Planning Commission Agenda 08-05-2003
.
.
.
f\W
AGENDA
REGllLAR MEETING - MOl\'TICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - August 5, ZOO)
6:00 P.M.
i\1emhers:
Council Liaison:
Staff:
Dick Frie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart. and David Rietveld
Brian Stumpf
Jeff O'NeilL Fred Patch. and Steve Grittman
1. Call to order.
2. Approval oCthe minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held July 1.2003.
3. Consideration of adding items to thc agenda.
4. Citizens commcnts.
5. Continucd Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of a requcst for an Interim Use Permit allowing outside
storage as a principal use in an ]-2 znning district. Applicant: Jay MorreIllJME of Monticello
6. Public Hearing - Consideration ofrequcst for a simple suhdivision to create two city lots and
consideration of a variance to the rear yard setback. App]icant: Kathleen Gauthier
7.
Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the side yard setback requirements to
allo\\' construction ora garage. Applicant: David Kranz
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval of the Monticello
Marketplace 2"J Addition commercial subdivision and consideration or approval of concept and
development stage planned unit development. Applicant: Brendse] Properties, Inc.
9. Public \-Iearing - Consideration of an amendment to thc comprehensivc plan and consideration of
an amendment to a concept stage planned unit development for Otter Creek Crossing. Applicant:
Otter Creek. LLC
10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for sketch plan reviev. and consideration of a request
for re-zoning from A-Q to R-L R-2. and R-2A for a single family residential subdivision.
Applicants: Bison Development Co. and Sylvia Development, L.P.
II. Consideration of appointing a Planning Commission membcr to the C.R. 18/1-94 Interchange Task
Force.
12. Adjourn
-1-
.
MINlJTES
REGl1LAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - July I, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Members present:
Dick Frie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart. David Rietveld and
Council Ljaison Brian Stumpf
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill and Steve Grittman
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. declared a quorum.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Plannin(l Commission meeting held June 3. 2003.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF Il1E
JUNE 3. 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
...,
-) .
. 4.
5.
Consideration of adding items to the a~enda.
None
Citizens comments.
None
Public Hearina - Consideration of a request for variance to the side vard setbacks for a sinl!ie familv
{!ara~e. Applicant: Tom Holthaus/Red Rooster Properties. Inc. Item withdrawn.
This item \\'as withdrawn from the agenda. per Building Official Fred Patch, as it was determined
that no variance would be required for the garage addition.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for 10 foot variance to the side yard setback to
construct deck. Applicant: Virgil & Wanda Potter
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the staff report and advised that the applicants had
submitted an application for a deck permit, however the plan submitted did not show property lines
or dimensions as the city does not require a survey with deck permit applications. The applicant's
measured the setbacks from the edge of the street. explaining that they understood that to be their
property line. The building department did not catch the setback error at the time of the initial
inspection. however the inspector who issued the pemlit did see the encroachment into the ::20 foot
side yard setback when conducting the framing inspection and stopped the project before decking
was installed. StafT is now asking the Planning Commission to make a determination on whether to
allow a variance for the deck to remain where constructed. Jeff O'Neill advised that he observed
the applicant's deck and it appeared to be unobtrusive and actually blends in well from the sides.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. The applicant. Virgil Potter. 211 Linn Street. addressed the
Planning Commission and explained their misunderstanding regarding setbacks. He further advised
Plannin!.! Commission Minutes 070103
that the) had purchased materials lor a railing I,,, the deek an-d asked tn he allowed to put it UP.
planned. The applicants feel it \vOllld look hetter with the railing. I-Ie also stated that they do haw
a tree that hlocks the view fron; 3rll Street. as well as plants and shruhs. and they \\oulJ 1110\e the
entrance to the side of the deck. away from the street. There heing no further comments. Chair Fric
dosed the public hearing.
It \\'as ad\'ised that staff had received no comments from neighbors regarding this matter. Fric
asked Potter if their intent was to dress up the property. noting that he obsern~d many itcms stored
on their property. Potter ad\'ised that they are working on fixing up their property and anticipate
selling some of the items Frie had mentioned. Frie advised that both staff and Planning
Commission need to look for a resolution to the situation since the deck is already in the process of
being built. O.Neill further added that errors such as these seem to occur every several years. hut
further added that considering the number of permits issued in a year. there tends to be a fev. that
are missed.
