Planning Commission Minutes — 09/20/11 • The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. Entire area is paved to control dust. • The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. Grading and drainage plan are required to be submitted at building permit. • Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. Access points to the car wash area have been previously set. • Car wash facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. Compliant. • Intermittent sounds produced by car wash operation such as the sound of a vacuum or warning signal shall not be audible to adjoining residential. Assigned as a conditional of approval. The proposed accessory car wash use is consistent with the intent of the B-3 Highway Business zoning district, and consistent with the uses in the exiting Planned Unit Development. The accessory use is also compliant with the applicable conditions assigned by the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for such accessory uses. The public hearing was opened. Hearing no public comment the public hearing was closed. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2011-87 RECOMMENDING THE AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT AS STATED IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 5. Planned Unit Development Ordinance Workshop Chairman Rod Dragsten, Mayor Clint Herbst and Councilmember Tom Perrault joined this part of the meeting. The workshop format provided an opportunity for the Planning Commission and City Council to review and discuss the new Planned Unit Development ordinance, requirements, and process. Staff provided an overview of the ordinance process including: • Goals/Expectations of the PUD Process • PUD Areas of Flexibility • Application Requirements • Amendment Process 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 09/20/11 • Development of an Application Timeline Scenario Staff outlined how the new ordinance departs from the previous code requirements in a variety of substantial ways including: • Rezoning Action • Collaborative Application • Collaborative Team • Neighborhood Meeting Requirement • Joint Work sessions • Platting The approval of a rezoning to Planned Unit Development is a now four -step application process: Step 1: Collaborative Application Step 2: Concept Plan Application Step 3: Development Plan Application Step 4: Final Plan Stage There were questions and considerable discussion about the each of the steps in the application process. The process underlines the importance of a clear understanding of a project, its scope and public value from the earliest stages. This revised design offers flexibility to the developer in exchange for a more creative, better developed, project. Staff indicated that the biggest procedural change is that PUDs are now established through a rezoning action instead of through a Conditional Use Permit. The zoning designation changes to a PUD with allowed uses identified and the PUD is reflected on the zoning map. The workshop resulted in a list of items requiring additional clarification within the new ordinance, as well as process details to be amended. Listed below is a bullet point listing of these items. • Minimum PUD Size — 2.4(P)(5) o Size of PUD — currently requires 8 acres • PUD Values — 2.4(P)(7) o Clarify item 0) 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) Planning Commission Minutes — 09/20/11 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 Amendments - 2.4(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. 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 at their October meeting. 6. Adiourn The meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m.. Recorder: Kerry T. Burri _ Approved: October 4, 2011 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director V Planning Commission Agenda: 10/04/11 1 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7, Special Use Overlay District, including amendments to the official zoning map of the City of Monticello. Applicant: City of Monticello (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In June, the Planning Commission called for a public hearing regarding an amendment of the Special Use overlay district relative to the pending bowling alley site rezoning. Although progress continues to be made on the transition from City ownership to ownership by the Quarry Church, no actual change in ownership has occurred. Therefore, at this time it is unnecessary to take action on this item. At this time, staff is requesting that the Commission close the hearing and table action on the item. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to table action on the amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Special Use Overlay District. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. Planning Commission Agenda – 10/04/11 1 6. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: DOJO/Cornerstone Properties (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND During its September regular meeting, the Planning Commission tabled action on this extension. The Commissioners requested an opportunity to speak with the applicant regarding the planned unit development. The Commission noted that since the time of the original approval, the base zoning ordinance for the B-3 District had changed significantly, and the City’s standards for the review and approval of the PUD had also been amended. The Commission was interested in a discussion regarding modifications to the site and building plans to better conform to those standards. Staff have made contact with the applicant’s representative, Wayne Elam of Commercial Realty Solutions, who will also be present at the Planning Commission meeting on October 4th. Mr. Elam has spoken with the property owners, who have indicated that it is their intent to reconfigure the buildings to better market the properties to Highway 25, and to revise the site plan accordingly. Mr. Elam stated that with those intended revisions, the ownership/applicant would also incorporate design elements to better meet the amended standards, as well as a possible request for rezoning to B-4. Therefore, at this time, the applicant is seeking a 6-month extension of the existing CUP. During that time, the applicant intends to work on the stated modifications to the site plan and submit an application for amendment to PUD. The report from the September Planning Commission meeting and supporting data are attached for reference. DOJO/Cornerstone Properties is requesting an extension of the conditional use permit issued for a Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development. The proposed development included the construction of two retail commercial buildings located on a 1.7 acre site located south of Dundas Road and east of State Highway 25. On August 5th, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the PUD. The City Council approved the CUP for PUD on August 11th, 2008. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for the CUP was set to expire on August 5th, 2011. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. As such, the applicant has requested a one-year extension. Any extension of the CUP is conditioned on the requirement that all previously approved conditions apply to any extension of the permit. Planning Commission Agenda – 10/04/11 2 The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend extension for one year of the August 11th, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development for DOJO/Cornerstone Development, with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the August 11th, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development for DOJO/Cornerstone Development, of the based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the extension request for one additional year. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Applicant Request Exhibit B: Planning Commission Report, August 5th, 2008 Exhibit C: Planning Commission Minutes, August 5th, 2008 Exhibit D: City Council Minutes, August 11th, 2008 Exhibit E: Conditional Use Permit Plan documents From:CaryHourscht[chourscht@lampertyards.com] Sent:Tuesday,August30,20119:22AM To:AngelaSchumann Angela, CanyoupleaseputCornerstone/DojoontheSept.6th.planningcommissionagenda.Forconsiderationof extendingTheCup/Pudusepermitforantheryear.Duetothecommercial/economicslowdown. Hopefullywithantheryear.Theconditionswillchange.Werewecangetstartedwiththeproject. Thankyouforyourtime CaryHourscht 763-807-8664Cell Planning Commission Agenda — 08/05/08 8. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi -tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC. (NAC) BACKGROUND Comertsone/DOJO Properties, LLC is seeking a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) to allow the construction of two retail commercial buildings upon a 1.7 acre site located south of Dundas Road and east of State Highway 25. The processing of a PUD is specifically necessary to accommodate the location of two principal buildings upon a single lot of record. The underlying zoning of the subject property is B-3, Highway Business. ANALYSIS Planned Unit Development. As shown on the submitted site plan, the applicant wishes to locate two principal buildings upon a single lot. To accommodate this condition, the processing of a PUD/CUP is necessary. A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in performance standards with the understanding that the development will be held to higher standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the responsibility of the applicant to design the development with significant benefits and communicate those benefits to the City as a basis for allowing a CUP/PUD. Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan directs commercial use of the subject property. Thus, the proposed use of the property is consistent with the land use directives of the Plan. Zoning. The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Business. 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. The B-3 District allows a wide array of commercial activities. As a condition of PUD approval, uses within the two commercial buildings will be limited to those allowed in the B-3 District. Access. Access to the site is provided from two points long Cedar Street. Considering there are no access points along the east side of Cedar Street, there are no alignment issues that need to be considered. However, the south access location may raise concerns as it relates to the future commercial development of the adjoining parcel. Along Cedar Street, the City has required commercial projects to minimize access locations for traffic safety. This southern access point should be designed in such a way as to permit cross access with the adjoining future development. This may include either an agreement to provide access to the proposed location, or (preferably) a joint location straddling the property line. Planning Commission Agenda 08/05/08 Parking. The parking requirement for retail and service establishments is one off-street parking stall for each 200 square feet of net floor area. Using this "net area" calculation, 10 percent of the total building area is presumed to be reserved for hallways, restrooms, utilities and the like. As a result, the parking requirement for the proposed commercial use is as follows: Square Feet Ratio Required Spaces North Building 9,504 gsf (8,553 nsf) 1 space per 200 nsf 43 spaces South Building 5,472 gsf (4,925 nsf) 1 space per 200 nsf 24 spaces Total 14,976 gsf (13,478 nsf) 67 spaces Note: Parking ratio applies to retail and service establishments As calculated above, a total of 67 off-street parking spaces are required of the proposed commercial use. In satisfaction of this requirement, a total of 69 stalls have been proposed on the amended plan. In accordance with ADA requirements, three of the proposed stalls have been designated as handicapped stalls, although it would appear that these may be better located near building entrances to meet the intent of the handicapped parking regulations. It should be noted that the required off-street parking supply assumes retail use of the two buildings. If, at some future point, a restaurant use (which has a greater parking supply requirement) is proposed, it will likely be necessary to increase the site's existing off-street parking supply. This could only occur via a PUD amendment. As part of the processing of such amendment, the applicant would need to demonstrate compliance with applicable off-street parking requirements. All proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the ordinance. With one exception, the parking lot design is considered well conceived. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, it is recommended that the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated. Building Design. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the proposed commercial buildings are to be finished in horizontal cement board siding with manufactured stone provided on the front elevations. Building colors have not been noted. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, building colors should be specified and subject to City approval. The proposed buildings measure 27 feet in height and satisfy the maximum two story height requirement imposed in the B-3 zoning district. With the exception of the front entrance canopies, a hip roof design is proposed. All roof areas are to be finished in asphalt shingles. Planning Commission Agenda 08/05/08 While the proposed buildings meet applicable building height and material requirements of the ordinance, staff has some concern in regard to the "back of the building" appearance provided along Highway 25, Dundas Road and Cedar Street. These areas will be highly visible to passersby. With previous retail projects along Cedar Street, the City has required "four-sided architecture" to enhance the views of the projects from all sides, particularly given the high visibility of these buildings. Upgraded materials on exposed walls have been required of the Monticello Travel Center project, the Warnert retail project, and the retail buildings along Cedar Street west of Wal-Mart. Staff has recommended that the walls exposed to the public streets on this project be improved with additional stone detailing, particularly around the door areas, including some of the same column architecture which is proposed for the entrance side of the buildings. Setbacks. As shown below, all applicable setback requirements of the B-3 zoning district have been satisfied: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Required Setbacks 30 feet 20 feet 30 feet Proposed Setbacks 32 feet feet 71 feet Note: 30 foot setback applied to side yards which abut public rights-of-way Landscaping. A landscape plan was submitted as a part of a recent addition to the application packet. The landscape plan shows a total of 23 trees, meeting the minimum requirement for a commercial site with a site perimeter of approximately 1,100 linear feet. The landscaped parking islands meet the minimum area for such islands. Staff would comment that while the landscape plan meets the minimum, it could be enhanced through additional plantings along the perimeter of the site, particular along Highway 25 and the south boundary. Lighting. To date, a lighting plan has not been submitted. Prior to the City taking official action on the application, it is recommended that a photometric lighting plan be submitted in accordance with ordinance requirements. Signage. The applicants have proposed a freestanding sign as a recent submission, reducing the parking supply in the front of the building to accommodate the sign location. The proposed sign is 20 feet in height and a total sign exposure of approximately 128 square feet in sign area. The sign is mounted on two poles with a stone base, presumably matching the stone on the building. This sign is the only freestanding sign on the project, and appears to meet the City's sign requirements within a PUD. The submitted front building elevations identify wall sign panels for the individual building tenants. The total maximum allowable sign area for any wall Planning Commission Agenda — 08/05/08 is determined by taking 10 percent of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building up to 100 square feet, whichever is less. The subject site has legal frontage on Highway 25, Dundas Road and Cedar Street making the north building eligible for wall signage on its north, east and west sides. The south building is eligible for wall signage on its east and west facades. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, all site signs must meet applicable location and dimensional requirements of the ordinance. Trash. As shown on the submitted site plan, trash enclosures are proposed on the east side of the site near the two Cedar Street access points. To be specifically noted is that both enclosures are located in front of the building line, making them highly visible to business patrons. While the location of such enclosures (near site entrances) is understood from a functional standpoint, the locations are considered less than ideal from a visual perspective. To address this concern, consideration should be given to attaching such enclosures to the principal buildings. Considering the proximity of the enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings (approximately 7 feet), attached enclosures would reduce site clutter and minimize the visual presence of the trash handling areas. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings, including the stone elements. Loading. It assumed that loading and deliveries will occur through front entrances to the various commercial tenants. While service or fire doors are provided on the "back" side of the two buildings, such doors are not accessible either by driveway or sidewalk. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, the handling of loading activities should be addressed by the applicant (to the satisfaction of the City). Engineering Issues There are several details identified by the City's Engineering staff relating to utilities, grading and drainage, and related items. The staff met with the applicants as a part of the project review and have agreed to address those issues pursuant to the discussions at that meeting. A copy of the engineers report is included with this packet, and its recommendations are included here by reference. The comment letter does not incorporate the results of the staff discussion. Grading and Drainage. Issues related to grading and drainage should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Easement. As shown on the submitted site plan a United Power Association (UPA) easement is proposed in the southwest corner of the subject site. The easement area is overlaid by off-street parking. The acceptability of this 4 Planning Commission Agenda 08/05/08 condition should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Utilities. Issues related to utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Right -of -Way Dedication. Consistent with the recommendation of City staff, the northeast corner of the subject property should be dedicated as public right-of- way. Such dedication (as depicted upon the submitted site plan) will better accommodate necessary street turning radii and provide additional area within which utilities may be installed. It is recommended that such dedication occur prior to building permit issuance. This issue should be subject to additional comment by the City Engineer. Dundas Road Vacation. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, it is recommended that a narrow strip of the Dundas Road right -of way (as depicted on the submitted site plan) be vacated and combined with the subject property. To be noted is that such strip of right -of way was originally owned by the property owner east of the subject site. Upon its vacation, such right-of-way would thus be conveyed to such property owner. Thus, the adjacent property owner will need to convey the vacated strip to the subject site. Such vacation/conveyance should occur prior to building permit issuance. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Regarding the request for a for Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) approval, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the PUD/CUP, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the B-3 District, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD/CUP, based on a finding that the proposed use does not satisfy the intention of planned unit development by providing higher development standards than would normally be required. RECOMMENDATION The proposed use, a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) for two retail commercial buildings, appears to be consistent with the intent of the B-3 District and compatible with existing and anticipated future Planning Commission Agenda — 08/05/08 surrounding uses. To qualify for PUD consideration, a project must demonstrate that it exceeds the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. Staff has made a series of suggestions in this regard related to access, landscaping, and building materials. With these improvements, staff would recommend approval of the PUD. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Application Package, including: Title Sheet Site Plan Grading Plan SWPPP SWPPP Details Utility Plan Water & Sanitary Details Storm, Sidewalk & Street Building Plan — North Elevations Landscape Plan Landscape Detail Monument Sign Detail Exhibit C: City Engineer's Comments Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval 6 Planning Commission Agenda 08/05/08 EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval 1. The proposed site access point locations be revised subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Any future proposal to accommodate uses which generate a greater off-street parking demand (i.e. restaurants), the processing of a PUD amendment and additional parking shall be required. 3. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated. 4. Building colors be specified and subject to City approval. 5. The applicant revises the building materials as discussed in this report, particularly as related to the building facades facing the surrounding streets. 6. The landscape plan be amended to increase planting on the site, particularly along the south and west boundary areas. 7. A photometric lighting plan be submitted, in accordance with ordinance requirements, subject to City approval. 8. Consideration be given to attaching the two trash enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings. 9. Requirements of the City Engineering staff are complied with, as agreed to at the staff -applicant meeting on July 29, 2008 10. Right of way dedications and vacations are finalized prior to final building permit approval. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 5h ' h, 2008 6:00 PM Cormnissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman—NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a quorum of the Commission. 2. Consideration to approve the minutes of June 3d, 2008 and July Is', 2008. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 3RD, 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRRIED, 5-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 1s`, 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Consideration of adding items to theagenda. Commissioner Dragsten requested an update on the commercial vehicle amendment recently considered by the Planning Commission. 4. Citizen comments. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Comprehensive Sim Plan for a multi -tenant retail facility in the Central Community District (CCD). pplicant: Scenic Sim Planner Grittman presented the staff report for the item. The request is for a Conditional Use Permit for a comprehensive sign plan for a multi -tenant retail facility. Providing background for the request, Grittman indicated that Liberty Tax had constructed a sign on the retail building. Upon review, there was some concern at the time that a variance was needed. After further research, it was determined that this retail center does meet the zoning ordinance definition of a shopping center. As a result, the sign placed fits within the scope of allowable uses under a Conditional Use Permit. Grittman stated that the sign itself is relatively small, and has been installed. The sign is approximately 2' x 13'. The sign therefore meets sign criteria and all signage on the building meets code requirements. It was noted that the building was developed before the current sign code was in place, which is why there is not currently a CUP in place. Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval of the CUP. Spartz inquired what sign the conditional use permit would apply to. Grittman responded that the CUP is for the whole building. The Liberty Tax sign precipitated the request. Schumann noted that Scenic Sign had gone through DAT and through miscommunication, Scenic Sign believed that they had the necessary approvals needed to place the sign, which is why the sign has already been installed. Grittman noted that the property owner can continue to add signage as long as they meet the 208 square foot maximum requirement. In that case, if the CUP is approved, the property owner would just need a sign permit. They do not have to comeback through the public hearing process. Hilgart asked if a building is required to have a CUP at all times for signage. Grittman replied that if it is a multi -tenant facility, and meets definition of a shopping center, then it would need a CUP. Otherwise, they would be allowed only one sign, which doesn't work very well for multi - tenant buildings. The reasoning for the conditional use permit is that it gives the City the opportunity review the signage plan comprehensively. Hilgart asked if the total signage allowed is different if there is one user versus multiple users. Grittman responded that the requirements are more flexible under this arrangement. He noted that there is also a maximum sign allowance. Different restrictions come into play depending on the number of tenants. Dragsten noted that in the past, the City had also given some flexibility for additional signage because of multiple frontages. Dragsten inquired if DAT had reviewed the lighting, as this property is in the CCD. Grittman stated that typically, DAT has objected to the light box style of signage. In this case, the letters are individually lit letters. Dragsten noted that there is a cabinet sign next to this one. Grittman indicated that sign was grandfathered in. Gabler asked why this building is a defined a shopping center. Grittman stated that the definition is based on the number of tenants. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PLAN BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Variance to Sideyard Setback for Driveway Encroachment in an R-2 (Single and Two -Family Residential) District. Applicant: Posusta, Glen Planner Grittman presented the staff report for the item. The applicant is seeking approval for a variance from parking setback requirements to allow for additional off-street parking at 403 Elm Street. The site itself is zoned R-2, Single and Two -Family Residential. Grittman indicated that the applicant is proposing to add additional off-street parking to the site by expanding the existing driveway adjacent to the attached garage and into the side yard on the north side of the garage. 2 To the north of the property is the right of way for 4`h Street. This street is an un -built right of way that is currently occupied by private driveway and landscaping improvements under a license granted to the townhouse project to the north. Grittman stated that the applicant has noted that the garage currently sits approximately eight (8) feet from the side property line. Section 3-5.D.9.g of the Zoning Ordinance requires at least a three (3) foot setback from the side yard property line for driveways in residential districts. In order to construct a driveway extension wide enough to allow for parking of vehicles, the applicant would have to encroach into the required side yard setback. Therefore, Grittman stated that the applicant is seeking a variance from the three (3) foot driveway setback requirement. Grittman explained that under standard conditions, such parking areas are allowed in a comer side yard, with the requirement that they meet the setbacks and are screened with landscaping and/or decorative fencing. Grittman noted that if approved as proposed, the applicant would also need a license agreement with the City to occupy this portion of the right of way. Grittman stated that the Planning Commission is required to find that there is a condition of the property that creates a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use. Without the variance, the applicant would not be able to put the property to reasonable use. In this case, the applicant has a two car garage and driveway to Elm Street. There is other storage allowance that could be provided in the rear as the City passed an ordinance to allow that type of storage. Grittman indicated that the driveway itself would also be acceptable, if it did not encroach into the right of way. He stated that it is planning staff's opinion that this is a typical single family home and has driveway and garage that meets code requirements. Staff do not believe there is a hardship present and do not recommend the variance. However, Grittman stated that it should be noted that the applicant is trying to get additional parking off street. In a meeting with applicant, the applicant stressed the importance of this item because of traffic, proximity to cross streets and visibility. Mr. Posusta has indicated that traffic safety does support the need for the additional spaces. Hilgart asked if there has been any decision in the past where the City has allowed a driveway to encroach in this manner. Grittman referenced that in older part of town where lots are narrower, the City may have previously granted variances. Dragsten inquired about the outcome of a recent Cardinal Hills request for variance, which was similar. Schumann reported that request was denied. Spartz asked if two car garages are required in this zoning district. Grittman stated that they are not. Grittman indicated that the garage may actually encroach into the current setback, but grandfathered in. Dragsten noted two driveway access points are also prohibited. Gabler inquired if this was a situation where the applicant is using additional parking space for tenants. Schumann noted that it is a designated as a single-family homestead property, not a rental property. Grittman re -stated that the applicant will need a variance to get up to the right of way and then a license agreement to be in the right of way. Dragsten confirmed that the Morning Glory townhomes have a license agreement already in place. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing David Hyfen, 301 Elm Street, addressed the Commission. He indicated that his concern is that the association maintains the entire right of way in that area as part of an agreement. As part of that, the association put in a sprinkler system. The problem arose when Mr. Posusta built the parking pad on the north side of garage, he built it wide enough to cover sprinkler system. Hyfen stated that at when he asked Posusta to address the situation, he didn't get anywhere. Hyfen stated that he called the City and the property line stakes were put in by the city. He indicated that in talking with s sprinkler company about moving the system lines, it would cost about $375. Dragsten inquired if the applicant went over the heads, or the line of the system. Hyfen stated that if the City gives him this variance, the whole thing will be over the line. Dragsten stated that the variance is for the encroachment over the setback. The license agreement into the right of way is something different. Glen Posusta addressed the Commission as applicant. He stated that he purchased the house and has been making continued improvements to the home, which he believes the Morning Glory residents will be happy with. Posusta noted for clarity that the sprinkler heads are actually on his property. Posusta indicated that he is trying to solve parking issues. He indicated that he has voiced his concern to his son and roommate, who live in the home, regarding the parking of the flatbed truck for Jerry's towing. The truck will fit on the driveway, but the tail will hang over. The side driveway is being proposed to alleviate any safety issues. Posusta explained that the number of vehicles parked adds up, and by adding to the driveway, it will prevent parking on the street. Dragsten asked if the truck would be parked next to the garage. Posusta responded that it would be. Right now, he has told them to park passenger vehicles south of the driveway for visibility reasons. Dragsten clarified that they are not running a business. Posusta confirmed they are not. Voight asked how long the proposed driveway is. Posusta responded that it long enough to hold the tow vehicle. Posusta noted that the Sheriff's Department has requested that the tow vehicle not be parked on -street, as it is also a County road. Grittman noted that the recent code amendment regarding prohibition of commercial vehicles in residential districts, with an exemption for tow tracks, was never adopted. Hilgart noted that this is a strange case, because typically the encroachment would be onto private property. Dragsten noted it is also atypical because normally when you have right of way, there is a road in place. Voight inquired if Posusta plans on paving or putting in concrete. Posusta stated that the code requires that if it is a corner lot, it is supposed to be paved. This isn't technically a corner lot, because there is no street, but he would be willing to pave it if need be. Otherwise, he indicated that he will be putting in crushed concrete. Voight stated that if the grade was correct, would they even need the variance. Grittman stated that it is needed to meet the 3 foot setback. Spartz asked if overnight parking restrictions apply to Elm Street during the winter months. Grittman stated that he believes they do. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Grittman noted that the sprinkler system is a private improvement. That is a private property dispute, and it is not necessarily an issue for the City to get involved in. Dragsten suggested that it be resolved prior to the license agreement. Voight noted that he would just as soon have the vehicles off the street. Dragsten noted that you don't have too many homes abutting unimproved streets. Voight commented that in the past, the City has tried to accommodate the ability to park additional vehicles by allowing garages in the back. Spartz noted that the right of way is kept very well, and that he appreciated Mr. Posusta's comments regarding bringing up the value of his property, as well. Dragsten noted that there are two letters from the public that will be put into public record. One opposed commercial vehicles on public streets. The other opposed the overflow of cars on site, including the flatbed truck. Hilgart commented about the possible setting of precedent. Dragsten stated that he didn't think that would be an issue, as this request is so unique due to its location. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 3-5.D.9.G RELATING TO OFF-STREET PARKING, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE VARIANCE SERVES PUBLIC PURPOSE DUE TO THE ALLEVIATION OF TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS. THE VARIANCE IS CONDITIONED ON A RECOMMENDATION THAT BEFORE CITY ENTERS INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT, THE SPRINKLER LINE ISSUE IS RESOLVED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0 Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for boundary adjustment and sign relocation in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: AMAX Storage Self -Storage Planner Grittman provided the staff report regarding the request, stating that the applicant is seeking approval of a PUD Amendment to allow for relocation of an existing sign for his business, Amax Self Storage, located at 36 Dundas Road. Grittman reported that the applicant is proposing to move the existing Amax Self Storage sign from an off-site location at the southeast corner of Highway 25 and Dundas Road to the southeast corner of Cedar Street and Dundas Road, which will be located on the same parcel as the self storage business. He noted that the applicant recently platted a separate parcel and is proposing to sell that parcel. As a result, the applicant would like to move the existing sign. The sign was allowed at the current location through a Planned Unit Development, which incorporated all of the applicant's properties east and west of Cedar Street, along Dundas Road. Grittman explained that the relocated sign will remain the same in terms of size and illumination. The applicant has indicated that the overall height of the sign may be reduced somewhat as a result of re -mounting it in its new location. The applicant is proposing to place the sign within the stone wall/fenced area that surrounds the property. No sign setbacks were established as a part of the PUD and, as such, the proposed new location for the sign is compliant with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Grittman stated that the applicant is also seeking to remove the parcel west of Cedar Street, Lot 1, Block 1 of the recently approved plat of Amax Addition, from the original Amax Self -Storage Planned Unit Development. Any required conditional uses for that parcel would then be reviewed through the appropriate process at the time of development Grittman stated that staff recommend approval of the PUD as proposed Spartz inquired about the height of the sign. Posusta clarified that there would be no changes to the sign, the height as it exists now will remain the same. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATE TO THE B-3 DISTRICT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 8. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi -tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Comerstone/DOJO, LLC Planner Grittman detailed comments from the staff report on the request. Comertsone/DOJO Properties, LLC is seeking a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) to allow the construction of two retail commercial buildings on a site located south of Dundas Road and east of State Highway 25. The PUD is specifically necessary to accommodate the location of two principal buildings upon a single lot of record. Grittman indicated that the summary of his comments would be addressed through a review of the stated conditions in Exhibit Z. Grittman stated that the City has been attempted to manage the number of access points along Cedar Road in order to avoid more conflicts with turning movements and congestion. In this case, access location is particularly important because it is first on north side of block to develop. While the applicants have presented a reasonable design, staff has included a condition that the applicant be required to combine access with any future development to the south. The staff recommendation is to straddle the lot line and work with the adjacent property owner, or enter into a cross access agreement with future development to provide cross access between parking lots. The City is not requiring one alternative or the other. If the property owner to the south is not ready to do that, it will require cross access at that time. Grittman reviewed the parking on site, stating that although parking meets requirements, due to the number provided and the site serving as a multi -tenant facility, the CUP needs to be restricted in terms of restaurant use. Additionally, Grittman noted that the southwest corner of the parking lot becomes tight for parking maneuvers. It is recommended that they eliminate stalls in this area to accomplish better movement through the areas. They are compliant with parking requirements, so there is flexibility to allow for this condition. In terms of building design, Grittman explained that the applicant has now provided colored elevations, which were not supplied previously. In regard to the elevations, the fifth condition requires that materials for the buildings be revised. Grittman noted that the back of the buildings face the public street. In the past, one of the requirements that the City has stressed along Cedar Street is enhancements to those faces in order to make a stronger architectural presentation to the street, especially given traffic levels. Grittman indicated that staff had met with the applicant and suggested use of stone on those sides of buildings. Enhancements to landscaping are also recommended. Currently, the plan proposed does meet minimum requirements. Grittman commented that in a PUD the City looks for something more than the minimum. The other comments reviewed by Grittman included the need for a photometric plan, a recommendation that the trash enclosure be made internal to the building, and that the applicant comply with the City Engineer's comments. Grittman stated that the City Engineer did make modifications to the comment letter included in the packet after meeting with the applicant. Otherwise, the site meets commercial development standards; staff is recommending approval Gabler asked if the access points on Cedar were wide enough for a center median. Grittman indicated that there are shown as standard width. Hilgart asked if there is any concern with west side elevations for the building facing Highway 25. Grittman responded that staff would be concerned with any side facing the public street; the same comment would apply on that side as well. Wojchouski inquired about visibility in terms of the tree plantings. Grittman reviewed existing and proposed plantings and indicated that they appear to provide enough room for street and site visibility. Voight inquired about the monument signage. Grittman stated that the applicant has proposed a sign band on the buildings and a free-standing sign that is 128 square feet. The requirements in this district are 100 square feet. However, because there are two buildings, theoretically they could have two free -standings signs. So in essence, the aggregate size for the one monument is less than what they could have proposed. Voight asked if there is information on the wall signs. Grittman stated that it appears from a total square footage, they will be under the maximum allowed. Dragsten asked about the Dundas Road vacation. Grittman responded that there is a remnant piece of ROW for Dundas Road in the northern portion of the site. It is the City's understanding that the current property owner will convey it to the applicant. Grittman noted that it was a condition of the original platting. Dragsten inquired if the monument sign would be brick or stone, or whether it would have no columns. Grittman deferred to the applicant. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Gary D'Heilly, project engineer, spoke to the Commission representing the applicant D'Heilly stated that the applicant would prefer an access alternative which connects through the site. Outside of that preference, they have no problem with the connection and would be good for the site. It is just how to accomplish what we are looking for. He noted that the applicant is not planning for any restaurant uses and understand the condition. In regard to building materials, the applicant is willing to work with City staff. Dragsten stated that Commission's concern is that the building presented is what will be constructed. D'Heilly stated that they felt that the use of stone will create variation along corridor. D'Heilly remarked on the types of materials. Dragsten asked if they had considered using different stone for the different store fronts. D'Heilly stated that perhaps if the storefronts were larger. D'Heilly indicated that they will wrap stone around the side of the building and are considering bringing that down the sides of the doors, as well. D'Heilly explained that they would like to be careful with adding too many overstory trees in. Dragsten clarified that they have no problem meeting that condition. D'Heilly concurred and stated that they have no issue with providing the lighting plan, and pulling back the trash 7 enclosure. He noted that in discussions with the City Engineer, they had come to an agreement on the items addressed in the comment letter. Drasgten stated that as far as Exhibit Z, it appears that the only real issue is the access. D'Heilly agreed, stating that they would like to use the tie-in as it results in the fewest number of spaces lost. Dragsten inquired whether there would be any readerboard on the sign. D'Heilly responded that there would not be. Dragsten asked if they would match stone on the sign to the building. D'Heilly stated that the posts will be covered with aluminum, which would be color -matched to trim of the building. Carey Housrcht, applicant, addressed the Commission. Voight asked if they would be opposed to adding a condition that sign materials will be same as building materials. Houscht indicated that would be acceptable. Voight noted that condition would be consistent with changes the Commission is seeking in the revision to the sign ordinance. Hilgart inquired if on the east and west side of the north building, the second story is finished area or facade. D'Heilly responded that the applicant may allow extra mezzanine for storage. The height is just to give the building vertical delineation. Hilgart stated that he thinks it would help if you had dormers above each door. D'Heilly stated that it will get too busy. Drasgten asked what type of signs would be on the front of each store; would they be individually lit letters or cans. Carey stated that they are box lighting. Voight stated that he did discover in sheet A2 that the front elevation has designated signage panels. Voight inquired if they do have signage on the back of the buildings. D'Heilly confirmed. Voight stated that is one way to help achieve four-sided achitecture. Voight noted that is his one major concern— that there definitely needs to be some improvements to the side and rear faces. Spartz asked what makes this PUD a superior project. D'Heilly noted that the architecture represents a nice visual break-up along the corridor. They have gone away from the flat appearance that is typical along the corridor. Spartz agreed, but recommended that more emphasis on improving all faces of the buildings. Dragsten asked if the project is leased out. Hourscht responded that it is about 50-60% leased out. Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed the wording of condition one. The Commission agreed that the current language allows flexibility for the applicant to work the adjacent property owner as needed. Voight stated that he would also add an eleventh condition requiring that the monument be of similar style and color as buildings. Dragsten stated that his concern is that this project needs to proceed based on Commission's recommendations for elevation enhancements. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD/CUP, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-3 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. The proposed site access point locations be revised subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Any future proposal to accommodate uses which generate a greater off-street parking demand (i.e. restaurants), the processing of a PUD amendment and additional parking shall be required. 3. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated. 4. Building colors be specified and subject to City approval. 5. The applicant revises the building materials as discussed in this report, particularly as related to the building facades facing the surrounding streets. 6. The landscape plan be amended to increase planting on the site, particularly along the south and west boundary areas. 7. A photometric lighting plan be submitted, in accordance with ordinance requirements, subject to City approval. 8. Consideration be given to attaching the two trash enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings. 9. Requirements of the City Engineering staff are complied with, as agreed to at the staff - applicant meeting on July 29, 2008 10. Right of way dedications and vacations are finalized prior to final building permit approval. 11. The free-standing monument sign shall be consistent with site buildings in terms of style, material and color. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ, MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 9. Public Hearing — Consideration of request to approve the 2008 City of Monticello Zonine Map. Community Development Coordinator Schumann stated that the Planning Commission is asked to review and approve the 2008 City of Monticello Zoning Map. She stated that the City Attorney has recommended that the City adopt an official zoning map each year. The last official updated was completed in 2005. Schumann reported that the draft presented to the Commission had been reviewed in detail and it is believed that the map presented is an accurate reflection of all zoning action. Schumann noted one adjustment in the zoning for the Autumn Ridge and Walmart area. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE 2008 CITY OF MONTICELLO ZONING MAP, INCLUDING THE ADJUSTMENTS NOTED BY STAFF. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Commission Spartz requested that staff provide documentation of official rezoning actions as they occur. 10. Update on commercial vehicle amendment. Grittman reported that the amendment to commercial vehicles ordinance was brought to the City Council, where it generated quite a bit of discussion about both the method that was being proposed for regulation, and whether the amendment was itself necessary. The City Council decided not to take any action, instead requesting that staff document the number of complaints raised to confirm that it is a problem. Staff has been tracking various complaints. Schumann noted that the current ordinance does prohibit commercial vehicles in residential districts, it is just difficult to enforce, given it is based on gross vehicle weight. Commissioner Voight encouraged those residents watching the meeting live to attend the upcoming sign workshop. 11. Adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. LAI J� Recorde{ 10 Council Minutes: August 11, 2008 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday August 11, 2008 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Clint Herbst, Wayne Mayer, Tom Perrault, Brian Stumpf and Susie Wojchouski. Members Absent: None 1. Call to Order. Mayor Herbst called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. 2A. Approve minutes of July 28, 2008 Special Meeting. Tom Perrault questioned on the last paragraph of page two dealing with the possibility of the DMV providing driver license services whether it should read "could" instead of "would" because it is not known whether the DMV will get the license service. Ann Johnson, Deputy Registrar Manager stated DMV will get the drivers license service if they have adequate room for the equipment. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 28, 2008 SPECIAL MEETING. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0. 2B. Approve minutes of July 28, 2008 Regular Meeting. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 28, 2008 REGULAR MEETING. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. The following items were added to the agenda: 1) Update on the Posusta-Lundsten land issues; 2) Consideration of calling a closed session of the Council do discuss the TDS litigation; and 3) Possible interchange at County Road 39. 4. Citizen comments, petitions, requests and concerns. No one spoke under citizens comments. 5. Consent Agenda: A. Consideration of ratifying hires and departures MCC and Building Department. Recommendation: Ratify the hire/departures as identified. Council Minutes: August 11, 2008 B. Consideration of approving a temporary liquor license for a wine tasting event for Hi -Way Liquors for October 17, 2008 at the Monticello Community Center. Recommendation: Approve a temporary liquor license for Hi -Way Liquors for October 17, 2008 at the Monticello Community Center. C. Consideration to approve a one day charitable gambling license for Wright County Ducks Unlimited Chapter 039 for a raffle at River City Extreme, 3875 School Boulevard on September 22, 2008. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving a one day charitable gambling license for Wright County Ducks Unlimited Chapter 039 for a raffle at River City Extreme, 3875 School Boulevard on September 28, 2008. Resolution No. 2008-65. D. Consideration of approving a temporary liquor license for Church of St. Henry's Fall Festival on September 20-21, 2008. Recommendation: Approve a temporary liquor license for the Church of St. Henry for September 20-21, 2008. E. Consideration of approving a temporary charitable gambling license for the Church of St. Henry's Fall Festival on September 20-21, 2008. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the State Gambling Control Board to issue a charitable gambling license to the Church of St. Henry to conduct charitable gambling activities at their fall festival on September 20-21, 2008 at the parish grounds at 1001 East 7`h Street. Resolution No. 2008-66 F. Consideration of approving a request for a conditional use permit for a comprehensive sign plan for a multi -tenant retail facility in the Central Community District (CCD). Applicant: Scenic Sign. Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit for a comprehensive sign plan for a shopping center located at 141 Broadway Avenue based on a finding that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. G. Consideration of approving a request for an amendment to a conditional use permit for boundary adjustment and sign relocation in a B-3 (Highway Business District). Applicant: Amax Storage Self -Storage Recommendation: Approve the PUD amendment for Amax Storage located at 36 Dundas Road based on a finding that the request is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and appropriate to the B-3 District. H. Consideration of approving a request for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for a multi -tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Comerstone/DOJO, LLC. Recommendation: Approve the PUD/CUP based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the B-3 District subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed site access point locations be revised subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Any future proposal to accommodate uses which generate a greater off-street parking demand (i.e. restaurants) the processing of a PUD amendment and additional parking shall be required. 3. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated. 2 Council Minutes: August 11, 2008 4. Building colors be specified and subject to City approval. 5. The applicant revises the building materials as discussed in this report, particularly as related to the building facades facing the surrounding streets. 6. The landscape plan be amended to increase plantings on the site, particularly along the south and west boundary areas. 7. A photometric lighting plan be submitted in accordance with ordinance requirements subject to City approval. 8. Consideration be given to attaching the two trash enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings. 9. Requirements of the City Engineering staff are complied with as agreed to at the staff/applicant meeting on July 29, 2008. 10. Right of way dedication and vacations are finalized prior to final building permit approval. 11. The free-standing monument sign shall be consistent with site buildings in terms of style, material and color. I. REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA J. Consideration of approving a charge card at Holiday for DMV. Recommendation: Approve the credit card application for DMV with Holiday Station. K. Consideration of adopting an ordinance for false alarm charges for Fire Department Calls. Recommendation: Adopt the Fire Emergency Alarm System and Emergency Response — Car Accident Fees Ordinance. L. Consideration of purchase of one new Hydromatic 100 HP main lift pump with adapter brackets for the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant. Recommendation: Authorize the purchase of a new Hydromatic 100 hp replacement pump with adaptor brackets to fit the existing Ebarra rail system at a cost of $67,816 plus freight and tax for a total estimated cost of approximately $74,000. This system has the shortest lead time of 10-12 weeks. M. Consideration of authorizing advertising for Liquor Store Manager. Recommendation: Authorize advertising of the Liquor Store Manager position. N. Consideration of having Bolton & Menk, Inc. prepare a long range plan for the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant. Recommendation: Authorize Bolton & Menk, Inc. to prepare the long range plan for the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant at a cost of $18,000 to be completed within the next four months. Brian Stumpf requested that agenda item #10, Consideration of having Bolton & Menk, Inc. prepare a long range plan for the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant be moved to the consent agenda as item #5N. Items #511 and #5J were pulled from the consent agenda. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH ITEMS #511 AND #5J BEING REMOVED AND AGENDA ITEM #10 BEING ADDED AS #5N. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0. 3 Council Minutes: August 11, 2008 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. #SH Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development for a multi -tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District Applicant. Cornerstone/DOJO LLCC, Clint Herbst stated that because this is a planned unit development the City should be getting something better in design. He didn't feel that lap siding was compatible in a commercial area. He said he didn't know what the trade off was on this building. Community Development Director indicated that the applicant is in the process of making upgrades to the facility design based on Planning Commission recommendations and is present at this meeting. Gary D'Heilly from D'Heilly Engineering submitted a revised design drawing to the Council and reviewed some of the changes that were being proposed. One major change was in the back elevation. They continued with stones and increased the band across the top and sides. Clint Herbst felt the changes were an improvement over what was shown before. Jeff O'Neill asked about the signage. Gary D'Heilly indicated that back lit signs are what they are looking at but a final decision has not been made. He added that the type of signage selected will be uniform throughout the development. Gary D'Heilly noted that the building is only 144 feet long so they could not make too many additions without impacting the aesthetics. Clint Herbst asked as a planned unit development what was the tradeoff for the City. The Planning Commission felt the use of the site and improvements to the building were sufficient. Staff noted that the Planning Commission did not comment on the signage plan. They did, however, recommend that the monument sign be constructed with materials consistent with what is used in the development. Clint Herbst asked about possible restaurants being located there in the future and the impact on off-street parking. He said he didn't see anything on the plan that could be additional parking space. The Council wants it known that there isn't off-street parking in this area. Susie Wojchouski felt that item #2 of the conditions of approval should be worded more strongly. The situation is that there is no additional off-street parking and any additional parking stalls needed because of a restaurant or other use that would generate a greater parking demand would have to be purchased from the adjacent property owner. Tom Perrault questioned whether the brick shouldn't continue all the way around the building so that back of the building mimics the building front. Gary D'Heilly felt there was not enough space in the back to break it up. Clint Herbst brought up the issue of the plantings for the site. He felt the number of trees was excessive and when mature the trees could possibly end up blocking the view of the site and visibility is important for commercial property. Jeff O'Neill explained the standards are one tree for every 50 lineal feet of site perimeter. Staff noted that other commercial developments along TH 25 had adhered to the landscaping standards so this is consistent with what others had done. Susie Wojchouski pointed out that the plan shows a tree in the median. She expressed the concern that when the tree is mature it could impact visibility. Clint Herbst noted there are areas in the downtown that are potential for development and he questioned how the landscaping standard would be applied there. Jeff O'Neill said staff will work with the applicant to get a reasonable number of trees on the site. U Council Minutes: August 11, 2008 CLINT HERBST MOVED TO APROVE THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DOJO, LLC WITH THE CHANGES IN DESIGN AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWING SUBMITTED AT THE COUNCIL MEETING, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-3 DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED BELOW: 1. The proposed site access point locations be revised subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Any future proposal to accommodate uses which generate a greater off-street parking demand (i.e. restaurants) the processing of a PUD amendment and additional parking shall be required. 3. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated. 4. Building colors be specified and subject to City approval. 5. The applicant revises the building materials as discussed in this report, particularly as related to the building facades facing the surrounding streets. 6. The landscape plan be amended to increase plantings on the site, particularly along the south and west boundary areas. 7. A photometric lighting plan be submitted in accordance with ordinance requirements subject to City approval. 8. Consideration be given to attaching the two trash enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings. 9. Requirements of the City Engineering staff are complied with as agreed to at the staff/applicant meeting on July 29, 2008. 10. Right of way dedication and vacations are finalized prior to final building permit approval. 11. The free-standing monument sign shall be consistent with site buildings in terms of style, material and color. AND TO HAVE STAFF REVISIT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AND UPDATE THE COUNCIL ACCORDINGLY. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 #SJApprove credit card application for Holiday Gas Station: Wayne Mayer stated the DMV is in the CCD District and there are at two other gas stations in the CCD District. He questioned why the City excluded these stations. Finance Director Tom Kelly said it doesn't make any difference where DMV gets their gas. After talking to Tom Moores, Tom Kelly feels this credit card would just be a backup and that the DMV would primarily be using the pump at the Public Works Building. Wayne Mayer suggested the DMV could apply to the two stations that are in the CCD District. Tom Kelly noted that the Public Works Department uses Red's. WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO HAVE DMV CHARGE AT THE TWO LOCATIONS DOWNTOWN. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0. Council Minutes: August 11, 2008 7. Public Hearing for proposed improvement to Jerry Liefert Drive and Kevin Longley Drive, City Proiect No. 2008-10C. City Engineer, Bruce Westby provided background information on the scope of the work to be done on Jerry Liefert Drive and Kevin Longley Drive which includes milling and overlay of the bituminous surface and repair and/or replacement of curb and gutter where needed. Bruce Westby stated the project would also correct some drainage issues in the area. The project is proposed to be funded through a mix of assessments and budgeted monies from the Street Department and the Street Reconstruction Fund. Bruce Westby reviewed the PCI ratings that were used to evaluate the street and the work needed. A PCI rating of 0-40 would indicate that a reconstruction of the street is needed. A PCI of 40-80 would indicate milling and overlay and a PCI of 80-100 would indicate sealcoating to be appropriate. Kevin Longley Drive had a PCI of 51-68 and Jerry Liefert Drive had a rating of 68-74. The estimated cost of the project is $270,674.58. It is proposed to assess 50% of the cost and the remaining $135,337.29 would be funded using $125,000 from the Street Department budget and the remaining $10,337.29 from the Street Reconstruction Fund. The total project costs includes indirect costs of 20%. Indirect costs on new construction is about 28%. The Council then looked at the method of assessing the 50% of the project costs. It is proposed that single family and townhomes be assessed equally with double fronting lots assessed in the same manner as single fronting lots. Based on 87 assessable units and an estimated assessable cost of $135,337.29 the cost per unit would be $1,555.60. It is anticipated that if the project is approved, plans and specifications will come back to the Council at their August 25`h meeting with the Council considering awarding a contract at the September 22Nd meeting. The work would be completed this summer and the assessment hearing would be conducted on November 24th. Mayor Herbst then opened the public hearing on the proposed improvements to Kevin Longley Drive and Jerry Liefert Drive. Bill Seefeldt, 167 Jerry Liefert Drive, asked if this work included bringing the street level up to that of the railroad crossing. He stated the street is not at the same level as the crossing and there is probably an elevation difference of at least 3 inches. Council directed staff to check into this issue. Charlene Jensen, 218 Jerry Liefert Drive, questioned why the City is doing these streets when there are other streets in worse condition. She also asked about an area of the street when you come on to Kevin Longley Drive where water is standing. She wondered if that was going to be corrected. Clint Herbst responded that by doing this work now it extends the life of the street and saves money in the long run. Bruce Westby indicated that curb and gutter will be extended out from Kevin Longley Drive to Prairie Road and there will be some grading in the ditch along Kevin Longley Drive. Mike Renstrom, 112 Kevin Longley Drive asked why the City didn't budget more than $125,000 for this project. Bruce Westby answered that the budgeted amount was based on ro Council Minutes: August 11, 2008 the residents paying for a portion of the project. He stated the cost of bituminous has risen considerably so they tried to budget accordingly not knowing how much bituminous prices would increase. Clint Herbst commented that if the City levied the total cost for all street improvement projects, residents would be paying for the cost of all streets that were improved. The Council felt levying part of the cost and assessing part of the cost seemed to be the fairest method. Mike Renstrom asked what the life expectancy of a road is and was told it was 30-35 years. Mike Renstrom said the road was constructed in 1984 and he felt that most of the cracking of the street took place where the utilities were installed and were poorly compacted. Bruce Westby stated in walking the area he didn't recall an area of settlement. Mike Renstrom suggested that he look at the area of 112 Kevin Longley Drive. Mike Renstrom said if the City is just overlaying something that was not properly installed to begin with they should expect that instead of this adding 10-15 years to the life of the street it may be closer to 6-7. The owner of the property at 212 Kevin Longley Drive stated he owned a duplex and noted that there are two other duplexes in the neighborhood. He asked if they were going to be assessed in the same manner. Since the duplex is not any bigger than a single family home he questioned why he should be assessed more. Clint Herbst said each residential unit is treated as a separate unit. He asked how many years the assessment would run. Bruce Westby indicated this type of assessment has typically been spread over 10 years. The interest rate would be 1 % higher than the interest rate the City would pay if the City was to bond for the improvements. After the assessment is approved the property owner would have 30 days to pay without interest. Dick Frie, 206 Jerry Liefert Drive said he thought the timing of this project was good. Even though bituminous costs have gone up the economic conditions have made it likely that contractors will be looking for work and the City should get good prices. He asked when the proposed assessment amount would be known. Bruce Westby indicated that the assessment hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 24th and that there will be mailed and published notice of this hearing. Mary Rassat, 162 Jerry Liefert Drive asked if the Council would reconsider assessing townhomes as separate units. Clint Herbst said everyone uses the road to get to their homes and the City feels everyone should participate in the cost. Brian Stumpf said he is not inclined to reconsider the assessment methodology since this seems to be the fairest way to handle the cost. While he noted actual construction costs may change the dollar amount assessed, he was not in favor of changing the assessment method. Mayor Herbst closed the public hearing. 8. Consideration of authorizing preparation of Plans and Specifications for Kevin Longley Drive, Jerry Liefert Drive and Hawthorne Place North Street Improvements, City Proiect No. 2008-10C. Bruce Westby reported on their study of Hawthorne Place North. He stated there is water standing under the pavement which played a significant role in the deterioration of the street. It is proposed to connect the existing drain tile on the south side of the street to a catch basin and reroute the flow of the groundwater to a storm water pond. The street will be resurfaced and some concrete curb and gutter will be replaced. It is proposed to include this work as 7 Council Minutes: August 11, 2008 part of the Kevin Langley Drive and Jerry Liefert Drive project in order to get a better price but the Hawthorne Place North part of the project will not be assessed to the abutting property owners. The cost for the Hawthorne Place North portion of the project is estimated at $55,548.24. Wayne Mayer noted that before the residential development took place the area was a marshy and a good duck hunting spot. Susie Wojchouski asked if the homeowners experienced water problems and how this proposed project would impact them. Tom Moores had talked to the property owners in the area but they did not indicate any water problems. However if there were water problems the work being proposed would reduce the amount of operation time for their sump pumps. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED TO AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR KEVIN LONGLEY DRIVE, JERRY LIEFERT DRIVE AND HAWTHORNE PLACE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 2008-1OC. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 9. City of Monticello GIS System presentation — WSB & Associates. City Engineer, Bruce Westby and John Mackiewicz from WSB & Associates demonstrated some of the applications for the City's GIS system. In 2006 the City had authorized $35,010 for development of a GIS system. The purpose of the presentation is to show some of the uses for this technology and to discuss costs for additional development of the system. In discussing the applications for use, the Council discussed being able to locate private utility lines. It was noted by John Simola Public Works Director that the private utility companies as-builts are not always accurate and sometimes the utility companies are not forthcoming in providing this information to the City. John Mackiewicz described some the improvements and refinements they would be looking at for the GIS system. This included a discussion of cost. Nothing was budgeted for 2008 but it was proposed to budget funds in 2009 for software costs and training and in 2010 for data resources development. $28,300 is budgeted in Engineering for system enhancements and the software cost is budgeted in the capital outlay budget. Brian Stumpf asked about the $35,010 that was authorized by the Council that was used to develop the system and why in 2009 $28,300 is needed to enhance the system. He felt the City could better utilize what they have before spending additional funds for enhancements. John Mackiewcz stated that the system is not utilized as much because some department information is not integrated with the system. He felt the upgrades will make the system faster and easier. Clint Herbst felt this was an ongoing cost of getting information into the system so it can be used. Since the system is being used by a limited number of staff, Brian Stumpf suggested budgeting money for training and then when staff is utilizing the system more look at upgrades to the system. Susie Wojchouski asked about updating of the database and when it will be good enough without constant update and will it get to a point where the database is obsolete. Bruce Westby felt the City had not tapped the potential of the system. Clint Herbst asked what future City Councils could expect to keep this system up and running. John Mackiewicz felt the City needs to have a good set of standards in place when development takes place. To upgrade the system some of the cost could be passed on to the developers. The parcel N. Council Minutes: August 11, 2008 update is by the County so that cost is minimal. It was estimated that maintenance cost of the system would be about $4,000/year. Clint Herbst said it's a difficult thing to do but if the Council could see how much time was saved or how service was improved it would be worth knowing. Clint Herbst suggested this was something the Council should think about before making a decision. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO TABLE ANY ACTION ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE GIS SYSTEM TO A FUTURE MEETING. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 10. Consideration of having Bolton & Menk, Inc. prepare a long range plan for the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plan. Moved to the consent agenda as item #5N with the recommendation to authorize the long range plan. 11. Review and consideration of acceptance of the 2008 Annual Sidewalk Inspection Report for the City of Monticello. Public Works Director, John Simola presented the sidewalk inspection report for 2008. He stated there are 22 sidewalk panels that need replacement and 40 areas that need grinding. Specific areas of concern were on Cedar Street in front of the Cedar Crest Apartments, the US Bank site on 3'd Street West, a segment along Hart Boulevard and a segment along Farmstead Drive. For sidewalk on the grid system the City will repair or replace two panels at no charge to the property owners. The cost of the materials for the sidewalk repairs are budgeted and the labor comes from the Public Works Department. In discussing the sidewalk repairs, Clint Herbst felt it would be worth the City's time to log these repair/replacement sites into the City's system so that they could be tracked. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED TO ACCEPT THE 2008 SIDEWALK INSPECTION REPORT AS DRAFTED AND AUTHORIZE THE REPAIR WORK. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 12. Consideration and discussion and clarification of Council directives on facility needs and improvements. Staff questioned at the last meeting whether the Council had authorize staff to consider expansion of the garage/storage building (former Eisele property) to accommodate the relocation of the DMV to that site but that was not specifically spelled out. Brian Stumpf stated that was the Council's intent to relocate the DMV. It was felt the DMV expansion was more an emergency type need since the DMV will need the space in order to offer the drivers license service. The Council briefly discussed angled parking at the garage/storage building and possibility of a drive through. The Council also discussed the signs that are stored at the site. Gary Anderson, Chief Building Official indicated that the normal process is to notify the sign owner that they have a set number of days to claim the sign If the signs are not claimed within that time frame, they are destroyed. However with the flood of building permits from the storm damage, the workload has not allowed this to occur. The Council suggested having an employee call the E Council Minutes: August 11, 2008 number listed on the sign and indicate they have 24 hours to pick up the sign. Any sign not picked up within that time frame would be destroyed. In further discussion the Council recommended that whenever City staff saw signs placed in public right of way they should call the number on the sign and let them know that they have 24 hours to pick it up or it would be removed. The employee would check back after 24 hours and if the sign was not removed the City would remove and destroy it. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE/STORAGE FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE DMV. Tom Perrault felt the library site should be considered for a possible location for the DMV. He noted there is room for expansion and the parking lot is in place so that would not be a cost for the city. Some Councilmembers questioned the compatibility of the library and DMV uses being in the same site. BRIAN STUMPF WITHDREW HIS MOTION. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL LOOKING AT THE EXISTING GARAGE/STORAGE FACILITY, THE PRESENT LIBRARY SITE AND THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM CITY HALL AS POSSIBLE LOCATIONS. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO LOOK AT EXPANSION OF THE GARAGE/STORAGE FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE DMV AND STORAGE NEEDS AS DISCUSSED BY COUNCIL. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH TOM PERRAULT VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 4-1 Gary Anderson asked if the RFP should be limited to local contractors and the Council concurred with using local contractors. Gary Anderson also verified with council their recommendation for disposal of the signs. Jeff O'Neill stated he would check with the City Attorney for any recommendations before implementing the directive of the Council regarding the signs. Added Items Posusta/Lundsten Land Issues: Jeff O'Neill asked that staff and two members of the Council be authorized to discuss the issue with the parties to see if they can come to some kind of settlement. Brian Stumpf questioned why this issue was not being handled by the two property owners but felt if the issue was going to be dealt with by the Council it should be done by the full Council. The consensus of the Council was that it should be handled by the full Council. Clint Herbst stated he wanted the information prior to the meeting as he did not feel comfortable being asked for a decision without adequate time to review the issues and related data. TDS Litigation: Jeff O'Neill asked that Council consider setting a special closed meeting to discuss the litigation. The tentative date for the closed meeting is Monday, August 18th at 7 a.m. assuming legal counsel is available. 10 Council Minutes: August 11, 2008 Interchange at County Road 39: Clint Herbst had met with John Chadwick and discussed the possibility of looking at County Road 39 as a location for an interchange. An interchange in this location would be an impetus to development in the area. Brian Stumpf asked if the interchange at County Road 39 would be in addition to the one proposed at Orchard Road and Clint Herbst indicated it would be just one or the other. Bruce Westby stated he had talked to Terry Humphreys from MnDOT and he said the necessary studies would have to be done but two interchanges is not out of the question. Bruce Westby said as part of the Transportation Plan they would be looking at locations for an interchange. Clint Herbst felt that County Road 39 because the bridge is already there would not be as expensive. Clint Herbst said the City should be looking at a simple solution that would open up the area. Bruce Westby said the City could build something cheaper but the process of getting it in place is the same regardless of what is built so time wise it will not be any faster. Bruce Westby said the traffic and environmental studies that are required would take considerable time. Brian Stump felt the primary problem is TH 25 and the river crossing. Susie Wojchouski asked when the Transportation Plan would be coming back before the Council. Bruce Westby said it is tentatively scheduled for September 22nd. Staff hopes to include information on the closure of River Street at TH 25 as part of the study. Clint Herbst asked if they could get some cost figures for a design on County Road 39. Staff will work on preliminary cost figures. Other. Tom Perrault stated he had served on the committee looking at other wastewater treatment plant issues and he would like to continue to work on the committee dealing with the long range planning study the Council had authorized. The Council was in agreement with that. 13. Consideration of approving payment of bills for August, 2008. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 14. Adiourn. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:40 P.M. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 Recording Secretary 11 VICINITY MAP NOTES: 1. ALL Mg NC FEATURES SUCH AS B NOARY. BUILDINGS. UL.TY LGCARONS, NEMN0 5, CONTOURS, & ESEVATONS WERE PRONDED BY OWNER, 2 CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT START UTILITY CGNSTRUCIRCH PRICE TO STRUCTURE SHOP DRAWNG REVIEW BY ENONEER I NO FIELD CHANGES SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL BY ENGNEER. CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING; GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WN CRY AREA A5{-0002 MINNESOTA TOLL FREE 1-8OD-252-1166 DALE: RE MMS: L NF2. JUNE, 2008 LOCATION MAP SHEET INDEX T. TITLE SHEET Cl. SITE PLAN C2. GRADING PLAN C3. SWPP PLANS C4. SWPP DETAILS C5. UTILITY PLAN C6. WATER AND SANITARY DETAILS C7. STORM, SIDEWALK & STREET DETAILS Al. BUILDING PLAN & NOTES A2. BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS A3. BUILDING 2 PLAN, NOTES & RESTROOMS A4. BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONS, WINDOWS & DOOR Owner: Architect: s Surveyor: KCC PROPERTIES JIM MACKEY ARCHITECT � MY -LAND SURVEYING, P.A. 409 E. HWY 55 1723 LAFOND AVENUE v� 11947 IDAHO AVE. NO. BUFFALO, MN 55313 SAINT PAUL, MN 55104 ANNANDALE, MN 55302 CHAMPLIN, MN. 55316 (763) 684.1000 (651) 644.0869 (320) 490.4221 (763) 323.1300 contact: CHRIS HOURSCHT Contact: JIM MACKEY Contact: GARY DHEILLY Contact: MILT HYLAND , = x Fr.Iw- ' RRIJEC( � -:SIVE LOCATION MAP SHEET INDEX T. TITLE SHEET Cl. SITE PLAN C2. GRADING PLAN C3. SWPP PLANS C4. SWPP DETAILS C5. UTILITY PLAN C6. WATER AND SANITARY DETAILS C7. STORM, SIDEWALK & STREET DETAILS Al. BUILDING PLAN & NOTES A2. BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS A3. BUILDING 2 PLAN, NOTES & RESTROOMS A4. BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONS, WINDOWS & DOOR Owner: Architect: Engineer: Surveyor: KCC PROPERTIES JIM MACKEY ARCHITECT D'HEILLY ENGINEERING & ASSOC. INC. MY -LAND SURVEYING, P.A. 409 E. HWY 55 1723 LAFOND AVENUE 250 ELM ST. E. P.O. BOX 1123 11947 IDAHO AVE. NO. BUFFALO, MN 55313 SAINT PAUL, MN 55104 ANNANDALE, MN 55302 CHAMPLIN, MN. 55316 (763) 684.1000 (651) 644.0869 (320) 490.4221 (763) 323.1300 contact: CHRIS HOURSCHT Contact: JIM MACKEY Contact: GARY DHEILLY Contact: MILT HYLAND 8-6 \ SIDEWALK IN KIND AS El EA 957.0 3 xv lu '-�- �xv msw.0-e a � P Dye / ah y'R • y'm /— _ I FlBER OPTIC y4H Dr \Oe\ If FlBE�GPnfµpflN�—¢c — -� 770 ac���, 9RfM0yF0 CN.8R.:S7g.40'SS i ANG le 301YLp G_"GM CK A�013��/, Wafto,l / AAF ^ SORA, W4L/ ` Rf40)Ay0 /k Q Aro 1 / l / l l��ry I r.D• 4• . 1 / • /• ry ° �10f 00 r'• I I ^.{i XC RnNc / • NC WALK / o I / /l• k Ay ry / N e.G / p r g• X /y ® 9J S'p. AV. 10 / 1 1 GMC / 39,5• R<5 m / • R I I 1 1 1 F / B11 "INDUS PF4ARKINGG \ 'n 1\ �G9M• d OPTIV. MARKER / / r kLLpdalpmjx6@80514Wag1280514SITE.drtg, T/24R00810:28:IDAM rr L PGI£ U � u� 0 • � \ � • �l 1 g u,m l I h al / roe I o ` / 'IIV L $ w // wt 3.5 WIDE CONC. WALK/ / NG •ww +': / 65 P20I C gAMP I N c! 10' i P a°'' ➢' I Lr l mmu 9G; 6 / ' MY 9SE]1 DRO d / P CURB/ I W/4AVER AU \BITJMINOUS ` PARKING ",\� / 4p RZO I11 164 0 4s a _ __ NB9'00'4YE 184.3] �5, WIDE CONE. SIDEWALK ^ MR SNE NOTES: 1. PARKING DATA RETAIL= 14,976 SF 14.976 x .9 =13.478.4 AMded by 200 a 67.39 SPACES S7 SPACES PARKING REOUIRED = 67 SPACES PROMDED = 69 SPACES 2. VERIFY ALL EXISLNO AND NEW WATER AND SANITARY SERMCE SIZING, TYPE. ETC WITH STATE & LOCAL CODES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. / RC %1.M xv .bs-s w b GRAPHIC SCALE IK FEET) m %1.15 t Nch • 20 (L YY _Z WNDICAPPEO RAMP I A,J rr L PGI£ U � u� 0 • � \ � • �l 1 g u,m l I h al / roe I o ` / 'IIV L $ w // wt 3.5 WIDE CONC. WALK/ / NG •ww +': / 65 P20I C gAMP I N c! 10' i P a°'' ➢' I Lr l mmu 9G; 6 / ' MY 9SE]1 DRO d / P CURB/ I W/4AVER AU \BITJMINOUS ` PARKING ",\� / 4p RZO I11 164 0 4s a _ __ NB9'00'4YE 184.3] �5, WIDE CONE. SIDEWALK ^ MR SNE NOTES: 1. PARKING DATA RETAIL= 14,976 SF 14.976 x .9 =13.478.4 AMded by 200 a 67.39 SPACES S7 SPACES PARKING REOUIRED = 67 SPACES PROMDED = 69 SPACES 2. VERIFY ALL EXISLNO AND NEW WATER AND SANITARY SERMCE SIZING, TYPE. ETC WITH STATE & LOCAL CODES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. rr�rr` -- — . ..!\/\/\� ``aee /! �^cvs ! ` I r - c1 II�J Q. ( \ \ \ ! \ .Mii=-Sx t \j X MV 9991}E �;h U` PA W.76 IXw w Qpm \ j\� 1 -fi R GRAPHIC SCALE ti99s+�°Sgt P `/�' �•�P st"�nx -asm �,�_r'_ \, m i' f �` —@ 3•i ��sf __ ._Nle _^:l �7= _l 1 —IY— 1 r• a -azo x j' _ r,�l---� i-ey 3a•E ^� � / 1 v �' I � I fl,FA M99 / t 3 .rm 1 •'T ®p \err - fF/y106101 I IXw� g1 rr p t ♦ r ! �(/ _ f r I 1 I'4P r I >�+ ww6exr sEr 6 rnPPER w.s uza L,ER°'V:I.VE sd: �_'s r 1 r "�` /t 1 I ! rl - 1 C L. P¢E _• aC a PrvE If .962 r • ` ` _ j �1(/\{ � � � 1 Ir 1 \ �A I 1 0 � m \ h;;/ ` l! :// /F& '� __. y • I [� f 1 �1 1 I rl (r i r 1 —ee5 PRw mnrau+s 144 /j 9 / a P - 1 j ! I r1 CfpI��{ r r - I xx3.a os sror9lEv.. .® Px war ErEv. (rlory uxF3 c � r,' ,' t� 1/ ` t, '�'�4 - •"�� V i / f i IE g� 1 .® PRw srol Elev. MP cr anR) �$ elf l l !r iA w / r '� m i 1lI f F" 1 G Raw uw6w O CK P/ r'� _..y `` I e N Q o t •/��//. _ 1 t 1 Id PeoP N t7�! fl l` z / ! s r./ �a. / / V i 1 1 Er E.i t9 k r 1 vi c {{` 1 a mn.x J m m � a S ,F +'r '° .� O � �E� I t P"�n'+/41- � �` � 1• 1 Q3 ' • ms � W o "o�'� "` � � + / �/ g ` _•� 131 1 Y a � `� I( ,• r I � � sNl. � m o o v • FM1 0.5r� e / ,: rC RIM 96l +W) ! - r ry, / P i - I u— msr warMeaxx c l� i�fi fh �E - l l' w— PRaP .ar�aeax w a 6 \ u a Rw9h%39 81 7.2 Q it i �13I�Tv� t �F. ij l maWmOL &41x[i Z V i�lj lj 1 t� i r ! ` e m - / o �W ;b`if rj"✓�f I _ J ir,fi�'1 li ' Q / 4.^ �u waal - qS .h/rf j 1 .d _I N Q a \! oO G ! Vi'r f `fyyyl j; ' �j 0 / �\ 96�, r /1 "���Yy"1 BL \ r i IXrnw ' Ic IL G f'-,'tll)_ �rtr € A En•9sa11 x_s 1 ; l� �.. ;c O 2 Z M r / , I rr i' zy / a \ so ((- s /1 c 1/ __> O Q Y I if 4 ------------- Mr f ` / �! ' / _ / f �- a J% fir' -_/"] sj- // lr / P t ! 1 ` . +-.f u69roo'cre taa.n t _ _ _ w cauls error umxc ® 6 t j''-. MM1961.08 9sxaa rh t tr�x- "asg(kt4 t\ t M V9s1.Par'� '� / — ,/ / \ , \ /- r /- lj "� ! GOPHER STATE ONE CALL %t ,% f y p- agN pry µIX ppg PR0. Ci ND. a w; Ir t ] 9HEEr N0. XV Indatp jetls1280514 g�80514G1 .&%'g, 717R0W 9:30:47 AM 5 r CZ a :� ro�M EGUND . I EIePEO NI ME. Nr 0 GATE VRLK {f .N IPR£ A POSER F. i Sflli EIEVPTI61s 4ja si G E.M. %PE LEGEND '�-az~—_ EXRT. oMrwNs —vaN — WHT. sPm vEW. i® %NP. Aar EEE, N1uw U,Q a® PROP. AAT EI£r. (lOP CE EEaBI O.w o PRM, CE —» EvsE Slwu arrtR 4 ExCE NEE, 4 TRM. EES O Ewsr. � fltM. MX -- C. SIN. EEPER —£�-- EXIST. ftTMN.M W— PEG, WAIEwAAM SLT iFNQ -- — ow EARMW ER(9M mNMa a.Nn¢r twma VrOJNIST2ND514Mvg12R0514SWTTdvg,]/TnOOR 83126.4M a GRAPHIC SCALE (MT,T7 1 hun - PA n CONSTRUCTION NOTES. 1. INSTALL AND MAIMAIN GEOTE%IIIE EAG5 N ALL CATCH BASINS IN CEDAR STREET ADJACENT TO SITE. 2. THE OMER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE EPR SWEEPING A L MILD AND DIRT Mi p ADJACENT STREETS DURING CONSTRUCTION. 6„a Fm�yiy €gatla yF=s $WPP h ERMIDN CONTRDI NOTE& _ 1. N KRFT16AnWS A4a E1 o Ulm ..X IIR19WL THETNSGILL VnunFS Pnlpt ro pMEMVGBW wM ME ISiES.TYE Unim Lil �Wxo C a z NE umox cmMa YG91RFs cwm EON ox ME2 Puxs oe nws WnIM uar Ev AIRDIDIUTEmxraonxoal3NRAW9r1sA wsv M oeN FEE.1TA mxwcsaE NWM DEREM W mMAVFE3 A .I.1. CF IEEE. BE E. Ri �� w1RR PIW DAFREG.M E. E1 YATWMMUMM AVEVBPNNNEM (IiNDNO) 9 Ej RED. M. BNE NMPo N MEMBED aW4p1 NSAL E. NIET MO WIIEE faWNES FIIDGMAEr TO SENPI MUMS wHK e Z 1 OV➢INO WMPK OT aei i %NNBE MIO NRNTMN ILL Ex05M 0.W1R2 pNGEMF .V9 Yq➢n11T.Y1¢ 0111[HK f11a94 tlX1TNtt..MEMXpi6MY ..MEM M AoumEr PRwRTr IRo avPLr wM sxw NuuuTwrvs V mvmEapnrs BE I W. c .G rwuE�a�uuxrxxm ... SHES P..,XE Al THE 1X[ E. WYTNAw�ll o MEARE BY EFA41PE5 PERM BEWOEIE"PQNLY. IF BF NPNES PEWYT R TUMBEEMER Ta.... �PAVr U . ..941LL YUXRN 1xE RM, IDEURENIN6ME E) ME Am FER.MM uIPo.AE61... MEEN�1. . N EUMB ME THE wi DENC N � IDH, 9,UES U,my THEmXE MATIN E �No CDE NE TB91X1MEIPESmNE Ess PUHE AHOEFMAEEnGnmis G w PT I"tn r S ME CPMxCW CpDRPCitli JWL sGIFCUE ME LCIS QItlxEEN SO MnT ~ o y. Emmm mwmMEEuwlmFnmTxE �'/T�m� z w�PAw teal am 6�O�p`V 6 'm w m h B.BE IRus EmaTS BF. ..wm M.R.M. EMOEPT a VI W PF Sal .VL pSNPB9 AREAS SMNL BE Sftm BE ME ENUM"M SPJEI m O OIF pv MOT YtmID C D- i Dais F N O 6 1a1 TT L f1AlTFA . 1HAM Tal, 31 aa15 W < wIW DNOL ORMNO w CWPIEIFD SIFII9t T4W sl 4 OAM T MTIFMAV 10:1 ro m M ® E EMX ENNL M SED &B VXIESS Xmm aMFRWg = T. ME EMEEMO IWOp LAND COHIWR ¢EV .. SXOwl. ME 0 w pRRATRVS SHALL iNi .. ANYLTW %A¢ w ME MY11s IT IS REOJoo �n M\i sL5 MAIXm xMEI ME SNE 6r xaRl 14,FpE5 fROM PAM➢ Raav rrar SIIRFapS MRWENEUT TIE Z ... EF GNMUFMLTM J6 d Ia PNOnCE MYPORwr uwxExranav BAsws as oIFEOTm By ME DlaxmL J ~F Z SWPP COMPMANCE NBTE: W Z U TNR ELW 1E A�IXC .. F.M. 41MMCNR/BEVpMFR E. 'Ax Z YOGI% ME ¢M . EVEfF➢ MTNO ftl.`SNxIC1I0N /tlE�, BE N E mU..E WITH SnpP ppglRF .. l y; E F AY IL Z SWPP CONTRACTOR NOTE C IL 0 O <aeTW.CIOR SNML PRJYIOF A Rl9! ECXEWEE 4 ..F F.YEpIXG ro EE N E PPM Pl MMIC (COPY t�0 ExMgMEMI1 SERME£) In Y EIRMIC M Poa1F9 IRE m EE HNW NI A WEF%LY 8144. V Z ® p z O J O G 6 aCALL GOPHER STATE ONE PROJECT ND. ea 1a TAM Exr NffA M` LW3SHEET N0. EWE T-eOo-uE-IIeE C3 imFB rAsec -/ � .xxomm GTarN Sf80deT11PIBLe L1Tlr8aIrTTfor CamwNoNFnIrBNce fhe Ltilyofh99DtirelID — 03-o5 " 5015 FILL ROCK LOG WHEN 45 LBS OF OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE COYSSTNC OF SOUND. DURABLE PARPCI£S OF CROSHEO QUARRY ROCK OR ENABLE CONFORMING TO THE FOLUMAINC GRADATION. GRADATION SIEVESIZE PERCENT PASSING E 95-100 3/C 65-95 3/8' W-65 NO. 4 10-35 NO. 10 3-20 N0. 90 0-e N0. 200 0-3 Nom, CINSREO CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS MALL NOT BE USED FOR OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE ENDS SECURELY CLOSED TO PREVENT LOSS OF OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE FILL, SECURED WITH 5O P3 ZIP TE , PAYMENT SHALL INCLUDE ALL MATERIALS. RULING OF LOG, PLACEMENT, MAINTENANCE & REMOVAL 80% OF BIB PRICE SHPll. BE PAID UPON PROPER PLACEMENT ARM THE FINAL 20% PND UPON REMOVAL INLET PROTECTION WITH ROCK LOG MCNOT- MENT CONFORMING TO SPEC. 38M TABLE 3886-1. MACHINE SUM INLET PROTECTION -ROCK BAG NOT TO SNE (VSE AT ..A, NOT ..IN THE 5111EET \%WdnlPmja VN0514W 91230514SWPPDET.ft TNT/20088:32:O6 AA1 INLET SPECIFICATIONS AS PER PUN DIMENSION LENGTH AND TO MATCH GEOIEKME FABRIC, TYPE WOVEN MONOFILAMENT CONFORMING TG SPEC. MRS. TABLE W86-1 MACHINE SHOE FRONT. BACK AND TO BE MADE MOM %ECP OF FABRIC NOTES 1. FILTER AGGREGATE TO BE 1 TO 2 INCH CIEFN ROCK. 2 FILTER MRIC SHALL MEET MN/OOT SPECIFCA110N 3733 GEOTE%TLE FABRIC TWE 11. INLET PROTECTION -FILTER AGGREGATE NOT TO SOMB (D., IF DFDI .. BAG HAS NOT BEEN e6rILLID AND .5 HAS BEd WSTALFD) z- x Y woon INLET OPENING PETER FABRIC r X 2' d MIN. GEOMXTHE e X 6' OVAL HOLE SHALL BE HEAT CUT INTO ALL FOUR S1DE PANELS PLAN MEW NOTES 1. FILTER AGGREGATE TO BE 1 TO 2 INCH CLEAN ROCK. 2 FILTER FABRIC SHAM MEET MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 3133 GEOTEXIILE FABRIC TWE It. ALL AROUND 51DE SECTIONAL MEW NOTE 1. SILT PENCE SHALL CONFORM TO ME REQUIREMENTS OF (MRS) INLET PROTECTION-PREASSEMBLED xoT TO SCRIP (INSTALL AROUND C/STNG PPoUt 1D CfAS b PIST.WAPCN) NOTES I WLET PROTECTION MMCES SHALL BE MAINTAINED DR REPLACED AT ME I DIRECBCN OF TIE ENGINES. MANUFACTURED ALTERNABMES APPROVED AND LISTED ON ME DEPARTMENT EROSION COMMOL PRODUCT ACCEPTABIUTY LIST MAY BE SIIBSTMi WHEN REMOMNG OR MAINTAINING INLET PROTECTION, CARE SHALL BE TAKEN SO THAT THE SEDIMUNT TRAPPED ON ME GEOMYTIFE FABRIC DOES NOT FALL INTO THE QUIET. ANT MATERIAL FALLING INTO THE INLET SHAUL OF REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. G)FINISHED SIZE, INCLUDING POCKETS WHERE REDUCED. SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 10- AROUND THE PERIMETER TO FACNTATE MNNTEHANI OR REMOVAL CDFUP POCKETS SHPll BE LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCEPT WOOD 2X4. INSTAII<PON NOIFS' 00 NOT INSTALL PROTECTION IN INLETS O HHRH .TO•. MEASURED FROM MEE EDITION OF INE INI£T TO WE TOPTW OFF ME EtAIE WIN EXCESS FABRIC N THE FLOW USE TO WITHIN S OF THE GRAM TINE INSTAL EO BAG SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 510E CULUbMCE BETWEEN ME MLEF AND ME BAG MEASURED AT INE BOTTOM OF WE OVERFLOW HOLES, OF Y. WHERE NECESSARY ME CONTRACTOR SHALL CUTCH THE BAG, USING PLASTIC AP TIES. TO ACHIEVE WE 3' CLEARANCE. ME TES SHALL BE PLACED AT A M DIMUM OF C FROM TIE BOTTOM OF THE BAG. INLET PROTECTION-GEOTE)CnLE BAG NOT M SCALE Ox ALL AS SOON AS casnxc HA BEEN SET) 9f.. N yzig �r� 6 DMENr Ly�3� 1g K��k o a T 0 r, O FVFFI A) InslallORien .'m'iuzrun�iv 1 if "- ��.w ran 2 n h6\ y[uEff� 4 wWxx�"P mi" M W M wu rvrr wn EY :ww��� SfmdardPlaleL6reerrpptor ,wE NIIerFahric SyyDDNelic a� oa-05 wem the Lti/y oiMav6ceNo 7004 Pe1a5oz-os PAYMENT SHALL INCLUDE ALL MATERIALS. RULING OF LOG, PLACEMENT, MAINTENANCE & REMOVAL 80% OF BIB PRICE SHPll. BE PAID UPON PROPER PLACEMENT ARM THE FINAL 20% PND UPON REMOVAL INLET PROTECTION WITH ROCK LOG MCNOT- MENT CONFORMING TO SPEC. 38M TABLE 3886-1. MACHINE SUM INLET PROTECTION -ROCK BAG NOT TO SNE (VSE AT ..A, NOT ..IN THE 5111EET \%WdnlPmja VN0514W 91230514SWPPDET.ft TNT/20088:32:O6 AA1 INLET SPECIFICATIONS AS PER PUN DIMENSION LENGTH AND TO MATCH GEOIEKME FABRIC, TYPE WOVEN MONOFILAMENT CONFORMING TG SPEC. MRS. TABLE W86-1 MACHINE SHOE FRONT. BACK AND TO BE MADE MOM %ECP OF FABRIC NOTES 1. FILTER AGGREGATE TO BE 1 TO 2 INCH CIEFN ROCK. 2 FILTER MRIC SHALL MEET MN/OOT SPECIFCA110N 3733 GEOTE%TLE FABRIC TWE 11. INLET PROTECTION -FILTER AGGREGATE NOT TO SOMB (D., IF DFDI .. BAG HAS NOT BEEN e6rILLID AND .5 HAS BEd WSTALFD) z- x Y woon INLET OPENING PETER FABRIC r X 2' d MIN. GEOMXTHE e X 6' OVAL HOLE SHALL BE HEAT CUT INTO ALL FOUR S1DE PANELS PLAN MEW NOTES 1. FILTER AGGREGATE TO BE 1 TO 2 INCH CLEAN ROCK. 2 FILTER FABRIC SHAM MEET MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 3133 GEOTEXIILE FABRIC TWE It. ALL AROUND 51DE SECTIONAL MEW NOTE 1. SILT PENCE SHALL CONFORM TO ME REQUIREMENTS OF (MRS) INLET PROTECTION-PREASSEMBLED xoT TO SCRIP (INSTALL AROUND C/STNG PPoUt 1D CfAS b PIST.WAPCN) NOTES I WLET PROTECTION MMCES SHALL BE MAINTAINED DR REPLACED AT ME I DIRECBCN OF TIE ENGINES. MANUFACTURED ALTERNABMES APPROVED AND LISTED ON ME DEPARTMENT EROSION COMMOL PRODUCT ACCEPTABIUTY LIST MAY BE SIIBSTMi WHEN REMOMNG OR MAINTAINING INLET PROTECTION, CARE SHALL BE TAKEN SO THAT THE SEDIMUNT TRAPPED ON ME GEOMYTIFE FABRIC DOES NOT FALL INTO THE QUIET. ANT MATERIAL FALLING INTO THE INLET SHAUL OF REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. G)FINISHED SIZE, INCLUDING POCKETS WHERE REDUCED. SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 10- AROUND THE PERIMETER TO FACNTATE MNNTEHANI OR REMOVAL CDFUP POCKETS SHPll BE LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCEPT WOOD 2X4. INSTAII<PON NOIFS' 00 NOT INSTALL PROTECTION IN INLETS O HHRH .TO•. MEASURED FROM MEE EDITION OF INE INI£T TO WE TOPTW OFF ME EtAIE WIN EXCESS FABRIC N THE FLOW USE TO WITHIN S OF THE GRAM TINE INSTAL EO BAG SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 510E CULUbMCE BETWEEN ME MLEF AND ME BAG MEASURED AT INE BOTTOM OF WE OVERFLOW HOLES, OF Y. WHERE NECESSARY ME CONTRACTOR SHALL CUTCH THE BAG, USING PLASTIC AP TIES. TO ACHIEVE WE 3' CLEARANCE. ME TES SHALL BE PLACED AT A M DIMUM OF C FROM TIE BOTTOM OF THE BAG. INLET PROTECTION-GEOTE)CnLE BAG NOT M SCALE Ox ALL AS SOON AS casnxc HA BEEN SET) 9f.. N yzig �r� 6 DMENr Ly�3� 1g K��k o a T 0 r, O FVFFI 61 r ~ My asu-E�t "t ��_z ° ��'�-• ��� —_=_s— �� �T/ I � z w h9ass GRAPHIC SCALE — �i IS IDe4 YO ) h 9'4 J1 / r TK = /'F(B 4ti) ,INV 851A9 -N Aft" sR.=sS�7 'fr / // F�• ' � elf � T 1 i r �'! r �� / '•r• / )� r� 1<, Ye 95o.a� / IT'T"x� t i \ -9 ` PA E3 i t Y9v' e k `�" f• II E$ / lxv as&Oo iF/q / a f , / l /� r ; r ! = ao 16 up sex sEa ih;� I ti €�� � %\ r r ; Y !(MARKEw/,msT cZ r r ! "� ya`. tt V /L i AY XII r{ I/ Ft 1 lit � i`. ,v f ' ` 8 r z,u• ?� r a ( :w ' r ,�! p � Iy � m z \wv-s5iw •'' � � - / /• �'Ck `�y-4� ! el - e 1� r �r I I� '� � MRo P xif .Ni% jam` %/i.�` °m ryr l ia�N /lo/ 'BLOCK 1rl a _ _ Q a 1 \` M -m �/ a{l 9. ,c�'�i_ r LQT 1 r/ \ 1 �._, �'-----�� f '!r!' f(Cr _ / _ Ld M �o N o 4d ii z, t; / a,C����t/ )/ '�I 1 f ilii w r' f i l \ x '`�� _ _ r�-� / - IAasaaa =P75-1 v. J\ (}£1 w� / ✓ 1 t r �y� 1 I �� 1 C C Ti. 'tF , X` v./s s) ^y` �\: i 42 ,(!/ V..- ms'Ore' // J l $1 r _ `��. / .° r - 1 Pill jj� gay ' ' r IX M`h851%k (p] j / % l �_ \ �✓ \ ' / S t-_� ¢,F� Y3 ! rTX ( l '� I � l�$ IX wr94 P 11 ` 6 g ✓ INV -951A3 �r1. i ji" / ` r v' / eE ' 3r r °qLy AY it �� l ,•`` �`, fI ` f/ j16 t o At ,1/i Fn as-ras r �% r s> zZ /`9 ,5T �/' - l , ,'Ift' 9-`<n I �.e r `� '—ry l WIL 9 U � � tf ! y = g � �r°{ ' % ( Qr m 3 o �W2.o j' i/ I (I ry asa vi,%,rww ) Q, F W w 0 Il t IQ, V \ t / / -- i _I" rv00 / � I I I � 1 I ( � /! 3'! Ek ,EY e•` r � 1 V F• � � Zry / / -t,.- � � 1 { �I I l j'i T I i t I 2 t� .$rPEI➢ ff17j' A9 o 0 i/ J .Fh / f — i _ — x99nO'4]•E tea.si t INV -95J W PFWE T NO. ] 14 SHEFT NO. \V.ynde�ojuls\230SIdWrvg@SOSlEi1T6 Aeg,]b20033:4312 M1 C'5 Et - sg�VOK {53k g - GhCme _ Oe_c S 8 U a C N O N N N Q WNN NN m ��r C O ` W m Y N — Nooaa c N a c w c ow or - W a6 a 2 0 J 2 Q u a D V! i > OC z Q f Z = � J Q U V F dJ C 7 f b i ® 3 � a PROJECT NO. iB0514 SHEET NO. Wryndalpm�etl 2NS14\dug1280514S VAMETdivB.]b/20088A3:54e l G`6 vv_n'mmnwve Sfavdaril Pleklihlrearyrp for the GIg0IM0aticelb ,� SeMce TyplcelWater S�dard Plekldbreryytar lh¢GIg OfMwtimdD ual Service Comeep6n ins?VCSenfkry Serew Standard Plate GTraryyfw Btt Gfg O(MOOM1RBO SauBaryClesnAat oor 03-05 � 2003 03-06 °eda°'oz-a6 ^' � 3004 oar 03 -OS '^"'p02-06 PhAi v'' 3005 02-06 SlandardPLk lubrraarr99far VynlralHgdraot � Iwtallatlan 6feodardPleteli6rery�fw 7ypka1ltench Compardon aml GavH Bedding SYmdard Plakiu6 for � BI6rLivgf6r m Wakrmein S(¢uderdNnklabrraarrggfor MiueBaaeousllek6c � IwWakrmem PRa w „> o3 -Ds °Y" w o� D3 -Ds � '^ fheG ofM6atimua tP WeGtyo(MOWIceIIo fheG oIMDnBceI�D 4` the CBpafMmtlreBa "�'e402-O6 2001 " „'D2 -O6 3006 w2u:�_06 2002 Pv°e°'02-06 2004 Et - sg�VOK {53k g - GhCme _ Oe_c S 8 U a C N O N N N Q WNN NN m ��r C O ` W m Y N — Nooaa c N a c w c ow or - W a6 a 2 0 J 2 Q u a D V! i > OC z Q f Z = � J Q U V F dJ C 7 f b i ® 3 � a PROJECT NO. iB0514 SHEET NO. Wryndalpm�etl 2NS14\dug1280514S VAMETdivB.]b/20088A3:54e l G`6 vv_n'mmnwve Sfavdaril Pleklihlrearyrp for the GIg0IM0aticelb ,� SeMce TyplcelWater S�dard Plekldbreryytar lh¢GIg OfMwtimdD ual Service Comeep6n ins?VCSenfkry Serew Standard Plate GTraryyfw Btt Gfg O(MOOM1RBO SauBaryClesnAat oor 03-05 � 2003 03-06 °eda°'oz-a6 ^' � 3004 oar 03 -OS '^"'p02-06 PhAi v'' 3005 02-06 s a �€ H €g=tl �€ds5a5 tgpE �o¢zY i €- 9 � 8 U G d 0 N N Q O WNln �i�i N fY7 ja Or ��r^,1 C J 0 W Y 6612 CVflB •m O O ¢6 IS Blr. ]39Y M4-4 (XIN.1 N'JR WJRY W/tAgt WAL _ 0 Osx. Bug Q \J e' QASS 5 AGtAECAIE 6P8 (AEC 3139) NO 9L1 YfBWA 5WLS 16FONI � PPON6miBY 0W..f1f PAVEMENTSECT10N W = w a h y WZ dl W J z 3 0 Ja W 0 U � y y Z Z_ O� O g J � N n PROJECT NO. 280`14 NO. \1 p&Vrq<aa12W514M,6 0514DLT5461 M, InPOM 8:14:36,ih1 i JAB ure 31BN�q eovuna�wmra vM9EsµwwE e) M� •P-v� �rrc. :::?:':: � - "�. wm uve• �" 'jie�,.y nrvAna er unuv �( Y' SDFNWt GXBSMB eaW R� SE4IION B-6 SECPON A -A Pn �cnn °� ®'a a..®s.e..wm.erwav rw p /1� ova ma! ®� rarx�x - IxlvuYS WTrW ®� n�rs vawc�an�umaaw.a msmu PNLW¢0.41Pw®ia Na IM RLN9ur` �COmmerdal llrivereey � Typied3idewasc ...,. w..,.....E<a.� Pedesaian xcnov .A Petleatdan Sfaadard Platelebrer�tar Eaheem StrududPlafeliMarpfar � tlaM PIaM Lihrary Curb Romp mrt¢mu Q�� v`v ava` ���_miux a �w`rex' nrwam ®mOm�m� q xau seroma— � am+v aE StrndudPlntrL'6rfe9�tjtw the Ltitq atFi0at1IX3a Standard GlrhBasa SfanderdPlffielihrraarr))tar We CSlyoi Menticelta M��aam Oa_� wn xs 4006 Ya 03 -os I,a 4007 We tityolMuuticeuo We L5/yetldoa the Oily oFMadicel tandertl Plate ll6reeevy to the CltpMHaMkello m_os •5007 5008 5009 5009A 02-06 U2 -O6 'z02 -O6 s a �€ H €g=tl �€ds5a5 tgpE �o¢zY i €- 9 � 8 U G d 0 N N Q O WNln �i�i N fY7 ja Or ��r^,1 C J 0 W Y 6612 CVflB •m O O ¢6 IS Blr. ]39Y M4-4 (XIN.1 N'JR WJRY W/tAgt WAL _ 0 Osx. Bug Q \J e' QASS 5 AGtAECAIE 6P8 (AEC 3139) NO 9L1 YfBWA 5WLS 16FONI � PPON6miBY 0W..f1f PAVEMENTSECT10N W = w a h y WZ dl W J z 3 0 Ja W 0 U � y y Z Z_ O� O g J � N n PROJECT NO. 280`14 NO. \1 p&Vrq<aa12W514M,6 0514DLT5461 M, InPOM 8:14:36,ih1 i JAB ure 31BN�q eovuna�wmra vM9EsµwwE e) M� •P-v� �rrc. :::?:':: � - "�. wm uve• �" 'jie�,.y nrvAna er unuv �( Y' SDFNWt GXBSMB eaW R� SE4IION B-6 SECPON A -A Pn �cnn °� ®'a a..®s.e..wm.erwav rw p /1� ova ma! ®� rarx�x - IxlvuYS WTrW ®� n�rs vawc�an�umaaw.a msmu PNLW¢0.41Pw®ia Na IM RLN9ur` �COmmerdal llrivereey � Typied3idewasc ...,. w..,.....E<a.� Pedesaian xcnov .A Petleatdan Sfaadard Platelebrer�tar Eaheem StrududPlafeliMarpfar � tlaM PIaM Lihrary Curb Romp mrt¢mu Q�� v`v ava` ���_miux a �w`rex' nrwam ®mOm�m� q xau seroma— � am+v aE StrndudPlntrL'6rfe9�tjtw the Ltitq atFi0at1IX3a Standard GlrhBasa SfanderdPlffielihrraarr))tar We CSlyoi Menticelta M��aam Oa_� wn xs 4006 Ya 03 -os I,a 4007 \V.yndalpmjxat5118051414RCHV3I.0GP1.AlJh`O➢N'G dwS, 7!!20088 06:15 AM 1. Q]IBNL Wl1PACf(fl IS PESw51El£ Fqt OW.1 VFANYNG NL gMEHAW$ MDI ELSTNC BIIIpN4 h AiE CIXIDITCN£ 2 d11 mNMN S M WADE FME W ll ] FAQ BlD]t. A NL SfpiE fndli MNWYS TD BE ALVWNVN TIFAMPL-WiFN( ETmm MTI I➢W'C PA5-BOrTIM PAH6ID 6E 1pP FRm. A N15TG4E FAIMIi WMS rD Q AWMINYM FlILL 4 0.NA5 Mnl 3AfkTl 6A55 S 111 PFOA a& 9AIM 10 nE IN9MlF➢ METK DCW3 MlN W9MThD METAL MAIM a 3F£ RCCR %/H FG4 AIm . IN—ATM ]. aMNNi uAlFrtlAlS IxDICAIED w WT , PUNS. 3EDno.W AND DETULs AND M'NDTAIFD W ME Dx 14 1 PUL{ QCTGY Cfl DETAI SHALL W Cp19DFAW AMIDTAhq NNIm qt IA9FIW CWIPIETfLY M ALL PVNS acnWs Axo DnA+s a w n1E CAQ Q AHBIWmr$ DSCPFP.WpfS W MEW U. . IN 111E MAWA 9TpnC fflS NPNpraD MO WSTtUL M% AR QxDx.l W APPurd2E CW6 axo sruroNiD3. PEW6r ¢ ....I N INE iAUnlEcr w MM. pETIIIE Ai ,Q , .1 CWT [ ¢PAECIMG MMR.111P TWP0.0 II. MINWi DxiAIXWD q..WFlWTw MLL DE BWHE SIXrLY nY ME WiIXIL1Ot. 9. T2 Cg1INACIM ANI/. MM MI13r \9tl1AVD wEp{ NL NII j iLWX PLWS t All 1 ..% .WD D. AND NDnFY n ANCN1. C£ INT ExRtxs M WMImm EW P0. Dif gWREDTW MM M STAxr Q caxsTWrngL 16 q£cnaI M. srS1EM AxD LIMIT m Q SVPFum DY TIE FI£CIPIGLL WYnucrOR d, I.. M. pMMx61W uEwAxIGLL 0.YG PIIMpxG uYWr nxD DE9W. iz.W.M WN CdG LY WW ML M STALEd H.. AVD... im CFE tlMISIxI M Y Nm FDn AWmwx lxRVtlAAnw. CME WMMARY S:4FE Q MNN AppIMYI NM RpOF PF11C0.']1xD ro Ws G x L STIP MWPWG NNL tACpInGN. SHflL MLYI APNIDABIENDE& TWe II.All. .. ®i1ROTA sII, Wnaxc W W MO YWI SIAIE ACRS99NTY f6Y wpP1Fn t]41 QC 1898 Cf ATE ENFADY CCOE- CNOPIQS ]6l9 AND ]B]a QC HAD INIFANAMx1AL tlEOIM'MJL CLOS (A9 RMFNOm pV 3glT SBC W 13K) xNEANATWAI DAC WE (M1S INF1OE) BY 3ON 93C wM1Fx 1396] PWs WR"ANATWAL FlPE !ACE (AC AM0.'XEO BT RWr siAlE FINE CtlJE CHI➢IER ]511] nW RIXAS MATWAL ¢6IMC ¢nE MN FNE wAP1FA t3G6 CCwppHCY TPE N� C SECIIw ]W] LpY9MNLTDN ,WC V eDC TA6n,) aawuN LOAo: To BE DEIEnWxm xim TwAYr uQ ]WD umur rwE sFmunax PEGAfl6WlIS xp 9PnnATCN N[ nF1MBl EOsnxc pI Y6 ulD ti. IWmw ( rasE 50&33) TRAYc1 L5TAN2 NEWINm MAYWVM TP.AY d51PNQ=4M (Op: 1010.1) MALYVM mM ma. m M` E9T=W MVNBWD x%1 RM l0 BE DETETMINM MM TENANT VY AND AT .. ( 1[IMAxI[ PNE21) NM FEWIIRn QBC 96126 AWTIWxIin: 4055 FiCOR ME4 PDpBw-MEa 9. R BIIIl1YNO NBWi: 1 CIgIT WAII MFS OE/6' CYP. BOPNB W a NILL P Y W 1 3/a,7 Ile LW snm5 B 31' MG MIN ,/Y PLYAOW 91G11B.Y0 w [ENwT BOAap VP 9pNG ONrtn- �uAN[we_� 1/2' Lwl!wT TYFE BD t 5/6 TPE X GlP9JY W. FAd 9cE QV STEEL STM OIV 0.G /ECUXD WSHAnpL 1/1' OIP91N 60. Gw 9M OF 3 5/5 Sl¢15TxDs O 16 n.C/4.YINO IN911ATw O1m n9 un Tr Wxw (z] uYms s,W T E x cT 4 W. uW aQ Q s s/r sTn rnos o ,V n.4 /SMMB IN51nATLYt Owmmc nFMe W`� (z] urns s/s' TWE x cW Wu m. EAw ADE W 3 s/e slm srYD. o IV o,C J.D wwuncx MD1E WE SIDE m xavE ...T auxiI s eET6Eal 6w Wu W. uYws) OgNaxx W �� 6 a x.v< tM uw,s s/n' TWT x WP.NIY W. EApI 9¢ Q 1 3/a' ,] ,/a' LN. n za- ae /saxp Ixsuwnau. Mare exE aW m xAYE xEAuwr wANx¢s s QTxan GW WN w. uMNs) F W0 6 W_ q OJ J :0U 0r ®_ 0 i /ASPHALT SHINGLES 2XB/2X4 CEMENT 12 BUILDING SIGNAGE 0 o s BOARD TRIM BUILDING FACE AREA - 2644SF BOARDX TRC�MENT 10% OF BUILDING FACE AREA = 2645E 2X4 CEMENT FRONT ELEVATION 36' UNIT SIGNAGE = 35SF EACH BOARD TRIM 24' UNIT SIGNAGE 305F EACH CEMENT BOARD TOTAL FRONT AREA = 160SF _ SIGNAGE PANEL SIGNAGE PANEL j LAP SIDING REAR ELEVATION I SIGNAGE PANEL SIGNAGE PANEL SIGNAGE PANEL 36 UNIT SIGNAGE = 27SF EACH 24' UNIT SIGNAGE = 23SF EACH TOTAL FRONT AREA = 123SF TOTAL NORTH BUILDING AREA = 283SF o MANUFACTURED STONE SILL AND FRONT EB�� 16x16 MANUFACTURED STONE COLUMNS FRONT ELEVATIONX 'j'j SCALE- 1/B'=1'-0' 6"o �os: go`a G E FEE i CEMENT BOARD - CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING PANELS u ® ® ® ® ® ® ® — 2X6 CEMENT BOARD BAND WITH CAP FLASHING ` r W o m 2X4 CEMENT BOARD TRIM ci o Q W «x REAR ELEVATION SCALE, 1/8'=1'-0' ZJm T. a Jaz NZO ASPHALT SHINGLES 2 2 13 31— _ TRI 2X6/2X4 CEMENT J BOARD TRIM N 0 Z 2X6 CEMENT BD BAND W/ CAP FLASHING 8 O O J m '2X4 CEMENT BOARD TRIMBOARD ' O Q TRIM 0 r W z RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION S W SCALE: 1/8'=l' -D' SCALES 1/e'=1'-0' � d PROJECT N0. 104514 \LLynda�pmjecls116051<NRCM9LIXJELbVNO dxg, ]/E42110610:I6:OSAM SHEET N0. �� 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ FLOOR PLAN SCALEi M-=I—v 1V.ynde�pr jNSVS0514WXL9i19LIX2'LANSO.Avg, 7nno0s s:m IO, CA [\REST ROOM PLAN �SCRLEi V4'=I'-0' RES SCRLn3/8'=1'-R' NG1F NOE xan azocpNc IN W.WS F9R tAAB RMS MR 4NX. Ran. R© -LAY /1£ NIN. REO. NNRO NAYYMY RFPfIigNG GX CCWP.WCY GYP. PfJNIi➢ IV sI oI Y W� ?ado Q W ¢Zm `� d• .�� 6e f pE.� o=x s ei I HIXLGW RIAJIgrED INyllplEp OOE NLI YEfN_ Hp100 MGLGW IXNIME N kW ~ Z NETAL YETN. W/�. � a N Z o svEm r✓.tt ¢ a HM fRM1E ON MG. M1 lm f N O O s a1� a � N KxRRW HIM MINMW MUR W III, O V o Fp O O O a= " o c S Z J � Q 7 J z cc E.... E...RCSTAMN.R,, Q NMRWEPERW � Q J � ui �xrtnim Gams m x4vr_ WwR O TrrE xMwRs Pqx cmc � ' _ a H:NRwMX Gclamics m eE PRo�nRER m J r GOGRiIIMGwME siveucx cLLI c IL WINOOWMOOR TYPES PROJECT No. SCALE, HIS p 4 SHEET NO. A3 /ASPHALT SHINGLES z 0 ®® ® BOARD DRIM BUILDING SIGNAGE 2X4 CEMENT BOARD TRIM BUILDING FACE AREA = 13205E CEMENT BOARD 10% OF BUILDING FACE AREA = i,SF SIGNAGE PANEL SIGNAGE PANEL D SIGNAGE PANEL F LAP SIDING FRONT ELEVATION 36' UNIT SIGNAGE = 35SF EACH 24' UNIT SIGNAGE = 30SF EACH - TOTAL FRONT AREA = 95SF REAR ELEVATION 36' UNIT SIGNAGE = 27SF EACH a 24' UNIT SIGNAGE = 23SF EACH \ TOTAL FRONT AREA = 73SF m MANUFACTURED STONE SILL AND FRONT 12XC ROCK FACE TOTAL NORTH BUILDING AREA = 163SF 5 & R BLOCK COLUMNS 6 FRONT ELEVATION .855 g s w a €a85 iz ;NiZ 3 BOe E ASPHALT SHINGLES 2X6/2X4 CEMENT v s BOARD TRIM m' CEMENT BOARD 11 2X6 CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING o BAND WITH CAP FLASHING ® D D ® } ,� W z VW < <N3 a� aw az 2%4 CEMENT = o _" m V BOARD TRIM < J La J REAR ELEVATION � a Baa SCALE: 1/8'=1'-0' ? f z rn ASPHALT SHINGLES a Q J F ® ® ® LLI U) ~ W Z Q Z z F � W 8' RJR BAND WITH CAP 2X6 CEMENT BOARD�Jffl[JN[—jMHWffl[] W c zo _ FLASHING O 2X4 CEMENT 2X4 CEMENT H BOARD TRIM BOARD TRIM RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION PROJECT NOi80514SCALE, 1/B'=1' -O' Npdf%projev U80514UA LMELEVSOdwl,7P4AW810:n l9AV SCALE: SIB'=1'-0' SHEET No. A4 4h K M z0- r�o 17 Mz ,�U�4 / FG'rl(f�1�S 1' �4✓ ^�cS .. C7dJ AA& -'J 50-r S • iuiss kw, U�.es .. _ � 1_.. Plc,., 5 Cj�/inCG.S 5}i11c� Du}lGJlrr3 kyr:/ Mi / I YlI�OVm �Yf OI��VM n' w+�: 7�OQ ec/sm �)5 EXCIUSive Landscapes Professional Landscape, Landscape Management & Irrigation Services EM Landscape Design for: Dojo Corners Plaza Prepared by: Thomas G. Maas Dojo Corners Plaza Planting Schedule Common Name Size Qt Colo. Blue Spruce 8' B&B 12 Autumn Spire Maples 2" 7 Patmore Ash 2" 2 Spring Snow Crab 2" 2 Gold Mound Spireas 18" 33 Red Barberries 18"1 12 Miss Kim Lilacs # 5 Pot 5 Stella Day Lillies #1 Pot 76 Boulders 18-24" 10 Notes: 1. 1.5" River Rock typical in all shrub beds and ground cover areas. Edger typical where planting bed interfaces with lawn. 2. Planting beds edger to be Balck Diamond or equal. 3. All Sodded areas to be Irrigated 4. Plants count per thius sheet only. 5. All Trees to hard a hardwood mulch ring. 1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE NOTE: GUT' ASSEMBLY OPTFDXAL PRIOR TO PLANTING BUT CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FUL 2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND WEAK AND/OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING DEFORMED TWIGS. DO t,10= CUT A LEADER. ��� TREE IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR DO NOT PA 14T CUTS. SEE SPECS REGARDING \ \ THE DURATION OF THE —dl PRUNING OF ALL OAKS. i GUARANTEE PERIOD \I 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE ty"l/ GUY ASSEMBLY- 1E" POLYPROPYLENE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED f <� OR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL) 1-1/2" BACKFILL SOIL INSTALL PLANT SO THE / WIDE STRAP (TYP) DOUBLE STRONG 10 ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2 �� �/-` /J�" GA. WIRE, 2-7" ROLLED STEEL POSTS ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE. / :MnDOTS;AKIN 3 TAG M 180' O.C. (SLE 4 P E p� LE BAKING DIAGRAM) LAC PLANT IN , IAPTTING H WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKETO (IF USED), INTACT. BACKFILL WRHIN COORDINATE STAKIIG 1 Y APPROXIMATELY 12' OF THE TOP OF 1 .'kms TO INSURE UtdIFO'?Ai RC Ti HALL WATER PLO i. REMOVE TOP �\\, I /i 20it2 • ORIENTATION DF t"ty 'U LINES AND STAK-: 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO 17. HORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND _ NAILS FROM TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL. STAKING DIAGRAM REMOVE ALL TWINE. TREE WRAP FROM BELOW MULCH LINE 5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH BACKFILL TO FIRST BRANCH OPTION SOIL ( �PERFORATED SLD- PVTCOLLAR 6. WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND Fl. LL VOIDS. 4'-6` SHREDDED BARK MULCH 7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF %,EY.ISTING GRADE INSTALLATION. WATERING MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE PLANTINGSOIL MIXTURE (SEE SPEC.) ROOT BALL AND PLANTING HOLE. .' H OF ROOT 3ALL MINIMUM 1/2 WIDTLi 8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 43 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNDISTURBED OR STABILIZED UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS!SUBSOILS EXCESSIVE. � DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL 140T TO SCALE 1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR. NOTE: GUT' ASSEMBLY OPTIONAL TO PLANTING BUT CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FUL(_ 2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND WEAK AND/OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAININC TREE DEFORMED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT A LEADER. DO IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR THE NOT PAINT CUTS._r_— DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR GUY ASSEMBLY- 16" POLYPROPYLENE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL, OR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL) 1-1/2" INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS Al OR WIDE STRAP (TYP) DOUBLE STRAND 10 UP TO 2' ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE. GA_ WIRE, 2-7' ROLLED STEEL POSTS 4. PLACE PLANT IN PLANTING HOLE WITH BURLAP (MnDOT 34111) ® 180' O -C- (SEE AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT. BA.CKFlLL STAKING DIAGRAM) WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12' OF THE TOP OFCOORDINATE- STAKIN'3 ROOTBALL, WATER PLANT. REMOVE TOP 1/3 TO INSURE UNIFORM OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO 217 ORIENTATION OF GUY HORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. .� n LINES AND STAKES REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM TOP 12 1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. b 5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH BACKFILL I STAKING DIAGRAM SOIL. b ---GUY WIRE WITH WEBBIN 6, WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL o £� z FLAGGING- ONE PER WiP..F VOIDS. _ 4`-6' SHREDDED BARK MULCH 7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF _ - E ---EXISTING GRADE INSTALLATION. WATERING MUST BE j SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE T _r-MINIir;UM tj2 WIDTH OF ROOT BV%L ROOT BALL AND PLANTING HOLE s t 8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE (SEE THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL C UNDISTURBED OF, STABILIZED MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. aI II SUBSOILS CONIFEROUS TREE PL.N'ING RETAIL \�1 001- TO SCAIF ---. � INCHES MULCH ` _ ( SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES FOR TYPE OF MULCH ) IF SHRUB IS B & B, THEN z f1.,�2'. �'- REMOVE BURLAP & ROPE ? FROM TOP 1/3 OF BALL -BACKFILL MIR UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL SHRUB & CONTAINER PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 54"144" TOP SECTION 20' OVERALL HEIGHT vU� 54"X144" 14" deep 3'x10' 12" deep 10"x10" poles 26"x130" 24" deep base SB IL & Associates, Inc. Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction July 23, 2008 Mr. Gary D'Heilly D'Heilly Engineering & Assoc. Inc. 250 Elm St. E. P.O. Box 1123 Annandale, MN 55302 Re: Dojo Corners Plaza — Preliminary Construction Plan Review City of Monticello Planning No. 2008-020 WSB Project No. 1627-94 Dear Mr. D'Heilly: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 We have reviewed the preliminary construction plans dated June, 2008, for the above -referenced project and offer the following comments. Sheet C1 — Site Plan 1. Consider providing a future access to the south and/or moving the southerly access to the south property line to act as a joint access to the property to the south. Is a car wash still proposed for the South Building? Previous discussions with City staff indicated that the southerly access was needed to allow for cars to exit the car wash. 2. Show a concrete driveway apron at the site entrances per City Standard Plate No.5007. 3. The proposed sidewalk along Cedar Street should be 6 -feet wide as per City standards. 4. Truncated dome pedestrian ramps are also required at the driveway entrances. Add the removals to the grading or utility plan. 6. Note a bituminous pathway along TH 25, instead of a sidewalk as noted. 7. The pathway removal is on the incorrect location. Signs indicating that the pathway is closed will need to be provided until the bituminous pavement is replaced. 8. The striping on Cedar Street may need to be revised with the proposed access points. 9. Revise the parking lot dimensions to indicate the standard 20 -foot long parking stalls and 24 -foot driving lane. 10. Explain why the handicap stalls are not included in the parking spaces in front of the building. Minneapolis 1 St. Cloud K.10)6?7.WU di1& W.Ths e•nadly nm1w m.- Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Gary D'Heilly July 23, 2008 Page 3 Watermain bends should be called out in standard sizes: 11 `/4, 22 % and 45 degree bends with blocking as per City detail plates. 8. The existing sanitary sewer stub extending to the South Building is 8 -inch PVC and extends 50 feet from the manhole as per City as-builts. Please note the % grade of the service pipe. 9. A sanitary sewer sampling manhole is required for each service to the building if it is a food -service type use. 10. Label where the sanitary sewer and water service connection points are. 11. Add a legend indicating standard line types for each utility and revise the plan as such. 12. A utility excavation permit must be obtained from the Public Works department prior to commencement of utility connections. 13. Provide an as -built plan once construction is complete. Sheet C4.,C6, C7 Details 1. All detail plates should be revised to reflect the current plates from the City General Specifications dated May 2008. These can be found on the City's website. The plans should include a note indicating that construction shall conform to the most recent addition of the City of Monticello General Specifications and Detail Plates. Please provide a written response addressing the comments above. Final construction plans will need to be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to building permit approval. In addition, the final plat must be recorded prior to building permit approval. Please give me a call at 763-287-7162 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Thank you. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Shibani K. Bisson, PE Project Manager cc: Bruce Westby, City of Monticello John Simola, City of Monticello A7rgelaBchutriann; pity of Monticello Steve Grittman, NAC skb K:1016'Z940Jnii IT cALTF FOffiiilP U]'MtJw: 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 Monticello Planned Unit Development Application & Review Process Under the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, approval of a rezoning to Planned Unit Development is a four - step application process. It is designed to create a win-win relationship between the City and the applicant from the start of the process, ultimately resulting in a development that meets the intended goals of the City and the applicant. The ordinance for Planned Unit Development follows this summary, providing additional detail on specific application requirements and process for each step. Sten 1: Collaborative Application The first step is the collaborative application process, which is intended to allow the applicant to meet with appointed and elected City officials to gain an understanding of the long-term development goals for the subject site. One of key components of the collaborative step is a concurrent worksession with policymakers of the city (representatives from Planning Commission, Parks Commission, Council and possibly the IEDC or Economic Development Authority) to discuss the desired objectives for development on the site. The feedback received during the collaborative meeting provides both the applicant and the City with a set of clear expectations for the development of the site. The end goal is a formal statement of development goals/values. A second component of the collaborative step is a neighborhood meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to inform the neighborhood of the proposed PUD, discuss the concepts, the basis for the plan being developed, and to obtain comments from the neighborhood. Formal City action at Collaborative Stage: Consideration to adopt a statement of goals/public values for the development site. Step 2: Concept Plan ADDlication The applicant's next step is to present a conceptual plan for development to a joint session of the Planning Commission and City Council. The purpose of the worksession is to determine if the concept represents an intention to meet the goals/values approved under the collaborative step. The City's collaborative team will forward a formal recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. The two bodies will review the PUD rezoning request, and take action to approve or deny the application based on the site's proposed layout, design, density, uses, and performance to the goals/values adopted in the collaborative stage. Formal City action at Concept Plan Stage: Consideration to approve a concept stage plan for Planned Unit Development. Step 3: Development Plan ADDlication The third step in the PUD process is the development stage plan, which includes City action to formally rezone the development property to PUD. It may also include a preliminary plat application, if the property is not already platted. If the PUD is proposed to develop over a timeframe exceeding two years, a PUD Master Plan for the entire project (to be completed in phases) may also be submitted at this point. The development plan application is highly detailed and provides specific information and plans relating to site development, including utilities, architecture, landscaping, lighting, signage, etc. In this step, the Planning Commission considers the development plan's consistency with the intent and purpose of the PUD and comprehensive plan goals. The Planning Commission then makes a formal recommendation to the City Council on the plan and the proposed rezoning. Council then takes formal action to approve a rezoning to PUD based on the development stage plans. Formal City action taken at Development Plan Stage: Consideration to approve a development stage plan for Planned Unit Development and rezoning to Planned Unit Development. Sten 4: Final Plan Stage The intent of the fourth and last step, the fmal plan stage, is to formalize and finalize all agreements and documents supporting the development plan approval. In this step, the PUD Development Plan is updated to incorporate all changes required by the development stage/rezoning approvals. A document clearly showing all deviations from standard zoning is provided. Lastly, the City and applicant prepare a development agreement which references all PUD plans, specifies permitted uses, allowable densities, development phasing, required improvements, completion dates for improvements, and other relevant information. If platting is required, a final plat application is submitted and reviewed by the City Council concurrent with the development agreement. Formal City action taken at Final Plan Stage: Consideration to approve a development agreement and final plat (if applicable). Planned Unit Development Planning Commission Workshop September 20th, 2011 Origin •Ordinance Rewrite ▫Strengthen the Planned Unit Development standards to achieve a higher-quality development product than what had been realized through previously approved PUDs. Purpose Statement The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is to provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non - residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and marketable. This is achieved by undertaking a collaborative process that results in a development outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable through the conventional zoning district. If a development proposal does not demonstrate significant public value benefits above and beyond those achievable under a conventional zoning district, the City reserves the right to deny the PUD rezoning and direct the developer to re-apply under the standard applicable zoning district. Overview •Goals/Expectations of the PUD Process •PUD Areas of Flexibility •Key Changes in the Code ▫Rezoning Action ▫Collaborative Application Collaborative Team Neighborhood Meeting Requirement ▫Joint Worksessions ▫Platting •Application Requirements •Amendment Process •Development of an Application Timeline PUD Final Plat PUD Preliminary Plat & Rezoning REVIEW (Staff, applicable Commissions & Council) PUD Preliminary Plat and Rezoning APPLICATION PUD Concept Plan REVIEW (Staff, applicable Commissions & Council) PUD Concept Plan APPLICATION Collaborative Review (Staff, applicable Commissions & Council) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Collaborative Process Key Change: Rezoning Action •Under the previous code, a PUD was established through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). •The amended code establishes PUD through a rezoning action. •The difference: the rezoning action creates a separate zoning district specific to the PUD with its own set of performance standards and is shown as such on the City’s official zoning map. ▫Variance law changes may help the City eliminate “development challenge” PUDs Basic Requirements •Rezoning ▫A rezoning to PUD may be requested for any residential, commercial, or industrial zoned area. ▫Rezonings to PUD will not be considered for areas less than 8 acres of land, except in limited circumstances PUD Values (Goals) •Established through the zoning ordinance amendment process. ▫Community tour ▫Points-based approach outcomes ▫Components are consistent with previous process ▫No specific number of criteria that have to be met – City flexibility •Values/Goals: ▫Ensure high quality construction standards and the use of high quality construction materials; ▫Promote a variety of housing styles which include higher level of architecture/articulation; ▫Eliminate repetition of similar housing types by encouraging a housing mixture ▫Promote aesthetically-pleasing design which fosters a sense of place ▫Incorporate extensive landscaping in excess of what is required by code ▫Provide high-quality park, open space, and trail opportunities that meet or exceed the expectations established in the Comprehensive Plan; ▫Provide a convenient and efficient multi-modal transportation system to service the daily needs of residents with connectivity to the larger community. ▫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; ▫Maximize the use of ecologically-based approaches to stormwater management, restore or enhance on-site ecological systems, and protect offsite ecological systems including the application of Low Impact Development (LID) practices; ▫Provide a complementary mix of lifecycle housing; ▫Preserve and protect important ecological areas identified on the City’s natural resource inventory (NRI) PUD Areas of Flexibility •Density: 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, than could be achieved in a conventional residential development for the applicable zoning district. •Design: 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. •Standards: 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. •Phasing: 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. •Clarification Point: Other performance standards? Step 1: Collaboration •Key change: This new step is intended to create a win-win relationship between the City and the applicant from the start of the process, ultimately resulting in a development that meets the intended goals of both the City and the applicant. Collaborative Process •Key change: The first step is a concurrent worksession with policymakers of the city (representatives from Planning Commission, Parks Commission, Council and possibly the IEDC or Economic Development Authority) to discuss the desired objectives for development on the site. •Action Item: Who is this team? •Clarification point: Is this a public meeting? Collaborative Process •Key change: A second component of the collaborative step is a neighborhood meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to inform the neighborhood of the proposed PUD, discuss the concepts, the basis for the plan being developed, and to obtain comments from the neighborhood. •Formal City action: The end goal is a formal statement of development goals/values; clear expectations for the development of the site. Step 2: Concept Plan Stage •The applicant’s next step is to present an informal conceptual plan for development to a concurrent session of the collaborative team and City Council. ▫Include revisions as needed from neighborhood meeting •Pending outcomes, the applicant submits for formal concept plan application review. Planning Commission (and others) review and forward a formal recommendation to the City Council. ▫Clarification point: Specify public hearing. •Formal City action: Planning Commission makes a formal recommendation to Council. City Council considers approval of a concept stage plan for PUD. Collaborative & Concept Stage Planning •Clarification point: Review of new steps to this point 1.Collaborative Application – new step 2.Neighborhood Meeting – new step 3.Informal concept review in a concurrent worksession – new step •Benefit: ▫Discussion on allowed flexibility occurs at beginning, rather than end. ▫Clear expectations. ▫Limited applicant investment. •Drawbacks: ▫Time Step 3: Development Stage Plan •The development plan application is highly detailed; provides specific information and plans relating to site development, including utilities, architecture, landscaping, lighting, signage, etc. ▫Similar submittals to previous ordinance, different steps ▫Clarification point: Wraps conditional uses into district ▫Staff analysis - evaluation of values and approval criteria •Step may also include: ▫A preliminary plat application, if the property is not already platted. Can clean up lot issues. ▫A PUD Master Plan for the entire project, if the PUD is proposed to develop over a timeframe exceeding two years. Development Stage Plan •The City considers the development plan’s consistency with the intent of the PUD and comprehensive plan goals. •Clear understanding of all zoning requirements, base district regs •Formal City action: The Planning Commission makes a formal recommendation on the development stage plan and the proposed rezoning. Council then takes formal action to approve a rezoning to PUD based on the development stage plans. Step 4: Final Stage Plan •Administrative ▫PUD Development Plan is updated to incorporate all changes required by the development stage/rezoning approvals. ▫A document clearly showing all deviations from standard zoning is provided. ▫Admin documents – easements, title, deeds •If platting is required, a final plat application is submitted and reviewed by the City Council concurrent with the development agreement. Final Stage Plan •City and applicant prepare a development agreement which: ▫References all PUD plans ▫Specifies applicable performance standards, base district regulations ▫Specifies permitted uses ▫Allowable densities ▫Development phasing ▫Required improvements and completion dates •Formal City action taken at Final Plan Stage: Consideration to approve a development agreement and final plat (if applicable). Key Change: Amendments •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 at the time the PUD Final Plan was approved, provided the changes conform to the review criteria applied by the Planning Commission and City Council. •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. Limited scope, flexibility in process. •Amendment ▫Any change not qualifying for an administrative amendment or a PUD adjustment shall require a PUD amendment. Requires public hearing. Hypothetical PUD Timeline Pre-Design Informal Concept Plan Worksession Collaborative Worksession Collaborative Application Step 1: City Council Review of Concept Plan Concept Plan Application Step 2: Development Stage Plan Application Planning Commission Review of Concept Plan Step 3: Planning Commission Review of Devel. Plan City Council Review of Devel. Plan Step 4: Final Plan Application City Council Review of DA Jan Jan Jan Feb Mar Apr Apr Jun Jul Jul Aug Aug •Assumes complete applications. •Provides applicant time to prepare plans. •Meets requirements for hearing deadlines. •Follows 60 day decision timeline. Questions and Comments (A)PlannedUnitDevelopments (1)PurposeandIntent ThepurposeofthePlannedUnitDevelopment(PUD)zoningdistrictistoprovidegreater flexibilityinthedevelopmentofneighborhoodsandnon maximizepublicvaluesandachievemorecreativedevelopmentoutcomeswhile remainingeconomicallyviableandmarketable.Thisisachievedbyundertakinga collaborativeprocessthatresultsinadevelopmentoutcomeexceedingthatwhichis typicallyachievablethroughtheconventionalzoningdistrict doesnotdemonstratesignificantpublicvaluebenefits underaconventionalzoningdistrict,theCityreservestherighttodenythePUDrezoningand directthedevelopertore conditional–theCityshouldreservetherighttodenyaPUDoutright.The conditionalnatureimpliessomerightstoPUD. (2)InitiationofProceedings ApplicationsforaPUDshallbeinitiatedbyapplicationofthepropertyownerorotherperson havingauthoritytofileanapplicationpursuanttoSection2.3(B),AuthoritytoFile Applications. (3)ReflectionontheOffici (a)PUDprovisionsprovideanoptionalmethodofregulatinglandusewhich permitsflexibilityinallowedusesandotherregulatingprovisions. circumstances,however,rulesandregulationsgoverningtheunderlyingzoningdistrict mayapplywithinthePUD.Assuch, executionofaPUDagreementshallrequirethepropertyinquestionberezonedto butthedenotationontheofficialzoningmapshallalsoillustratetheunderlyingzoning district.OnceaPUDhasbeengrantedandisineffectforaparcel,nobuildingpermit shallbeissuedforthatparcelwhichisnotinconformancewiththeapp thecurrentMinnesotaStateBuildingCodeandallassociateddocuments,andwithall otherapplicableCityCodeprovisions. overlaydistrict,althoughothertextreferstoPUDasabasedistrict. either–butthedistricttextneedstobesetuptoreflectthat.IfweareusingPUDas abasedistrict – creationofanentirelynewzoningdistrict canreferenceotherdistrictdetailsratherthanreprinteverythingnew,butitisstill abasedistrict,withoutanymappingreferencetoan“underlying”zoningdistrict. (b)AllPUDrezoningsapprovedpriortotheeffectivedateofthis zoningclassificationsofR resolutionswhichcreatedtheseareas. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz PUDFinalPlat PUD Preliminary Plat &Rezoning REVIEW (Staff,applicable Commissions & Council) PUD Preliminary Plat and Rezoning APPLICATION PUD Concept Plan REVIEW (Staff,applicable Commissions & Council) PUD Concept Plan APPLICATION Collaborative Review (Staff,applicable Commissions & Council) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Collaborative Process PlannedUnitDevelopments PurposeandIntent urposeofthePlannedUnitDevelopment(PUD)zoningdistrictistoprovidegreater flexibilityinthedevelopmentofneighborhoodsandnon-residentialareasinorderto maximizepublicvaluesandachievemorecreativedevelopmentoutcomeswhile conomicallyviableandmarketable.Thisisachievedbyundertakinga collaborativeprocessthatresultsinadevelopmentoutcomeexceedingthatwhichis typicallyachievablethroughtheconventionalzoningdistrict.Ifadevelopmentproposal onstratesignificantpublicvaluebenefits aboveandbeyondthoseachievable underaconventionalzoningdistrict,theCityreservestherighttodenythePUDrezoningand directthedevelopertore-applyunderthestandardapplicablezoningdistrict. theCityshouldreservetherighttodenyaPUDoutright.The conditionalnatureimpliessomerightstoPUD. InitiationofProceedings ApplicationsforaPUDshallbeinitiatedbyapplicationofthepropertyownerorotherperson havingauthoritytofileanapplicationpursuanttoSection2.3(B),AuthoritytoFile ReflectionontheOfficialZoningMap PUDprovisionsprovideanoptionalmethodofregulatinglandusewhich permitsflexibilityinallowedusesandotherregulatingprovisions. circumstances,however,rulesandregulationsgoverningtheunderlyingzoningdistrict mayapplywithinthePUD.Assuch,approval ofaPlannedUnitDevelopmentand executionofaPUDagreementshallrequirethepropertyinquestionberezonedto butthedenotationontheofficialzoningmapshallalsoillustratetheunderlyingzoning OnceaPUDhasbeengrantedandisineffectforaparcel,nobuildingpermit shallbeissuedforthatparcelwhichisnotinconformancewiththeapp thecurrentMinnesotaStateBuildingCodeandallassociateddocuments,andwithall otherapplicableCityCodeprovisions.ThisclauseistalkingaboutusingPUDasan overlaydistrict,althoughothertextreferstoPUDasabasedistrict. butthedistricttextneedstobesetuptoreflectthat.IfweareusingPUDas –thislanguageisconfusing.APUDbasedistrictisessentiallythe creationofanentirelynewzoningdistrict –uses,standards,et canreferenceotherdistrictdetailsratherthanreprinteverythingnew,butitisstill abasedistrict,withoutanymappingreferencetoan“underlying”zoningdistrict. AllPUDrezoningsapprovedpriortotheeffectivedateofthis ordinanceshallretaintheir zoningclassificationsofR-PUD,andshallcontinuetobegovernedbytheordinanceand resolutionswhichcreatedtheseareas. urposeofthePlannedUnitDevelopment(PUD)zoningdistrictistoprovidegreater residentialareasinorderto maximizepublicvaluesandachievemorecreativedevelopmentoutcomeswhile conomicallyviableandmarketable.Thisisachievedbyundertakinga collaborativeprocessthatresultsinadevelopmentoutcomeexceedingthatwhichis .Ifadevelopmentproposal aboveandbeyondthoseachievable underaconventionalzoningdistrict,theCityreservestherighttodenythePUDrezoningand applyunderthestandardapplicablezoningdistrict.Thisistoo theCityshouldreservetherighttodenyaPUDoutright.The ApplicationsforaPUDshallbeinitiatedbyapplicationofthepropertyownerorotherperson havingauthoritytofileanapplicationpursuanttoSection2.3(B),AuthoritytoFile PUDprovisionsprovideanoptionalmethodofregulatinglandusewhich permitsflexibilityinallowedusesandotherregulatingprovisions.Insome circumstances,however,rulesandregulationsgoverningtheunderlyingzoningdistrict ofaPlannedUnitDevelopmentand executionofaPUDagreementshallrequirethepropertyinquestionberezonedto PUD, butthedenotationontheofficialzoningmapshallalsoillustratetheunderlyingzoning OnceaPUDhasbeengrantedandisineffectforaparcel,nobuildingpermit shallbeissuedforthatparcelwhichisnotinconformancewiththeapprovedPUDPlan, thecurrentMinnesotaStateBuildingCodeandallassociateddocuments,andwithall ThisclauseistalkingaboutusingPUDasan overlaydistrict,althoughothertextreferstoPUDasabasedistrict.Itcouldbe butthedistricttextneedstobesetuptoreflectthat.IfweareusingPUDas thislanguageisconfusing.APUDbasedistrictisessentiallythe uses,standards,etc.Thisnewdistrict canreferenceotherdistrictdetailsratherthanreprinteverythingnew,butitisstill abasedistrict,withoutanymappingreferencetoan“underlying”zoningdistrict. ordinanceshallretaintheir PUD,andshallcontinuetobegovernedbytheordinanceand (4)PermittedLocationsforPUDrezoning (a)ArezoningtoPUDmayberequestedforanyresidentialorcommercially zonedarea. (b)PUDsareprohibitedintheindustrialdistricts.Iknowthishasbeen changedinanyupdatedversion–Ijustdon’thavethatinWordformat. (5)MinimumPUDsize RezoningstoPUDwillnotbeconsideredforareaslessthan8acresoflandinsingle ownershiporcontrol,exceptinthefollowingcircumstances:Iamnotafanofthese arbitrarythresholds.AprojecteithermeetstheCity’sgoalsforusingaPUDprocessor itdoesn’t.TheseacreagethresholdscameintofashionwhenCitiesbegantoworrythat smallerprojectswerejustusingPUDtogetaroundordinancerequirements–which wasnodoubthappening–buttheproblemwastheCity’swillingnesstodumpits principles,notwiththesizeoftheproject.IhaveseenmanysmallerPUDsthatwere good,andmanylargerPUDsthatwerebad–sizedoesn’tmatter! (a)Naturalfeaturesofthelandaresuchthatdevelopmentunderstandardzoningregulations wouldnotbeappropriateinordertoconservesuchfeatures; (b)ThelandisintendedtobedevelopedinaccordancewithapriorPUDadjacenttoor acrossthestreetfromthesubjectproperty;or (c)ThePUDprocessisdesirabletoensurecompatibilityandcarefulconsiderationofthe effectofadevelopmentonsurroundinglanduses. (d)TheproposalisintheCCDinwhichcasethereshallbenominimumlandarea requirement. (6)PermittedUsesWithinPUDs UseswithinaPUDshallbegovernedbytheordinanceestablishingthePUDandbythe conditions,ifany,imposedbytheCityintheapprovalprocessandPUDdocuments.Ifa specificuseisnotestablishedoraddressedbyaPUDordinance,saiduseshallbegoverned bytheunderlyingzoningdistrictregulations.Sameissuewithbasev.overlayconcept. (7)ExpectationsofaDevelopmentSeekingaRezoningtoPUD Theprovisionsofthissectionareintendedtoachievethefollowingpublicvalueswithina PUDzoningdistrictandassociatedsubdivision: (a)Ensurehighqualityconstructionstandardsandtheuseofhighqualityconstruction materials; zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (b)Promoteavarietyofhousingstyleswhichincludefeaturessuchassideorrearloaded garages,frontporches,varyingroofpitches,andfoursidedarchitecture/articulation; (c)Eliminaterepetitionofsimilarhousingtypesbyencouragingahousingmixturewhich separatesthesame/similarmodelofhomesbyaminimumoftwolots;Applyingthisas astandardhasalwaysbeenproblematictome–whataboutcorners,oracrossthe street.And,whatis“sameorsimilar”?Differentcolor?Differentsiding?An additionaldormer?Iknowthisisnit-picky,butit’salwaysseemedlikemoreofa developer’smarketinggimmickthanagoodmeasureofplanningreview. (d)Promoteaesthetically-pleasingdesignwhichfostersasenseofplacewithinthe neighborhoodandappearsattractiveandinvitingfromsurroundingparcels;Trite phrasesthatwouldneverstanduptoacourtchallenge.Idon’tknowhowyou wouldapproveordenyaPUDrequestbasedonwhetheritcreatesa“senseof place”. (e)Incorporateextensivelandscapinginexcessofwhatisrequiredbycode;Thisisn’ta badgoalaslongasitisquantifiedsomehowintheordinance. (f)Providehigh-qualitypark,openspace,andtrailopportunitiesthatmeetorexceedthe expectationsestablishedintheComprehensivePlan;Shouldn’tthey“exceed”,notjust “meet”?Ifit’saPUD,thebaselineisalwaystodobetterthantheminimum expectation. (g)Provideaconvenientandefficientmulti-modaltransportationsystemtoservicethedaily needsofresidentsatpeakandnon-peakuselevels,withhighconnectivitytothelarger community. (h)Minimizetheextentofthedevelopmentfootprintandimpervioussurfacestotheextent possibletoreduceinitialinfrastructurecostsandlong-termmaintenanceandoperational costs;Requirementdoesnotnecessarilyleadtotheobjectiveinthisitem.AndI couldimaginemanyPUDsdoingtheopposite–maximizingtheextentofthe developmentfootprintwhenyouarelookingatamoreurbanproject,whichwould beoffsetbyalargercontributiontotheCity’spublicopenspaceefforts. Thisalsoleadstoanotherissuegenerally–thisPUDordinanceissetuptopresume thatPUDsareself-containedunits,ratherthanpartsofthewhole.EveryPUD shouldnotberequiredtohaveitscomponentproportionofallpublicservices (especiallyopenspace).Geographically,youmaynotwantonePUDtoprovide openspace,inexchangefortheabilitytoacquireitonaneighboringpiece. Thiscommentalsoimplicatesthenextitem,whichpresumesthatPUDswillbe designedtobelessurbaninnature.ThisisaviewofPUDthathasbeenpromoted byruralecologists,andcanhavesomeexcellentapplicationforlargeresidential plats,butmaybecompletelyinappropriateforacommercial/industrialPUD,orfor anextensivemulti-familydevelopment. Perhapsthiscouldallbemitigatedbyadditionaltextintheintrotothissection, explainingthattheseelementsmayormaynotbeappropriateinallcircumstances, andthattheCitywillidentifythemostapplicablegoalsfortheproposedPUDasa roleofthecollaborativeteam(?). (i)Maximizetheuseofecologically-basedapproachestostormwatermanagement,restore orenhanceon-siteecologicalsystems,andprotectoff-siteecologicalsystemsincluding theapplicationofLowImpactDevelopment(LID)practices;Seecommentabove. (j)Fosterininclusivecommunitybyprovidingacomplementarymixoflifecyclehousing; (k)PreserveandprotectimportantecologicalareasidentifiedontheCity’snaturalresource inventory(NRI); (8)AreasofFlexibility (a)TheCityshallconsideranincreaseinthenumberofoverallunitsandassociated reductionsinlotwidthandsizeifthePUDprovidessubstantiallymoresiteamenitiesand publicvalues,asoutlinedinSection2.4(P)(7),thancouldbeachievedinaconventional residentialdevelopmentfortheapplicablezoningdistrict.Whataboutcommercial and/orindustrialPUD?“Unit”countand“lotsize”isnotnecessarilyrelevantto manyPUDdesigns–theissueismorelikelytobe“density”or“intensity”. (b)TheCityshallconsideradecreaseintheamountofroadwidthrequiredorright-of-way requirementsifthePUDprovidessubstantiallymoresiteamenities,asoutlinedinSection 2.4(P)(7),thanarefoundinaconventionalresidentialdevelopmentfortheapplicable zoningdistrict.Specificationsandstandardsforstreets,utilities,andotherpublic facilitiesshallbeatthediscretionofCityCouncilandmustprotectthehealth,safety, comfort,aesthetics,economicviability,andgeneralwelfareofthecity.Personally,I thinktheCityshouldsetreasonable,sustainableroadwidthrulesandstickbythem. Thisisapublicsafetyissue,notsomethingtobebarteredoffbecauseadeveloper proposesmorestoneonhishousefacades.Ifourstreetstandardsarelargerthan necessaryforpublicsafety,thentheyshouldbereducedacrosstheboard. (c)TheCityshallconsiderflexibilitywithregardtolotsize,width,anddepthwhen reviewingaPUDrezoningrequest.Specificationsandstandardsforlotsshallbeatthe discretionofCityCouncil,andshallencourageadesirablelivingenvironmentwhich assistsinachievingthegoalssetoutforPUDs. (d)TheCityshallconsiderflexibilityinthephasingofaPUDdevelopment.Changestothe proposedstagingortimingofaPUDmaybeapprovedbytheCityCouncilwhen necessaryorontheshowingofgoodcausebythedeveloper. (9)PUDProcedure AllrequestsforrezoningtoPlannedUnitDevelopmentshallfollowthestepsoutlinedbelow. (a)Collaborativeprocessandprojectgoalsetting Thecollaborativeprocessandprojectgoalsettingstepisintendedtoallowtheapplicant tomeetwithmembersoftheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentandappointedand electedofficialstogainanunderstandingofthepublicvaluesrelatedtodevelopmentof thesubjectsite.Thefeedbackreceivedduringthisstepwillprovideguidancetothe applicantonthingstoincorporateintoafutureconceptplan.Elements?Items? (i)InitiationofProceedings ArequestforaPUDConceptPlanReviewshallbeinitiatedbyapplicationofthe propertyownerorotherpersonhavingauthoritytofileanapplicationpursuantto Section2.3(B),AuthoritytoFileApplications. (ii)Application 1.AllapplicationsforaPUDCollaborativeprocessandprojectgoalsettingsession shallbeinaccordancewithSection2.3,CommonReviewRequirements. 2.Inadditiontocommonreviewrequirements,asiteanalysisshallbesubmittedin anticipationofthepre-applicationactivitieswhichincludesthefollowing information: a.Locationofwoodedareasorsignificantfeatures(environmental,historical, cultural)oftheparcel; b.Indicatethebasefloodelevationlevel(ifapplicable)andshowthegeneral locationoffloodwaysand/orfloodfringeareas; c.Delineationoftheordinaryhighwaterlevelsofallwaterbodies; d.Delineationoftheshorelanddistrictboundary(ifapplicable); e.Generallocationsofwetlands(ifapplicable); f.Calculationofgrossacresonthesiteproposedfordevelopment; g.Indicationofneighboringlandusessurroundingtheproposeddevelopment site. h.Steepslopes?AreasdesignatedbyNRI?NETusable/buildableacreage? Estimateofsitedevelopmentcapacityunderexistingzoning!Toknow whethertheCityisaccomplishinganything,andwhetherwhatyouare tradingisreasonable,youshouldhaveabaselinedevelopmentplanthat showssitecapacity–almostanydeveloperwillhavetakenthisstepto givethemanideaofwhattheirROIwouldbeatacertainlandprice– theyhavetoinordertoknowwhethertheycanevenmakeanofferon theland.AnditcanserveasaninvaluablebaselinefortheCity’sreview ofthePUDdesign. (iii)CollaborativeProcessandProjectGoalSettingProcess 1.Theapplicantshallmeetwiththecitystaffforapre-applicationconferenceprior tosubmittalofaconceptplan application tothecity.Theprimarypurposeofthe conferenceistoallowtheapplicantandstaffanopportunitytoreviewthe comprehensiveplanandtomakeapreliminarydeterminationiftheproposalis conducivetoaPUDrezoning. 2.Citystaffandtheapplicantshallworktogethertoscheduleaconcurrent worksessionwithpolicymakersofthecity(applicablecommissionsandCity Council)todiscussthepublicvaluesonthesiteusingtheestablishedpublic valuesinSection2.4(P)(7)asaguideline.Theresultofthismeetingwillbea publicvaluesstatement.Thisisusuallyasmallgroupwitharotating membershipasnewPUDapplicationscomein.AtthePCmeeting,there wasadiscussionofnothavingEDAmembersonresidentialprojects,and parkmembersonC/Iprojects.Iactuallythinkthesememberswould benefitthecollaborativeteam–anEDAmembermighthaveexcellent economicvalueinputonaresidentialproject,andaparksmembermight haveexcellentopenspaceorrecreationinputonaC/Iproject.Justa thought. Ialsothinkthatthedevelopershouldprovideacommentaryonthe economicfeasibilityoftheCity’sobjectivestohelpformtheValues Statement.Ofcourse,mostdevelopersaregoingtowhineaboutcosts,butin mostcollaborativeprocesses,oneofthepointsoftheeffortistogetthe developer’sinputoneconomicfeasibility–otherwiseit’snotmuchdifferent thanthetypicalPUDprocesswheretheCityasksforadditionalstuff,and thedevelopersquirmsuntilhewheedlesanapproval.Thecollaborative processisintendedsetoutrealisticgoalsearly,whichinturnaresupposed toavoidtheneedforongoingnegotiationslater. 3.Atanappropriatepointduringtheprocess,theapplicantshallholda neighborhoodmeeting.Thecityandallownersofpropertywithin1,000feetof theproposedPUD(oralargerareaasdeterminedbytheCommunity DevelopmentDepartment)(Justaminorobservationthataspecificperson,or entity,shouldbeinchargeof“determining”here–theCommunity DevelopmentDirector,orZoningAdministrator,orCityCouncil,etc. Leavingittoa“Department”canbealittlevague).shallbegivennoticeof themeeting.Thepurposeofthemeetingistoinformtheneighborhoodofthe proposedPUD,discusstheconceptsandbasisfortheplanbeingdevelopedand toobtaininformationandsuggestionsfromtheneighborhood. 4.Theapplicantshallberesponsibleforthecostsincurredbythecityforattorney, engineering,orotherconsultantfeesduringthesepre-conceptplanactivities. Thereareprobablyotherfeesthatjustconsultantfees–Citystaffcharges, permitapplicationfees,etc.) (b)PUDConceptPlan Priortosubmittingformalpreliminaryplatandrezoningapplicationsfortheproposed development,theapplicantshallprepareaninformalconceptplanandpresentittothe appropriatecommissionsandCityCouncilataconcurrentworksession,asscheduledby theCommunityDevelopmentDepartment.Thepurposeofthismeetingistodetermineif allpartiesareonacommontrackandifthedevelopmentreflectsthestatedpublicvalues; IftheCityisgoingtoallowconcurrentConceptandPreliminaryapplications,it needstobestatedexplicitly. (i)InitiationofProceedings ArequestforaPUDConceptPlanReviewshallbeinitiatedbyapplicationofthe propertyownerorotherpersonhavingauthoritytofileanapplicationpursuantto Section2.3(B),AuthoritytoFileApplications. (ii)Application 1.AllapplicationsforaPUDConceptPlanReviewshallbeinaccordancewith Section2.3,CommonReviewRequirements. 2.Inadditiontocommonreviewrequirements,applicationsforaPUDConcept PlanReviewshallalsoincludeatleasttheinformationinSection2.4(P)(9)(b)(iii) belowtobeconsideredcomplete(exceptasexemptedbytheCommunity DevelopmentDepartment).Seenoteabove. (iii)SpecificPUDConceptPlanSubmittalRequirements Inthelistbelow,you shouldbedefiningbothgrossandnetdensity,howdensityiscalculated,unit counts,quantitiesbylandusecategory,buildings(notjustlots),delineation betweenpublicandprivateservices(e.g.utilities,openspace,etc.).Thissection shouldalsogranttheCDDtheauthoritytorequireadditionalinformation beforeaConceptPlanappisconsideredcompleteforreview Anapplicantshallprovidethefollowinginformationunlesswaivedbystaff: 1.Alistingofcontactinformationincludingname(s),address(es)andphone number(s)of:theownerofrecord,authorizedagentsorrepresentatives,engineer, surveyor,andanyotherrelevantassociates; 2.Alistingofthefollowingsitedata:Address,currentzoning,parcelsizeinacres andsquarefeetandcurrentlegaldescription(s); 3.Anupdatedsiteanalysisincorporatinganyadditionalfeaturesorrequested changesidentifiedduringthecollaborativeprocessandprojectgoalsetting session; 4.Anarrativeexplaininghowtheidentifiedpublicvaluesforthesiteareaddressed bytheconceptplan; 5.Alistingofgeneralinformationincludingthenumberofproposedlotsanda calculationofgrosslandarea; 6.Calculationoftheproposeddensityoftheprojectandthepotentialdensityunder standardzoningregulations. 7.Outlineadevelopmentscheduleindicatingtheapproximatedatewhen constructionoftheproject,orstagesofthesame,canbeexpectedtobeginandbe completed(includingtheproposedphasingofconstructionofpublic improvementsandrecreationalandcommonspaceareas). 8.AConceptPUDPlanillustratingthenatureandtypeofproposeddevelopment. Ataminimum,theplanshouldshow: a.Areacalculationsforgrosslandarea b.Existingzoningdistrict(s) c.Layoutofproposedlotsandproposeduses.Denoteoutlotsplannedfor publicdedicationand/oropenspace(schools,parks,etc.) d.Areacalculationsforeachparcel e.Generallocationofwetlandsand/orwatercoursesoverthepropertyand within200feetoftheperimeterofthesubdivisionparcel f.Locationofexistingandproposedstreetswithinandimmediatelyadjacentto thesubdivisionparcel g.Proposedsidewalksandtrails h.Proposedparkingareas i.Proposedparks,commonareas,andpreservationeasements(indicatepublic vs.privateifapplicable) j.Generallocationofwoodedareasorsignificantfeatures(environmental, historical,cultural)oftheparcel k.Locationofutilitysystemsthatwillservetheproperty l.Other:Anapplicantmaysubmitanyadditionalinformationthatmayexplain theproposedPUD. (iv)PUDConceptPlanReview 1.UponreceivingacompletePUDconceptplanapplication,theCommunity DevelopmentDepartmentshallreviewtheproposalandgenerateastaffreport analyzingtheproposalagainsttheexpectationsforPUDs.Thereportshallbe forwardedtotheappropriatecommissions—asdeterminedbytheCommunity DevelopmentDepartment (Director)—andtheCityCouncilforreview.This languageimpliesconcurrentcommissionandCouncilreview–obviouslynot theintent.Shouldberewordedtoreflecttheprocessbelow. 2.CommissionsreceivingthereportshallreviewthePUDrezoningrequest,and makearecommendationtotheCityCouncilwithregardtotheplatlayout, design,density,uses,deviations,andachievedpublicvaluesoftheconceptplan; 3.TheCouncilshallconsidertherecommendationsofthecommissionsthathave conductedareview,andprovidefeedbacktotheapplicantontheproposedpublic values,proposeddeviations,andanyotheraspectoftheapplication.The Councilshalleithermakeamotionthattheapplicant—iftheychooseto proceed—moveforwardwiththePUDpreliminaryplatandrezoningrequests,or directtheapplicanttosubmitadevelopmentapplicationusingconventional zoningdistrictstandards Thisprocessdirectionneedstoaddresstheimpacts ofMinn.Stat.15.99,authorityforCounciltotakeactionwithout commissionreports(incasetheydon’tactinatimelymanner),authorityto tableand/orseekamendments,potentialreferralforEAW/AUARprocess, andpossiblyotheroutcomes. 4.AftertheCitypolicymakershavereviewedandcommentedontheConceptPUD plan,citystaffshallmeetwithotheragencies,(suchas?)asapplicable,to exploreopportunitiesofpartnershiptoenhancethestatedpublicvalues.This sectionshouldexplicitlystatethatCouncildirectiontomoveforwardis NOTatapprovalthatgrantsanydevelopmentrights,butrathera willingnesstocontinueexploringtheuseofthePUDflexibilityforthe subjectsite. (c)PUDPreliminaryPlatandRezoning (i)InitiationofProceedings 1.ConcurrentapplicationsforrezoningtoPUDandaPreliminaryPlatshallbe submittedtotheCitywithinoneyearoftheCityCouncil’srecommendationon thePUDConceptPlan.Counciltakesanactionormakesafinding,nota recommendation.FailuretosubmitapplicationsforrezoningtoPUDanda PreliminaryPlatwithintheoneyeartimeframewillrequiretheapplicanttobegin theprocessanewfromthatpointforward.Whatpointisthisreferringto? 2.TherequestsforrezoningtoPUDandPreliminaryPlatshallbeinitiatedby applicationofthepropertyownerorotherpersonhavingauthoritytofilean applicationpursuanttoSection2.3(B),AuthoritytoFileApplications.This constitutesaseparateapplicationforpurposesofMinn.Stat.15.99. (ii)Application 1.AllapplicationsforrezoningtoPUDandPreliminaryPlatshallbeinaccordance withSection2.3,CommonReviewRequirements. 2.TheapplicationforrezoningtoPUDshallbeinaccordancewithSection2.4(B), ZoningOrdinanceTextandZoningMapAmendments. 3.TheapplicationforPreliminaryPlatshallbeinaccordancewithCityCodeTitle 11,Chapter4,DataRequiredforPreliminaryandFinalPlats;andshallinclude theadditionalinformationrequirementslistedinSection2.4(P)(9)(c)(iii)below tobeconsideredcomplete(exceptasexemptedbytheCommunityDevelopment Department). 4.IfthePUDisproposedtodevelopoveratimeframeexceedingtwoyears,aPUD MasterPlan (thisappearstoonlyberequiredforaphasedproject–thatis, the“MasterPlan”isreallyonlya“PhasingPlan”?)fortheentireproject(to becompletedinphases)maybesubmitted.SubsequentPUDFinalPlan applicationswouldonlygrantapprovalforanindividualphase. (iii)SpecificPUDPreliminaryPlatSubmittalRequirements AnapplicantshallprovideaseparatePUDDevelopmentPlanclearlydelineatingthe proposeddevelopmentandallfeaturesnotconsistentwithunderlyingzoning regulations(e.g.setbackdeviations).Ataminimum,theplanshouldshow:Land Uses,Netdevelopablelandbylanduse,buildingdesignandmaterials, landscapingdetail,screening,fencing,othersiteimprovements,PROPOSED grading,PROPOSEDstreetsandutilities,impactsonnaturalresources,Thislist seemsveryincompletetomeforPUDatthisstage–anditalsoseemsmore heavilyweightedtoaplatreviewthanaPUDreview.Therequiredsubmission listjustseemstobemissingalotofinformationwewouldnormallyexpectat thisstage. 1.Administrativeinformation(includingidentificationofthedrawingasa “PreliminaryPUDDevelopmentPlan,”theproposednameofthesubdivision, contactinformationforthedeveloperandindividualpreparingtheplan,signature ofthesurveyorcertifyingthedocument,dateofplanpreparationorrevision,and agraphicscaleandtruenortharrow); 2.Areacalculationsforgrosslandarea,wetlandareas,wetlandbuffers,right-of- waydedications,conservationareas,andproposedpublicandprivateparks; 3.Existingzoningdistrict(s); 4.Layoutofproposedlotswithfuturelotandblocknumbers.Theperimeter boundarylineofthesubdivisionshouldbedistinguishablefromtheother propertylines.Denoteoutlotsplannedforpublicdedicationand/oropenspace (schools,parks,etc.); 5.Areacalculationsforeachparcel; 6.Proposedsetbacksoneachlot(formingthebuildingpad)andcalculated buildablearea; 7.Proposedgrosshardcoverallowanceperlot(ifapplicable); 8.Existingcontoursatintervalsoftwofeet.Contoursmustextendaminimumof 200feetbeyondtheboundaryoftheparcel(s)inquestion; 9.Delineationofwetlandsand/orwatercoursesoverthepropertyandwithin200 feetoftheperimeterofthesubdivisionparcel; 10.Delineationoftheordinaryhighwaterlevelsofallwaterbodies; 11.Location,width,andnamesofexistingandproposedstreetswithinand immediatelyadjacenttothesubdivisionparcel; 12.Easementsandrights-of-waywithinoradjacenttothesubdivisionparcel(s); 13.Thelocationandorientationofproposedbuildings; 14.Proposedsidewalksandtrails; 15.Proposedparkingareas; 16.Proposedparks,commonareas,andpreservationeasements(indicatepublicvs. privateifapplicable); 17.AnyotherinformationasdirectedbytheCommunityDevelopmentDepartment. (iv)PUDPreliminaryPlatandRezoningtoPUDReview Thissectionshouldinclude aclausethatdefinesthedevelopmentrightsgranted,alongwithresponsibilities, asaresultofanapprovalatthisstage. 1.TheapplicationforrezoningtoPUDshallbereviewedinaccordancewith Section2.4(B),ZoningOrdinanceTextandZoningMapAmendments. 2.TheapplicationforPreliminaryPlatshallbereviewedinaccordancewithCity CodeTitle11,Chapter3,Section2,PreliminaryPlatProcedure. 3.Aspartofthereviewprocessforbothapplications,theCommunityDevelopment Departmentshallgenerateananalysisoftheproposalagainsttheexpectationsfor PUDsandthepreviouslyestablishedpublicvaluesstatementtoformulatea recommendationregardingtherezoningtotheplanningcommissionandCity Council.Ordinanceneedstoreconcilethetimeframesforreviewsinceitis combiningazoningapplication(15.99)withasubdivisionprocess(462.358). 4.Theplanningcommissionshallholdapublichearingandconsiderthe application’sconsistencywiththeintentandpurposeofthePUDand comprehensiveplangoals.Theplanningcommissionshallmake recommendationstotheCityCouncilonthemerit,neededchanges,and suggestedconditionsoftheproposedrezoning,preliminaryplatandPUD developmentplan. 5.InapprovingordenyingtheordinancetorezonethesubjectpropertytoPUD,the CityCouncilshallmakefindingsonthefollowing:Thissectionraisesthe questionastowhentherezoningordinanceisformallyeffective–the ordinanceneedstotakeeffectaftertheCityisreadytoapproveallofthe detailsofthePUD,whichisnotlikelytoberightaway.Therezoning ordinancepassedbytheCouncilmustaccountforthislapseoftime,and givetheCitytheopportunitytorescind–checkwithCityAttorneyfora preferredprocessandtimingclause. a.ThePUDplanisconsistentwiththecity’scomprehensiveplan; b.ThePUDplanistailoredtothespecificcharacteristicsofthesiteand achievesahigherqualityofsiteplanningandgreaterpublicbenefitsthan wouldbeachievedunderconventionalprovisionsoftheordinance; c.ThePUDplanaddressesthepurposeandintentofthePUDrezoninglaidout inSection2.4(P)(1),andthepublicvaluesstatementestablishedatthe beginningoftheprocess d.ThePUDplanaddressestheexpectationsofaPUDlaidoutinSection 2.4(P)(7); e.ThePUDplanmaintainsorimprovestheefficiencyofpublicstreets,utilities, andotherpublicservices; f.ThePUDplanresultsindevelopmentcompatiblewithexistingadjacentand futureguidedlanduses; g.HowthePUDplanaddressesthepurposeandintentofthePUDrezoning laidoutinSection2.4(P)(1),andthepublicvaluesstatementestablishedat thebeginningoftheprocess. h.WhetherthePUDcanbeaccommodatedbyexistingpublicservices, suchasparks,police,fire,administration,andutilities,orthedeveloper hasprovidedforthegrowthandextensionofsuchservicesasa componentofthePUD. i.WhetherthePUDisdesignedtotakeadvantageof,andpreserve,the naturalfeaturesofthesubjectproperty,includingwaterways,forested areas,naturalprairie,topography,views,etc. (d)PUDFinalPlat (i)InitiationofProceedings 1.AfinalplatthatconformswiththepreliminaryplatandassociatedPUDrezoning ordinanceshallbesubmittedwithin180daysofapprovaloftheordinanceand preliminaryplatapproval,unlessotherwiseextendedbytheCityCouncil.Ifthe applicantfailstosubmitafinalplatapplicationorextensionrequestwithinthis timeperiod,thezoningshallrevertbacktotheunderlyingzoningdistrictthrough arezoningordinanceadoptedbytheCityCouncil.Thislanguagemandates thattheCounciladoptsarezoningordinance.Whatisstatusofzoningif theydon’t?Mypreferredsolutionwouldbetodelaytheeffectivedateofthe rezoningordinanceadoptedinthepreviousstepsoitdoesn’ttakeeffectif certainthingsdon’thappen. 2.TherequestforPUDFinalPlatshallbeinitiatedbyapplicationoftheproperty ownerorotherpersonhavingauthoritytofileanapplicationpursuanttoSection 2.3(B),AuthoritytoFileApplications. (ii)Application 1.AllapplicationsforPUDFinalPlatshallbeinaccordancewithSection2.3, CommonReviewRequirements. 2.TheapplicationforPUDFinalPlatshallbeinaccordancewithCityCodeTitle 11,Chapter4,DataRequiredforPreliminaryandFinalPlats. 