Regarding the conditions listed in the staff report. Hilgart asked if the applicant would be willing to
go without a railing on the deck. but Potter stated they would prefer it as they felt it would make it
look much nicer. O.Neill stated that the railing gives it a sense of a structure. rather than a patio
\vhich does not require adherence to setback requirements. and therefore the reason for that request.
Dragsten agreed and stated that with the deck being only a few feet off the ground. the railing
would not be necessary. although he agreed that it would look better with a railing. There was
further discussion whether staff should require surveys for deck permits. but it was noted that .
surveys are expensive and this could create a hardship for applicants. There was no further
discussion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO ALLOW A VARIANCE. FOR A TEN
FOOT (10') REDUCTION TO THE 20 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FRONTING ON LINN
STREET. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. NO PART OF THE DECK MA Y EXCEED 24 INCHES ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE.
2. SHRUBBERY LANDSCAPING MUST BE INSTALLED ALONG THE SIDE OF THE
DECK TOWARD LINN STREET TO VISUALL Y BUFFER THE EDGE OF THE DECK
FROM THE STREET.
MOTION BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE DECK IS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 18
INCHES OF ADJACENT GRADE, IS MADE LESS OBTRUSIVE BY REQUIRED
LANDSCAPING. CREATES A VISUAL A TTACI-IMENT BETWEEN GARAGE AND HOUSE.
AND SERVES AS THE MAIN ENTRY LANDING FOR THE HOUSE. AND ALTERNATE
LOCA TIONS ARE IMPRACTICAL. MOTION SECONDED BY DA VE RIETVELD. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for interim use/conditional use permit
allowinc outside storace. Applicant: Jav C. Morrell/JME of Monticello
It was ad\'jsed that a letter was received by the applicanfs attorney earlier that day asking that th.
item be continued. Grittman ath-ised there was no specific number of times that the applicant could
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes n 07 '0 103
~
., ask for an item to be continued. (Y~eill a(h'ised that internally staff docs re-send puhlic hearing
notices to residents \vithin the 350' radius of the property in cases \vhere items are cl)ntinued for
this length of time. and that there hat! been inquires from neighboring property 0\\ner5 who \wuld
like to attend the public hearing.
A 1\10TION WAS !'dADE BY ROD DRAUSTEN TO CO?'\TlNUE THE PUBLIC IIEARING.
LLOYD I IILGART SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Continued Public I-Iearinll - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allo\vinu
conce 1t stace PUD for 2. four unit townhouse bui Idin!.!s: and Consideration of a ree uest for a
variance to the 30 foot front yard setback in the R-2 District off Maple Street and variance to the 20
loot side vard setback off 3rd Street. Applicant: Emerald Estates LLC
Steve Grittman provided the staff report and stated that the applicant had previously met with statT
to discuss options to come into conformance \vith the city's zoning ordinance. and \\-as able to
comply \vith all items requested by stafr. as well as reducing requests for variances to the sethacks.
other than the 20 feet from Maple Street. Grittman further advised that these items included
deepening the dimension of the recessed garages. slightly widening drivev.;ays and adding curb.
additional turnaround space at the ends of the driveway. and meeting separation differences.
Therefore. staff recommends approval of the concept stage PUD and variance to the sethack along
Maple Street.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no response. the public hearing was closed. There
was discussion on the difference in floor plans that were included in the staff rep0l1 and Grittman
advised that the applicant would be asked to comply with tht: approved plan. He further added that
landscape. grading. drainage. and utility plans will be required at development stage as well.
Grittman advised of several superior elements of this plan that would support granting a PUD such
as added curbing to the drives. which will protect landscaping. as well as architecture that is
superior to what is typically required of town home projects. Frie further thanked the applicant and
staff for their efforts in redesigning the initial plan. putting emphasis on the traditional look of the
neighborhood, and he felt that it would be a positive enhancement to the neighborhood.
Decision 1: Concept Stage PUD for Emerald Estates
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT
STAGE PUD. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE OF PUD RESULTS IN A SUPERIOR
DESIGN TO THAT WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER THE EXISTING lONING.
WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT AGREE TO ACCOMMODATE CROSS
ACCESS FROM THE ADJOINING PARCEL TO THE WEST IF THAT PARCEL IS
REDEVELOPED IN A STYLE SIMILAR TO THE EMERALD ESTATES PROJECT. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
Decision 2: Variance from the front yard setback for Emerald Estates
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR EMERALD ESTATES. BASED ON A FINDING "rHA T TI-IE
..,
- ~,~
Planning Commission Minutes - 070103
.
SHAPE AND SIZE OF THE SITL COMBINED \\'ITH THE CHARACTER OF Tl IE
NEIGHBORHOOD, JUSTlFY THE VARIANCE FROM THE SETBACK STANDARD, DAVE
RIETVELD SECONDED Tl-IE MOTlON, l'v10TlOT\ CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Continued Public Hearinu - Consideration of a r(' uest for denJo ment sta c PlID and
reliminan' Jat for Carlisle Villaue a mixed residential ro' ect. A licant: Shadow Creek
Development
Steve Grittman pro,'ided the staffreport. The applicant presented a revised site plan at the meeting.
which Grittman advised ,vould need to be looked at further as staff had not yet seen it. He
summarized the applicant's request for 3 types of housi ng and stated that this plan had been gone
through several times by both the city council and the planning commission. with the councirs
decision accepting the applicant's proposal for 240 units, pending their ability to adequately
establish a tree preservation plan, Grittman fmiher stated that the applicant feels they would save
upwards of 2/3 of the trees on the site. however a drawing was provided indicating additional trees
that the City Engineer feels may be lost with the type of grading the applicant is proposing. As a
result. planning stafT and City Engineer felt it was important to put together a process to ensure
each site and the trees on that site. which is part of Exhibit Z in the stafT report,
Grittman further added other comments by the City Engineer and staff regarding street layout. as
well as comments related to buildability of Some of the lots regarding usable rear yards. The
Engineer states that the grading plans suggest that some modilications will need to be made to .
several of the lots due to sloping. but Grittman also advised that the applicant has revised their
drawings since the receipt of the City Engineer's comments, From a planning standpoint. staff feels
the project has proceeded to a point where they v.-auld approve development stage and preliminary
plat. with conditions.
Stumpf clarified that the council did vote in favor of the 240 units. but only with a "strict"" tree
preservation plan, There was also discussion on what the city's policy is in keeping street widths at
city standards and Grittman stated if they can keep with the standards without tree loss. that would
be their preference. although the applicant felt there would be more tree loss with the standard
width; he also stated there are some flexibilities with the R-I A standards and felt the ROW is not
relevant. Regarding street width and the addition of sidewalk. it could be a factor as it will require
additional pavement. Grittman advised that a partial response to that was if the city could obtain a
wider easement rather than standard. along with meandering the sidewalk. it might be doable.
O'Neill further stated in talking with Bret Weiss and John Simala. they may be more flexible in the
alignment of utility trenches. but were not supportive of a narrower road, He further noted that the
City Engineer did not feel there would be too many additional trees lost with a wider street. It was
noted that there would be sidewalks throughout the development.
Chair Frie opened the pubic hearing. Mike Gair. MFRA. addressed the Planning Commission and
noted that the most recent suggestions from staff and consultants have produced what appears to be
a plan that has value to the developer. future homeowners. and the city and it's representati,-es, He
noted that the handont he provided this evening inclnded the first concept snbmitted. as well as th.
site plan that the City Planner used for his rep0l1 and the plan that was re\'jsed after receiving
comments from the City Engineer 0/1 6/26/03. He referred to the Engineer's summary regarding
-4-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 070 I '03
the applicant's significant effort. and Gail' felt the project has mo\'(,d fOf\\'ard due also tl) the
\\illingness of staff and consultants to work \\ith the applicant. Gail' further referred to thL' City
Engineer" s comments and hem- the c'oncerns haw been addressed. Regarding tree presenation and
the ability to maintain ROWand lea\'(' buildings at their initial locations. they still feel they \H1uld
be able to accomplish the tree preservation plan.
Regarding item :2 in Exhibit Z. Gair stated they would like to have a 52 ft. ROWand a 96 ft,
building spacing \\-ith a 30 ft, roadway. which \\-ould be the only exception to item 2. He further
commented on parking and that there are a number of arcas in the development that are not in direct
contlict. Gail' acl\'ised that they would be in excess of required guest parking with approximately 38
spaces. \'Crsus the required 33. He then advised of a specific lot that was noted in the City
Engineer" s report and that it was increased to 90 ft. versus the standard 45 ft.
.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There \\'as continued discussion on street widths and
building separation. Gair noted that guidelines state a 25 ft. minimum. 35 ft. average setback
standard and Grittman clarified that 40% of the lots need to be set back 35 ft. Gair questioned the
possibility of 30 f1. being the average and Grittman stated this could be discussed. although he did
not fee I Gail' would need that and stafT is trying to avoid the need for a PUD in this zoning district
by having the 35 1'1. setback as the average. He also stated that staff may be willing to look at these
individually as they come up. Grittman advised that each building pad would be graded separately
versus mass grading. which will aid in the number of trees that will be saved.
The Planning Commission again commended the applicant on their tree preservation plan.
Decision 1: Dcvelopment stagc PUD for Carlisle Village
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE. BASED ON THE COMMENTS
FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR 'llIE JULY L 2003. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
ROD DRAGSTEN Sr:CONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion by Chair Frie to include in the motion adherence to the tree
preservation plan in Exhibit Z. and applicant to submit plans prior to city council review. Lloyd
Hilgart and Rod Dragsten amended their motions accordingly.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Carlisle Village
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE. BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM
THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE JULY 1.2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. \VITI.I
CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AND REVISED PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED PRIOR
TO eIT'!' COUNCIL REVIEW. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION.
.
There \vas further discussion \,'ith Gair asking for clarification on what revised plans they ,vere
referring to. O"Neill advised that they were referring to tht plans that the applicant suhmitted at
-5-
. . . , ~lal.1t1ing Commission !\lmutes -- (~7~I_03 ..
thIs mcetll1g. \ersus the plans that the Plannll1g CommIssIOn had reccJ\'l:u \nth thCll' 1I1lormatlon.
Gair further questioned if all engineering concerns needed to he resolved prior to city council
rc\'ie\\, and O'Neill advised that typically this \HllIld he a condition ofthc approval. prior to final
stage approval.
THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THE 1\10T10i'-J CARRIED Ui'-JANIMOUSL Y.
10. Continued Public I-Iearinl! . Consideration to revie\\' current si!!n ordinance re!!ardin!.! monument
and pYlon siuns in relation to hei!!ht and square footaQ(;:' for possible amendmcnt. Applicant:
Monticello Plannint! Commission
Stcve Grittman advised the Planning Commission that the revised sign ordinance amendments
included in the staff report had two changes. one altered the allowable height of the pylon to 50
feet. and the other added language to define pylon and monument signs. He stated that staff is
comf0l1able with recommending this ordinance amendment.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. and hearing no comments the public hearing was then closed.
There was discussion on language in the proposed ordinance amendment referring to brick and
stone and Grittman stated it was added to provide some architectural direction and not actually very
restrictive. but they wanted to provide some direction on \\'hat staff v,:ould expect of applicants.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE .
AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
BASED ON A FINDING THAT LARGE SHOPPING CENTER AREAS REQUIRE SEPARATE
OPTIONS FOR SIGN COMMUNICA TION. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED TIlE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. Continued Public Hearinu: . Consideration to review R.] A. R.I. R-2. and R.2A setback standards
for the purpose of clarification of the regulations. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission
Grittman advised the Planning Commission that this was a housekeeping item clarifying setback
standards and total side yard distance. When the R-I. R.] A. and R-2A Districts were developed
last year. an extensive set of changes was made relating to varied setbacks and other regulations.
The proposed changes are technical and not intended to change the meaning of the regulations.
Grittman stated this is necessary to head off any concerns over interpretation.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. and hearing no comments the public hearing \vas then closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SETBACK REGULATIONS. BASED
ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S
HISTORICAL APPUCA TION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. AND REFLECTS THE
INTENT OF THE CITY IN PREVIOUS DECISIONS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. .
~6-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 07 () 1'03
Chair Frie stated that he has been repeatedly asked about the status of Home Depot. O'Neill
ad\'ised that two weeks ago he heard from the project coordinator that the de\'e]oper is not looking
further at the Cedar Street site and apparently they have decided to hold off at this time. The plan
no\\ is to look at an April ground breaking. Their issue is negotiating/coordinating \\-ith Wa]mart.
The City is ready to go. but the agreement between those t\vo parties has not been resolved and
Home Depot indicated they \\-ill not move forward until that agreement has been made. Frie further
asked about Target possibly joining hands with I-lame Depot cast of town on the Dahlheimer
property and O.Neill stated there is a developer looking at the Dahlheimer property for a
development. which is actually larger than the Home Depot/Walmart site. He noted that there will
be a workshop on July 141h with the developer which will set the framework for that project and
how the city will be funding the improvements. etc.
Regarding the CSAH 18/I-94 interchange. O.Neill advised that one major change would be that
County Rd 75 would no longer connect to the east side of town because the overpass would become
an underpass. The Meadow Oaks neighborhood would need an alternate route into their
development and this will have to be looked into further. The money could be availahle as of 2005
from MnDOT. The developer has tenants who are ready to proceed. O.Neill again stated it is a
very complex process, but doable.
Richard Carlson asked ahout the new entrance sign erected on Hwy. 25 to the north by the bridge,
stating it was placed in the boulevard. O.Neill had not seen it. although he did see the plans and
advised that this had been approved by the council. as well as other entrance signs that will he
erected.
12.
Adjourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:45 P.M.
LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
cZJt;~
-7-
.
1.
"')
. .,
J.
4.
5.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
5.
Public Hcarinc.: Considenltion of a request for an Interim tlse Permit
allowin2 Outside Stora2c as a principal usc in an 1-2 zoninc. district.
Applicant: .hl" Morrell/.JME of Monticello. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROlTND
The applicant is seeking approval of an Interim Use Permit to utilize a parcel in
the 1-2 zoning district fl.)r outside storage. There are no buildings on the property.
and the only activity ,vould be the storage of equipment and materials. No
structures of any kind are proposed by the applicant. according to the site plan
submitted ",'ith the application. This use is allowed in the district only as an
Interim Use. with a specific date to be established for the expiration of the permit.
and the termination of the use,
For this type of permit. the zoning ordinance sets several requirements.
A specified termination date is documented.
The applicable requirements of Chapter 3. Section 2, General Building and
Performance Requirements are met.
The permit prohibits parking of automobiles.
The permit specifies a gravel surface. suitable for parking of trucks.
The permit specifies that the intensity of visual screening shall be related to the
location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim use.
6. The permit specifies that appropriate setback of necessary fencing and/or setback
of storage shall be related to the location and nature of the storage and the
duration of the interim use.
If approval of the permit is considered. planning staff would recommend an initial
teml of five years. after which period the applicant would need to discontinue the
use. receive a new permit in accordance with the zoning requirements in place at
that time.
Chapter 3. Section :2 provides for the following requirements:
3-2 [E]: Pro\'ides for the submission of drainage plans to the City Engineer. and a
requirement for written approval.
3-2 IF]: Pro\'ides for regulation of fencing where required or proposed.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
3-2 [G] ] -] 3: Prl)\'ides for minimum landscaping requirements.
.
3-2 [G J 2: PrO\'ides for the required submission of landscaping plans.
3-.2 [G] 3: Provides for the clements of an acceptable landscaping plan.
3-2 [G] 1.2: Provides for a bond securing the installation and survival of required
landscaping.
3-2 [H]: Provides for prohibition of Glare caused by lighting on the subject
property.
3-.2 [J]: Provides for regulation of dust created by activities on the site.
3-2 [K]: Provides for regulation of noise created by activities on the site.
3-2 [M]: Provides for prohibition of junk. including inoperable or unlicensed
trucks.
The requirements of Chapter 3. Section 2 are to be complied with in order for the
City to consider an Interim Use Permit under the zoning regulations. Other
generally applicable zoning requirements include 3~3 [G] which provides for
required buffer yards between the use and neighboring incompatible land uses. .
There are several other general performance standards that would apply.
depending on the applicant's anticipated use and development of the site. It is the
intent of this report that all applicable general standards arc incorporated into the
consideration of any permit.
Similar to the previous submission. little detail has been provided on the site plan.
Essentially. the applicant proposes to utilize the entire site for storage. with no
accommodation for use setbacks. landscaping. circulation. or buffering. The
section providing for outdoor storage provides for flexibility in setbacks. based on
the nature of the use. As such. planning staff would recommend that a minimal
setback to the street right of way and adjoining industrial lots be considered. A
five foot setback would accommodate a landscaped edge. and screening.
Screening from the public right of \vay would be expected for any outdoor
storage. The applicant proposes no landscaping per the submitted plan.
finally. a buffer yard of 50 feet is required by the Zoning Ordinance section 3-3
[G]. This section states that no building may be located v,'ithin 50 feet of the
adjoining property line where the transition is between residential and industrial
land uses. A minimum landscaped yard of 40 feet is required as \\'eIL with a
specific amount of planting required in the buffer area (160 plant units per 100
feet of length l. The plan shl)\\'s no separation from the residential area. and no
landscaping or screening as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
.
..,
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of an Interim Lise Permit for Jay Morrell/JME of
lVlonticcllo for outdoor storage.
1.
I\1otion to recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit. subject to compl iance
\\.ith the specific and general standards of the zoning ordinance as noted in this
report. including a term of five years documented by a signed agreement bet\\-cen
the City and the applicant. Significant additional information on this plan \\"lluld
be necessary to show compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. If the applicant
cxpects to have any of these standards forgiven. a variance application should be
filed. It should be noted that planning staff is not aware of conditions on the site
that would support variance approval.
I
....
Motion to recommend denial of the Interim Usc Permit. based on a finding that
thc applicant has not complied with the standards of the zoning ordinance.
including screening. setbacks. and buffering requirements as noted in this repOli.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffreeommends denial of the Interim Use Permit. This prope11y owner has
operated on this site without a permit for some time. The submitted plan indicates
no intention to comply with the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. If denied. the
applicant should be required to return the site to its previous condition and in full
compliance with the zoning regulations applicable to the propeliy.
If the City believes that approval is \varranted. planning staff ",could recommend
that the Interim Use Permit be for no more than a five year term. and would
include conditions note in this report that ,,;ould require full compliance with the
terms of the zoning ordinance. A financial security ensuring compliance with the
conditions would be appropriate.
SliPPORTING DATA
Site survey
..,
.'
.
~
'oq;:
n-J
" ~
l....
~
(i;
.
.
~
-
ci
.....,
~
-
~
~
I.&.J
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
._..~.I
---:-'"'". -,:,~:::-:.-- '8.
/
Ofl
Cl
2
, ~
8 i i
ci I e
IQ ,
"'l;; ~
~I ~
;1 ~
~ I '
~I ?
I ~
lit
<
Cl
!
....
v, I
~ ~
I "
i ~
I
I -
Ofl I
'I
:.~
.....
; 'it!
~, ~
.{
<,
;,~ ,~
'..; !
r
~
o
"!
<.,
m'6(;9
._~....---~--
,.ll~oC;Il~. -_
,jCHI-I"
L6'K9
~~
.~~
""l ....-
~:::t
K~.
~ ~~
~~~
.... ~....
I::) ~~
... llc -
~,
In ~
'"
.... ~
~~ ~
~'<
"'~ l!!
~~ '"'
~b ,-
~
~; ,.
~
~~
.~ ~
~~ '"
'<- .~
..." }
~~ b
~~ -,
i:i
~~ i>
" '0;'
~~ ~
t~'$
,,;.;'"
~_... S?
l:jl'" ::
~~e: '-
'":~ ..,
~
~~o "
"
HjrIJS
.....
.....-:..~
~ III
~~ ~
'-i
~ "<{
10 <'>:e ""l ---
~~ .... ..........._---....
t, II)
-ile
C'? ---'
-.......~----"--
f
-'
A
~
.h
, ~!
'i I~
- E
~ I
,
- - ---........ -~ t
HlbON
5
F91
~ ~
= '"
M]
@ ~
b
i.
. I
" I · ,
I, I ~. ~
~I , ~f ~
i, ' 1:;)'
,J 10',
I "i.
I
I.
I'
I
Iii
I~I
1=',
I Ie
~ ~I ~,~
~ ~I ~ I
I :::.
; 'I"'!
! '~1
, I .
I i~.
, 1~.
i I
,
I
"
I
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
6.
Considet'ation of minor subdivision aPllroval to allow for the followin2: The
creation of two lots with new lot areas of 14.800 SQuare feet and rou2hlv 22.30()
S<luare feet within the Wild ~md Scenic/Shoreland Area of the Cih' of Monticello.
Aoolicant: Kathleen Gauthier (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROllND
Background. Kathleen A. Gautheir is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to
allcn\' for the creation of two lots. The total lot area is roughly' 37.100 square feet. The
site is located \vithin the R-I District. The purpose of the R-1. Single Family District is
to provide for low density. single family. detached residential d\velling units and directly
related complementary uses.
The location of the site is \vithin the Mississippi Wild. Scenic. and Recreational River
System and Shoreland Areas of the City of Monticello. The Shoreland Overlay District
requires additional requirements and performance standards in addition to those within
the R ~ I District. This overlay district regulates the alteration of the natural shore land.
vegetation and topography as \vell as the regulation of the subdi vision of land.
Subdivision Criteria. While the survey provided by the applicant indicates proposed
setbacks and frontage. it does not indicate contour information required for subdivision
approval. Prior to approval of the subdivision. staff recommends that a revised survey be
submitted which indicates contour lines at two-foot intervals prior to final approval. At
this time it is premature to formally approve the subdivision because of limitations in the
application submitted.
Based on the proposed lot location. the applicant's proposed lot is short of the required
area for Shoreland lots. The Shoreland regulations require a minimum of 15.000 square
feet. The proposed parcel with the existing home is just 14,800 square fcet in area.
There would appear to be room to add the required 200 square feet to meet the minimum.
however. such a change may impact the buildable area on the "new" lot which is already
constricted due to required setbacks.
If topographic conditions show that the creation of a new lot (specifically the proposed
house location) would involve the placement of fill and vegetative cutting. a Conditional
Use Permit would be required. Additionally. if it is determined that the proposed lot line
is changed as a result of topographic conditions. the existing lot \vould need to conform
to the impervious surface requirement of 30%,
Adequate setbacks from the buffeline and creek \\ill be subject to the rcvic\\ of the DNR.
To determine appropriate setbacks. the applicant \\ill be required to prO\idc thc location
of the Ordinary l-ligh \\'ater t\1ark (OHWM) \\"ithin the sur\"ey. Building setbacks from
the OHWM are 50 feet. It \\ould appear that thesc setback requirements \\ill greatly
impact the buildable area f()J" construction of a nc\\ house. The buildable area on the new
lot is triangular. and must respect hoth a 50 foot rear setback from the edge of the creek
and a 30 foot setback il'om the front lot line. A setback variance \vould not typically be .
appropriate for a newly subdivided lot.
AL TERNA TI\'E ACTIONS
DECISION:
A. j\.lotion to recommend approval a subdivision request to allow for the following:
The creation of two lots with new lot areas of 15.000 square feet and roughly
21,100 square feet within the Shore land Area of the City of Monticello. This
recommcndation would be based on a finding that the Subdivision is consistent
\vith the requiremcnts of the City's zoning and subdivision regulations. subject to
the relocation of the lot line to ensure at least 15.000 square feet of area for each
parcel.
B. Motion to deny the subdivision request based on a finding that the new building
lot would not have adequate buildable area to construct a standard single family
home in conformance \vith the applicable R-I and Shoreland setback standards.
RECOMMENDA TION
Planning statT does not recommend the Subdivision. Although it \vollld be possible to
design the subdivision with adequate lot area. thc significant building setbacks severely
restrict construction of a new home, resulting in a likely request for setback variances. A
subdivision that creates a lot requiring variances vmuld not be advisable as there are no
guarantees to a future O\vner that the variances would be approved.
.
If the Planning Commission believes that the subdivision may be acceptable. planning
staff would recommend that the applicant prO\'ide a concept drav,-ing demonstrating that a
house conforming to the new R-l. Single Family regulations could be constructed on the
lot