3.Inadditiontogeneralcitycoderequirements,applicationsforaPUDFinalPlat shallalsoincludeatleasttheinformationinSection2.4(P)(9)(d)(iii)belowtobe consideredcomplete(exceptasexemptedbytheCommunityDevelopment Department). (iii)SpecificPUDFinalPlatSubmittalRequirements 1.IfaPUDMasterPlanfortheentireprojectwassubmittedandapprovedaspart ofthepreliminaryplatreview,anupdatedMasterPlanshallbesubmitted incorporatingallchangesrequiredbythepreliminaryplatapproval. 2.ThePUDDevelopmentPlanshallbeupdatedtoincorporateallchangesrequired bythepreliminaryplatandrezoningapprovals.Mysenseisthattheordinance mashestogetherthePUDPlanandthePreliminaryPlat.IsthereaPUD DevelopmentPlanmandatedbytheprevioussection?PerhapsImissedit? Thisdocumentmustclearlyshowalldeviationsfromstandardzoningbeing approvedaspartofthePUD. 3.TheCityandapplicantshallprepareadeveloper’sagreementwhichreferences allPUDplans,specifiespermitteduses,allowabledensities,development phasing,requiredimprovements,completiondatesforimprovements,the requiredletterofcredit,allrequireddevelopmentfees,escrows,andwarranties, andanyotherinformationdeemednecessarybytheCity.Thisclausewillnot workaswritten.Adevelopmentagreementshouldlisttheresponsibilitiesof thedeveloperandtheCityatthetimeofapprovalandplatting,andthePUD Ordinance shouldlistthelandusesandperformancestandardsofthe district.TheDAwillonlybevaluablefordealingwiththeoriginal developerattheonsetoftheproject–theordinancewillneedtoaddressthe ongoingoperationofthedistrict,includingsubsequentowners,landuse changes,newconstructionrequests,etc.,etc. 4.Up-to-datetitleevidenceforthesubjectpropertyinaformacceptabletotheCity shallbeprovidedaspartoftheapplicationforthePUDFinalPlat. 5.DevelopershallprovidewarrantydeedsforPropertybeingdedicatedtotheCity forallparks,outlots,etc.,freefromallliensandencumbrancesexceptas otherwisewaivedbytheCity.CDD?CityAdministrator?CityCouncil? Shoulddefinewhoserolethisis. 6.Developershallprovidealleasementdedicationdocumentsforeasementsnot shownonthefinalplatincludingthosefortrails,ingress/egress,etc.,together withallnecessaryconsentstotheeasementbyexistingencumbrancersofthe property. (iv)PUDFinalPlatReview TheapplicationforPUDFinalPlatshallbereviewedinaccordancewithCityCode Title11,Chapter3,Section3,FinalPlatProcedure. (10)PUDAmendments ApprovedPUD’smaybeamendedfromtimetotimeasaresultofunforeseencircumstances, overlookedopportunities,orrequestsfromadeveloper.Atsuchatime,theapplicantshall makeanapplicationtothecityforaPUDamendment.Allsuchamendmentswillbe processedasoneofthefollowing: (a)AdministrativeAmendment –TheCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentmayapprove minorchangesinthelocation,placement,andheightofbuildingsifsuchchangesare requiredbyengineeringorothercircumstancesnotforeseen (thisisamajortrap–if somethingisunforeseen,shouldn’tthatrequirere-review?)atthetimethePUDFinal Planwasapproved,providedthechangesareindeedminor(Whatis“minor”?)and conformtothereviewcriteriaappliedbythePlanningCommissionandCityCouncil. Undernocircumstancesshallanadministrativeamendmentallowadditionalstoriesto buildings,additionallots,orchangestodesignatedusesestablishedaspartofthePUD. Thissectionshouldlistaspecificsetofparametersorcircumstancesunderwhicha PUDmayreceiveanadministrativeamendment–arequestwilleitherqualifyorit won’t. (b)PUDAdjustment –anadjustmenttoaPUDmaybemadethroughreviewandapproval byasimplemajorityvoteoftheCityCouncilwithorwithoutreferraltothePlanning Commission.Toqualifyforthisreview,theminoradjustmentshallnot: (i)Eliminate,diminishorbedisruptivetothepreservationandprotectionofsensitive sitefeatures. (ii)Eliminate,diminishorcompromisethehighqualityofsiteplanning,design, landscapingorbuildingmaterials. (iii)Altersignificantlythelocationofbuildings,parkingareasorroads. (iv)Increaseordecreasethenumberofresidentialdwellingunitsbymorethanfive percent. (v)Increasethegrossfloorareaofnon-residentialbuildingsbymorethanthreepercent orincreasethegrossfloorareaofanyindividualbuildingbymorethanfivepercent (residentiallotsnotguidedforspecificstructuresizesareexcludedfromthis requirement). (vi)Increasethenumberofstoriesofanybuilding. (vii)Decreasetheamountofopenspaceoralteritinsuchawayastochangeitsoriginal designorintendedfunctionoruse. (viii)Createnon-compliancewithanyspecialconditionattachedtotheapprovalofthe FinalPUDPlan.I’mnotsurehowtointerpretthis.Arethere“non-special” conditions?Aren’talloftherequirementsaconditionofapproval? (c)PUDAmendment –anychangenotqualifyingforanadministrativeamendmentora PUDadjustmentshallrequireaPUDamendment.AnapplicationtoamendaPUDshall beadministeredinthesamemannerasthatrequiredforaninitialPUDbeginningatPUD PreliminaryPlat. (11)PUDCancellation APUDshallonlybecancelledandrevokedupontheCityCounciladoptinganordinance rescindingtheordinanceapprovingthePUD.Rescindingtheordinancewouldhavethe effectof“un-zoning”theproperty.Thisclauseneedssomework,sincerevocation probablyshouldrequireapublichearingandsomedueprocess,presumingthat approvalconferssomedevelopmentrights.Particularlywheretheremaybesome constructionthathasoccurred,rescindingthePUDordinancewouldbeproblematic.In anyevent,itshallnotbenecessaryforthecounciltofindthecreationofaPUDdistrictwas inerror. (12)Administration Ingeneral,thefollowingrulesshallapplytoallPUDs: (a)Rulesandregulations:NorequirementoutlinedinthePUDprocessshallrestricttheCity Councilfromtakingactiononanapplicationifnecessarytomeetstatemandatedtime deadlines; (b)PlanCertification:TheCitymayrequirethatPUDplansbecertifiedatthetimeof submittaland/oruponcompletionofconstruction.Whatdoesthismean?Who “certifies”PUDplans?Thisrequiresmoreexplanation. (c)Preconstruction:Nobuildingpermitshallbegrantedforanybuildingonlandforwhich aPUDplanisintheprocessofreview,unlesstheproposedbuildingisallowedunderthe existingzoningandwillnotimpact,influence,orinterferewiththeproposedPUDplan. (d)EffectonConveyedProperty.IntheeventanyrealpropertyintheapprovedPUD Agreementisconveyedintotal,orinpart,thebuyersthereofshallbeboundbythe provisionsoftheapprovedFinalPUDPlanconstitutingapartthereof;provided, however,thatnothinghereinshallbeconstruedtocreatenon-conforminglots,building sites,buildingsorusesbyvirtueofanysuchconveyanceofalot,buildingsite,building orpartofthedevelopmentcreatedpursuanttoandinconformancewiththeapproved PUD.AgainimplicatestheneedtoadoptacompletePUDordinance,sincethatis theonlyeffectivewaytotrackthezoningrequirementsforsomefuture owner/buyer/tenant,etc. CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments PLANNED uN�T (P) Planned Unit Developments DEVELOPMENT (1) Purpose and Intent _,..._........ _ The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is to provide 1W greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non-residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and marketable. This is achieved (Staff applicable Commissions & Council _A (Staff, applicable Commissions & (Staff, applicable Commissions & Council) by undertaking a collaborative process that results in a development outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable through the conventional zoning district. If a development proposal does not demonstrate significant public value benefits above and beyond those achievable under a conventional zoning district, the City reserves the right to deny the PUD rezoning and direct the developer to re -apply under the standard applicable zoning district. (2) Initiation of Proceedings Applications for a PUD 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. (3) Reflection on the Official Zoning Map (a) PUD provisions provide an optional method of regulating land use which permits flexibility in allowed uses and other regulating provisions. In some circumstances, however, rules and regulations governing the underlying zoning district may apply within the PUD. As such, approval of a Planned Unit Development and execution of a PUD agreement shall require the property in question be rezoned to PUD, but the denotation on the official zoning map shall also illustrate the underlying zoning district. Once a PUD has been granted and is in effect for a parcel, no building permit shall be issued for that parcel which is not in conformance with the approved PUD Plan, the current Minnesota State Building Code and all associated documents, and with all other applicable City Code provisions. (b) All PUD rezonings approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall retain their zoning classifications of R -PUD, and shall continue to be governed by the ordinance and resolutions which created these areas. (4) Permitted Locations for PUD rezoning A rezoning to PUD may be requested for any residential, commercial, or industrial zoned area. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 65 CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments Page 66 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (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: (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. (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; (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; (d) Promote aesthetically-pleasing design which fosters a sense of place within the neighborhood and appears attractive and inviting from surrounding parcels; (e) Incorporate extensive landscaping in excess of what is required by code; CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 67 (f) Provide high-quality park, open space, and trail opportunities that meet or exceed the expectations established in the Comprehensive Plan; (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; (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; (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. (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. CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments Page 68 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (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. (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); CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 69 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. (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 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. 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) 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. (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; CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments Page 70 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (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). (iii) Specific PUD Concept Plan Submittal Requirements 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 CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 71 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—and the City Council for review. 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 CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments Page 72 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance 4. After the City policymakers have reviewed and commented on the Concept PUD plan, city staff shall meet with other agencies, as applicable, to explore opportunities of partnership to enhance the stated public values. (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. 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. 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. (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 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. CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 73 (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: 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); CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments Page 74 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance 17. Any other information as directed by the Community Development Department. (iv) PUD Preliminary Plat and Rezoning to PUD Review 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. 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: 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. CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 75 (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. 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. 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. CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments Page 76 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance 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. 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 at the time the PUD Final Plan was approved, provided the changes are indeed 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. (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. CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 77 (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. (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. 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. (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. CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (P) Planned Unit Developments Page 78 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (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. 20/1MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 20 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SECTION: 20-1:Purpose 20-2:General Requirements and Standards 20-3:Submission Requirements 20-4:Procedure for Processing a Planned Unit Development 20-1:PURPOSE: This chapter is established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed to allow the development of neighborhoods or portions thereof incorporating a variety of residential types and non-residential uses, recognizing that traditional density, bulk, setbacks, use, and subdivision regulations which may be useful in protecting the character of substantially developed areas may be inappropriate to control development in less developed areas. Specifically, it is intended to encourage: [A]Innovations in residential development to the end that the growing demands for housing at all economic levels may be met by greater variety in tenure, type, design, and siting of dwellings and by conservation and more efficient use of land in such development; [B]Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and experienced land planners, architects, and landscape architects; [C]More convenience in location of accessory commercial and service areas; [D]The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; [E]A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly transition of land from rural to urban uses; [F]An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering housing costs and public investments; [G]A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan; [H]A more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict app lic ati on o f zo nin g and sub div isi on r egul ati ons of t he C ity; [I]To give the landowner and developer reasonable assurance of ultimate approval before expending complete design monies while providing City officials with assurances that the project will retain the character envisioned at the time of concurrence; 20/2MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE [J]Flexibility for variation from the provisions of this ordinance including setbacks, height, lot area, width and depth, yards, etc. 20-2:GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS: [A]OWNERSHIP: Application for PUD approval must be filed by the landowner or jointly by all landowners of the property included in a project. The application and all submissions must be directed to the development of the property as a unified whole, i.e., a planned unit. In the case of multiple ownership, the approved final plan shall be binding on all owners. [B]COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY: The proposed PUD shall be consistent with the City comprehensive plan. [C]SANITARY SEWER PLAN CONSISTENCY: The proposed PUD shall be consistent with the City capital improvement program and comprehensive utility plan. [D]COMMON OPEN SPACE: Common open space at least sufficient to meet the minimum requirement established in this ordinance and such complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the PUD shall be provided within the area of the PUD. [E]OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUD COMMON OPEN SPACE/FACILITIES: Whenever common open space or service facilities are provided within the PUD, the PUD plan shall contain provisions to assure the continued operation and maintenance of such open space and service facilities to a predetermined reasonable standard. Common open space and service facilities within a PUD may be placed under the ownership of one or more of the following as approved by the City Council: 1.Dedicated to public where a community-wide use is anticipated and the City Council agrees to accept the dedication. 2.Landlord control where only use by tenants is anticipated. 3.Property (homeowners) association, provided all of the following conditions are met: (a)Prior to the use or occupancy or sale or the execution of contracts for sale of an individual building unit, parcel, tract, townhouse, apartment, or common area, a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions or an equivalent document or a document such as specified laws 1963, Chapter 457, Section 13, shall be filed with the City of Monticello, said filing with the City to be made prior to the filings of said declaration or document or floor plans with the recording officers of Wright County, Minnesota. 20/3MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE (b)The declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions or equivalent document shall specify that deeds, leases, or document or conveyance affecting buildings, units, parcels, tracts, townhouses, or apartments shall bind said properties to the terms of said declaration. (c)The declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall provide that an owners' association or corporation shall be formed and that all owners shall be members of said association or corporation which shall maintain all properties and common areas in good repair and which shall assess individual property owners proportionate shares of joint or common costs. This declaration shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. The intent of this requirement is to protect the property values of the individual owner through establishing effective private control. (d)The declaration shall additionally, amongst other things, provide that in the event the association or corporation fails to maintain properties in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the City of Monticello or fails to pay taxes or assessments on properties as they become due and in the event the said City of Monticello incurs any expenses in enforcing its rules and regulations, which said expenses are not immediately reimbursed by the association or corporation, then the City of Monticello shall have the right to assess each property its pro rata share of said expenses. Such assessments, together with interest thereon and costs of collection, shall be a lien on each property against which each such assessment is made. (e)Membership must be mandatory for each owner and any successive buyer. (f)The open space restrictions must be permanent and not for a given period or years. (g)The association must be responsible for liability insurance, local taxes, and the maintenance of the open space facilities to be deeded to it. (h)Property owners (homeowners) must pay their pro rata share of the cost of the association by means of an assessment to be levied by the association which meets the requirements for becoming a lien on the property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. (i)The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changed needs. 20/4MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE (j)The bylaws and rules of the association and all covenants and restrictions to be recorded must be approved by the City Council prior to the approval of the final PUD plan. [F]STAGING OF PUBLIC AND COMMON OPEN SPACE: When a PUD provides for common or public open space, the total area of common or public open space or land escrow security in any stage or development shall at a minimum bear the same relationship to the total open space to be provided in the entire PUD as the stages or units completed or under development bear to the entire PUD. [G]DENSITY: The maximum allowable density in a PUD shall be determined by reference to the comprehensive plan. Within that limit, the exact density allowable shall be determined by standards agreed upon between the applicant and the City. Whenever any PUD is to be developed in stages, no such stage shall, when averaged with all previously completed stages, have a residential density that exceeds twenty-five (25) percent of the proposed residential density of the entire PUD. [H]UTILITIES: In any PUD, all utilities, including telephone, electricity, gas, and telecable shall be installed underground. [I]UTILITIES CONNECTIONS: 1.WATER CONNECTIONS: Where more than one (1) property is served from the same service line, a shut-off valve must be located in such a way that each unit's service may be shut off by the City in addition to the normally supplied shut-off at the street. 2.SEWER CONNECTIONS: Where more than one (1) unit is served by a sanitary sewer lateral which exceeds three hundred (300) feet in length, provision must be made for a manhole to allow adequate cleaning and maintenance of the lateral. All maintenance and cleaning shall be the responsibility of the property owners' association or owner. [J]ROADWAYS: 1.Private roadways within the project shall have approved curb and gutter and an improved surface of twenty (20) feet or more in width and shall be so designed as to permit the City fire trucks to provide protectio n to each bui lding. 2.No portion of the required twenty (20) foot road system may be used in calculat ing required off-street parking spac e or be used fo r parking. [K]LANDSCAPING: In any PUD, landscaping shall be provided according to a plan approved by the City Council, which shall include a detailed planting list with sizes and species indicated as part of the final plan. In assessing the 20/5MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE landscapin g plan, the City Council shall consider the natural features of the particular site, the architectural characteristics of the proposed structures, the overall scheme of the PUD plan, and the general landscaping provisions of this ordinance. [L]URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICE: Residential development will be carefully phased so as to ensure that all developable land will be accorded a present vested right to develop at such time as services and facilities are available. Residential lands which have the necessary available municipal facilities and services will be granted approval in accordance with existing ordinance and development techniques. Residential lands which lack the available facilities and services will be granted approval for development at such times as the facilities and services have been made available by the continuing public improvement program or at such time when the residential developer agrees to furnish such facilities or imp rov eme nts put for th b y the Cit y or o the r pu bli c age ncy. If it can be demonstrated by the petitioner that divergence from the points above will not cause an unreasonable burden upon the City of Monticello in providing services and utilities or cause a deleterious impact upon the natural environment, then the City Council may consider granting a variance to this policy in reviewing a proposed development. No major PUD will be permitted in areas not having city water and sanitary sewer available within a reasonable length of time from the date of PUD approval. [M]TOWNHOUSE: 1.No single townhouse structure shall contain more than eight (8) dwelling units. 2.Minimum unit lot frontage for townhouses shall be not less than twenty (20) feet. 3.Townhouses, cooperatives, and condominiums will be subdivided on an individual unit bases according to the provisions of Section 20-2 [F] 3. [N]SETBACKS: 1.The front and side yard restrictions at the periphery of the Planned Unit Development site at a minimum shall be the same as imposed in the respective districts. 2.Front yard setbacks shall be established so as to meet the general design criteria within standard areas (zones) regulating the particular use or structure. 20/6MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3.Building height(s) shall be established so as to meet the general design criteria within standard areas (zones) regulating the particular use or structure.(#237, 4/12/93) 20-3:SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Twenty (20) copies of the following exhibits, analyses, and plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and Council during the PUD process at the times specified in Section 20-4 of this chapter. [A]GENERAL CONCEPT STAGE: 1.General Information (a)The landowner's name and address and his interest in the sub jec t pr ope rty. (b)The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner. (c)The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer, and surveyor. (d)Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject pr operty to effect uate the pro posed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy, and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report and such other evidence as the City Attorney may require to show the status of the title or control of the subject pro pert y. 2.Present Status: (a)The add res s an d le gal d escr ipt ion of t he s ubj ect pro pert y. (b)The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within one thousand (1,000) feet of t he s ubj ect pro pert y. (c)A map depicting the existing development of the subject property and all land within one thousand (1,000) feet thereof and showing the precise location of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains, and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within one hundred (100) feet of the sub jec t pr ope rty. 3.A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve, showing its relationship to the 20/7MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE City's comprehensive plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged, and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the Cit y. 4.Site Conditions: Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at a scale of one hundred (100) feet. All of the graphics would be the same scale as the final plan to allow easy cross reference. The use of overlays is recommended for clear reference. The following shall be included: (a)Contours - minimum two (2) foot intervals. (b)Location, type, and extent of tree cover. (c)Slope analysis. (d)Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands, and streams and flood plains within three hundred (300) feet of the subject pro pert y. (e)Significant rock outcroppings. (f)Existing drainage patterns. (g)Vistas and significant views. (h)Soil conditions as they affect development. 5.Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept, including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential, and other land uses. 6.A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area, which s hall inclu de at least t he followi ng: (a)Area devoted to residential uses. (b)Area devoted to residential use by building type. (c)Area devoted to common open space. (d)Area devoted to public open space. (e)Approximate area devoted to streets. 20/8MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE (f)Approximate area devoted to and number of off-street parking and loading spaces and related access. (g)Approximate area and floor area devoted to commercial uses. (h)Approximate area and floor area devoted to industrial or office uses. 7.When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such stage and the overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. 8.When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. If it is proposed that such open space is owned and /or mai nta ine d by a ny en tit y oth er t han a gov ernm ent al a uth ori ty, copies of the proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws of such entity shall be submitted. 9.General intents of any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD. 10.Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers. [B]DEVELOPMENT STAGE: Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed implementation of the general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the general concept stage may be included for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The development stage submissions shall include but not be limited to: 1.Zoning classification required for development stage submission and any other public decisions necessary for implementation of the proposed plan. 2.Twenty (20) sets of preliminary plans drawn to a scale of not less than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet (or scale requested by the administrator) containing at least the following information: (a)Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in the county wherein the subject property is situated). 20/9MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE (b)Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant topographical or physical features of the pro pert y. (c)The location, size, use, and arrangement, including height in stories, a nd feet and t otal squar e feet of groun d area coverage and floor area, or proposed buildings, including mobile homes, and exi sti ng bu ild ings whi ch w ill rem ain , if any. (d)Location, dimensions, and number of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces, and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian, and the total site coverage of all circulation elements. (e)Location, designation, and total area of all common open space. (f)Location, designation, and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites, and recreational facilities. (g)Proposed lots and blocks, if any, and numbering system. (h)The location, use, and size of structures and other land uses on adjacent properties. (i)Prelimin ary sketches of p roposed lan dscaping. (j)General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD. (k)Any other information that may have been required by the Planning Commission or Council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. 3.An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final development plan approval is sought. 4.A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units by number of bedrooms and expected population/housing profile. 5.A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial and industrial floor space by type of activity (e.g., drug store, dry cleaning, supermarket). 6.Preliminary architectural plans indicating use, floor plan, elevations, and exterior wall finishes of proposed buildings, including mobile homes. 7.A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical 20/10MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE layout, design, and purpose of all streets, easements, right-of-ways, utility lines and facilities, lots, block, public and common open space, general landscaping plan, structures, including mobile homes, and uses. 8.Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustration changes to existing topography and natural site vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan. 9.A final plat prepared by a land surveyor, duly registered in the state of Minnesota, in accordance with Chapter 505 of the Statutes of Minnesota which shall contain a notarized certification by such surveyor that the plat represents a survey made by him and that the monuments shown therein exist as located and that all dimensions are correct, as required by Section 505.03, Subdivision 1, M.S.A., and a notarized certificat ion by owner or o wners and by any mort gage holder of record of the adoption of the plat and the dedication of streets and other public areas as required by Section 505.03, Subdivision 1, M.S.A. 10.A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts, Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Service, or any other agency with review authority clearly illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures. 11.A statement summarizing all changes which have been made in any document, plan data, or information previously submitted, together with revised copies of any such document, plan, or data. 12.Such other and further information as the Planning Commission, Administrator, or Council shall find necessary to give full consideration of the entire proposed PUD or any stage thereof. 13.The Planning Commission may, by a written order, excuse any applicant from submitting any specific item of information or document required by Section 20-3 [B] of this ordinance which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal for PUD approval. 14.The Planning Commission may, by written order, require the submission of any additional information or documentation which it may find necessary or appropriate to give full consideration of the proposed PUD or any aspect or stage thereof. [C]FINAL PLAN STAGE: After approval of a general concept plan for the PUD and approval of a development stage plan for a section of the proposed PUD, the applicant will submit the following material for review by the City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 20/11MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 1.A detailed landscaping plan. 2.Proof of recording any easements and restrictive covenants prior to the sale of any land or dwelling unit within the PUD and of the establishment and activation of any entity that it to be responsible for the management and maintenance of any public or common open spa ce or ser vic e fac ili ty. 3.All certificates, seals, and signatures required for the dedication of land and recording of documents. 4.Final architectural working drawings of all structures (floor plan, elevations, etc.; detailed plans and specs not required.) 5.Final engineering plans and specifications for streets, utilities, and other public improvements, together with a community/developer agreement for the installation of such improvements and financial guarantees for the completion of such improvements. 6.Any other plan, agreements, or specifications necessary for the City staff to review the proposed construction. All work must be in conformance with the Minnesota State Uniform Building Code. 20-4:PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: [A]APPLICATION CONFERENCE: Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the City Planner and/or City staff. At such conference, the applicant shall be prepared to generally describe his proposal for a PUD. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of this proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of City ordinances before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys, and other data. [B]GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN: 1.PURPOSE: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan at the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development as the basis for the public hearing so that the proposal may be publicly considered at an early stage. The following elements of the proposed general concept plan represent the immediate significant elements which the City shall review and for which a decision shall be rendered: (a)Overall maximum PUD density range. (b)General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. 20/12MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE (c)General location and extent of public and common open space. (d)General location of residential and non-residential land uses with approximate type and intensities of development. (e)Staging and time schedule of development. (f)Other special criteria for development. 2.SCHEDULE: The length of time to accomplish the following sequence of events may vary due to publication deadlines, agenda limitations, and/or the pre-established meeting dates of the Planning Commission and/or City Council. (a)Developer files application for conditional use permit and rezoning (where applicable) concurrently with the submission of the general concept plan (at least fifteen (15) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting). (b)Developer meets with the City Planner and/or City staff to discuss the proposed development. (c)Planning Commission formally acknowledges filing of the application(s) for PUD, sets a public hearing, and refers the application(s) back to City staff and appropriate commissions for their official review. (d)Planning C ommissio n holds a pu blic hearin g. (e)Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council on the general concept plan. (f)City Council reviews all recommendations and approves/denies application(s). 3.OPTIONAL SUBMISSION OF DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN: In cases of single stage PUDs or where the applicant wishes to begin the first stage of a multiple stage PUD immediately, he may at his option, submit development stage plans for the proposed PUD simu ltane ously w ith t he sub miss ion of the ge neral conce pt pl an. In such case, the applicant shall comply with all the provisions of the ordinance applicable to submission of the development stage plan. The Planning Commission and Council shall consider such plans simultaneously and shall grant or deny development stage plan approval in accordance with the provisions of Section 20-3 hereof. 4.EFFECT OF CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL: Unless the applicant shall fail to meet time schedules for filing development stage and final 20/13MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE plans, or shall fail to proceed with development in accordance with the plans as approved, or shall in any other manner fail to comply with any condition of this ordinance or of any approval granted pursuant to it, a general concept plan which has been approved and a PUD agreement signed by the applicant shall not be modified, revoked, or otherwise impaired pending the application for approval of development stage and final plans by any action of the City of Monticello without the consent of the applicant. 5.LIMITATION ON GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL: Unless a development stage plan covering at least ten (10) dwelling units or the area designated in the general concept plan as the first stage of the PUD, whichever is greater, has been filed within nine (9) months from the date Council grants general concept plan approval, or in any case where the applicant fails to file development stage and final plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and of an approved general concept plan, the approval may be revoked by Council action. In such case, the Council shall forthwith adopt a resolution repealing the general concept plan approval for that portion of the PUD that has not received final approval would otherwise be applicable. Upon application by the applicant, the Council at its discretion may extend for additional periods, not in excess of nine (9) months each, the filing deadline for any development stage plan, when, for good cause sho wn, suc h ex ten sio n is nece ssa ry. [C]DEVELOPMENT STAGE: 1.PURPOSE: The purpose of the development stage plan is to provide a specific and particular plan upon which the Planning Commission will base its recommendation to the Council and with which substantial compliance is necessary for the preparation of the final plan. 2.SUBMISSION OF DEVELOPMENT STAGE: Upon approval of the general concept plan and within the time established by Section 20-4 [B] 3 of this chapter, the applicant shall file with the Administrator a development stage plan consisting of the information and submissions required by Section 20-3 of this chapter for the entire PUD or for one or more stages thereof in accordance with a staging plan approved as part of the general concept plan. The development stage plan shall refine, implement, and be in substantial conformance with the approved general concept plan. A detailed plan shall be deemed not to be in substantial conformance with an approved general concept plan if it: (a)Departs by more than five (5) percent from the maximum density approved for the PUD or exceeds the implied 20/14MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE maximum density established by the comprehensive plan for the area in which the PUD will be located. (b)Decreases by more than five (5) percent the area approved for public and common open space or changes the general location of such areas. (c)Relocates approved circulation elements to any extent that would decrease their function, adversely affect their relation to surrounding lands and circulation elements, or reduce their effectiveness as buffers or amenities. (d)Significantly alters the arrangement of land uses within the PUD. (e)Delays by more than one (1) year stage of an approved staging plan. (f)Departs from the general concept plan in any other manner which the Planning Commission shall, based on stated findings and conclusions, conclude materially alters the plan or concept for the proposed PUD. 3.REVIEW AND ACTION BY CITY STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION: Immediately upon receipt of a completed development stage plan, the Administrator shall refer such plan to the following City staff and/or official bodies for the indicated action: (a)The City Attorney for legal review of all documents. (b)The City Engineer for review of all engineering data for compliance with the requirements of City ordinances and review of the City/developer agreement. (c)The City Building Inspector for review of all building plans for compliance with the requirements of this chapter, the State of Minnesota Uniform Building Code, and any other applicable federal, state, or local codes. (d)The City Planner for review of all plans for compliance with the intent, purpose, and requirements of this chapter and conformity with the general concept plan and comprehensive plan. (e)The City Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the Council. (f)When appropriate, as determined by the Administrator, to the Park and Recreation Commission for review and 20/15MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE recommendations. (g)When appropriate, as determined by the Administrator, to other special review agencies such as the Watershed Districts, Soil Conservation Services, Highway Department, or other affected agencies. All staff designated in paragraphs (a) through (d) hereof shall submit their reports in writing to the Planning Commission and applicant. 4.SCHEDULE: The following sequence of events may vary due to publication deadlines, agenda limitations, and/or the pre-established meeting dates of the Planning Commission and/or City Council. (a)Developer makes application for subdivision (first phase of PUD) at least fifteen (15) days prior to Planning Commission meeting. (b)Developer meets with the City Planner and/or City staff to discuss specific development plans. (c)Planning Commission formally acknowledges filing and receipt of application, sets a public hearing, and refers application back to City staff and appropriate commissions for official review. (d)Planning C ommissio n holds a pu blic hearin g. (e)Within sixty (60) days of the public hearing, or such further time as may be agreed to by the applicant, the Planning Commission shall itself review said reports and plans and submit its written report and recommendations to the Council and applicant. Such report shall contain the findings of the Planning Commission with respect to the conformity of the development stage plan to the approved general concept plan, with respect to the merit or lack of merit of any departure of the development stage plan from substantial conformity with the concept plan, and with respect to the compliance of the development stage plan with the provisions of this chapter and all other applicable federal, state, and local codes and ordinances. If the Planning Commission shall find substantial conformity between such plans or that any lack of substantial conformity merits approval and shall further find the development stage plan to be in all other respects complete and in compliance with this chapter and other applicable federal, state, and local codes and ordinances, it shall recommend approval of the plan. Otherwise, it shall recommend denial. If the Planning Commission fails to act 20/16MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE within the time specified herein, it shall be deemed to have recommended the plan for approval. (f)Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Council shall grant approval, resubmit the plan to the Planning Commission for further consideration of specified items, or deny approval of the plan. (g)The Administrator shall instruct the City Attorney to draw up a PUD agreement which stipulates the specific terms and conditions approved by the City Council and accepted by the applicant. This agreement shall be signed by the Mayor of the City of Monticello, City Administrator, and the applicant within thirty (30) days of Council approval of the development stage plan. Where the development shall be by written report setting forth the reasons for its action. In all cases, a certified copy of the document evidencing Council action shall be promptly delivered to the applicant by the Administrator. 5.LIMITATION ON DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL: Unless a final plan covering the area designated in the development stage plan as the first stage of the PUD has been filed within six (6) months from the date Council grants development stage plan approval, or in any case where the applicant fails to file final plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and/or an approved development stage plan, the approval shall expire. Upon application by the applicant, the Council, at its discretion, may extend for not more than six (6) months the filing deadline for any final plan when, for good cause shown, such extension is necessary. In any case where development plan approval expires, the Council shall forthwith adopt a resolution repealing the general concept plan approval and the development stage plan approval for that portion of the PUD that has not received final plan approval and re-establishing the zoning and other ordinance provisions that would otherwise be applicable. 6.SITE IMPROVEMENTS: At any time following the approval of a development stage plan by the Council, the applicant may, pursuant to the applicable ordinances of the City, apply for and the Administrator may issue grading permits for the area within the PUD for which development stage plan approval has been given. If in approving the development stage plan the Council expressly authorizes it, the applicant may, pursuant to the applicable ordinances of the City, apply for and the Administrator may issue building permits for model homes to be constructed within the area of the PUD 20/17MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE provided, however, that no such permit shall be issued unless the Administrator shall first determine that the plans for any structure meet all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, State of Minnesota Uniform Building Code, and/or any other applicable federal, state, and local codes. [D]FINAL PLAN: 1.PURPOSE: The final plan is to serve as a complete, thorough, and permanent public record of the PUD and the manner in which it is to be developed. It shall incorporate all prior approved plans and all appro ved mo dific ation s ther eof re sult ing fr om th e PUD p roces s. It shall serve in conjunction with other City ordinances as the land use regulation applicable to the PUD. 2.SUBMISSION OF FINAL PLAN: Upon approval of the development stage plan and within the time established by Section 20- 4 [C] 5 of this chapter, the applicant shall file with the Administrator a final plan consisting of the information and submissions required by Section 20- 3 of this Chapter for the entire PUD or for one or more stages. The final plan is intended only to add detail to and to put in final form the information contained in the general concept plan and the developmen t stage plan and shall co nform to th e developme nt stage plan in all respects. 3.RECORDING OF FINAL PLAN: Within ten (10) days of its approval, the Administrator shall cause the final plan, or such portions thereof as are appropriate, to be recorded with the County Recorder, Register of Deeds, or Register of Titles. 4.BUILDING AND OTHER PERMITS: Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, upon receiving notice from the Administrator that the approved final plan has been recorded and upon application by the applicant pursuant to the applicable ordinances of the City, all appropriate officials of the City may issue building and other permits to the applicant for development, construction, and other work in the area encompassed by the approved final plan provided that no such permit shall be issued unless the appropriate official is first satisfied that the requirements of all codes and ordinances which are applicable to the permit sought have been satisfied. 5.LIMITATION ON FINAL PLAN APPROVAL: Within one (1) year after the approval of a final plan for PUD or such shorter time as may be established by the approved development schedule, construction shall commence in accordance with such approved plan. Failure to commence construction within such period shall, unless an extension shall have been granted as hereinafter provided, automatically render void the PUD permit and all approvals of the PUD plan, and the area 20/18MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE encompassed within the PUD shall thereafter be subject to those provisions of the zoning ordinances and other ordinances applicable in the district in which it is located. In such case, the Council shall forthwith adopt an ordinance amendment repealing the PUD permit and all PUD approvals and re-establishing the zoning and other ordinance provisions that would otherwise be applicable. The time limit established by this paragraph may, at the discretion of the Council, be extended for not more than one (1) year by ordinance or resolution duly adopted. 6.INSPECTIONS DURING DEVELOPMENT: (a)COMPLIANCE WITH OVERALL PLAN: Following final plan approval of a PUD or a stage thereof, the Building Inspector shall, at least annually until the completion of development, review all permits issued and construction undertaken and compare actual development with the approved plans for development and with the approved development schedule. If the Building Inspector finds that development is not proceeding in accordance with the approved schedule or that it fails in any other respect to comply with the PUD plans as finally approved, he shall immediately notify the Council. Within thirty (30) days of such notice, the Council shall either: i.revoke the PUD permit by ordinance amendment, and the land shall thereafter be governed by the regulations applicable in the district in which it is located; or ii.shall take such steps as it deems necessary to compel compliance with the final plans as approved; or iii.shall require the landowner or applicant to seek an amendment of the final plan. b.COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND DRAWINGS: All improvements to be constructed or erected shall be subject to inspection by the City Building Inspector. The cost attributable to all inspections required by this subparagraph shall be charged to and paid by the owner or applicant. Before any required inspections take place, the owner or applicant may be required to post a deposit to cover the cost of such inspections. The owner or applicant shall give at least twenty-four (24) hours written notification to the City Building Inspector prior to the performance of any of the following work: 20/19MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE i.The surfacing of any roadway or street; ii.The installation of any curbing or gutters; iii.The grading or backfilling of any open trench or excavation in which any utility facilities, including but not limited to, water line, sewer lines, gas lines, and electrical cables, shall have been installed. If upon inspection, in the opinion of the City Building Inspector, any work does not comply with the approved construction plans and drawings of the approved final plan, the City Building Inspector shall have authority to order that all such work shall be terminated until such time as necessary steps are taken to correct any defects or deficiencies. The owner or applicant shall notify the City Building Inspector and request a reinspection. Upon completion of all required improvements within the area covered by the approved final plan, the owner or applicant shall notify the City Building Inspector who shall thereupon conduct a final inspection of all improvements as installed from the approved construction plan and drawings or approved final plan. If said final inspection reveals defects which will, in the opi nio n of the Cit y Building Inspector, adversely affect the performance, suitability, or desirability of said improvements, the Building Inspector shall notify the applicant in writing of such defects, deficiencies, or deviations, and the owner or applicant shall, at his sole cost and expense, correct such defects or deviations within six (6) months of the date of notifications. When such defects, deficiencies, or deviations have been corrected, the owner or applicant shall notify the City Building Inspector that the improvements are again ready for final inspection. If a final inspection indicates that all improvements as installed contain no defects, deficiencies, or deviations, then within ten (10) days from the completion of such inspection, the City Building Inspector shall certify to the Council that all improvements have been installed in conform ity with the co nstructio n plans and drawings and the final plan. The Council shall thereupon by resolution formally accept such improvements at which time they shall become the property of the City of Monticello. 20/20MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE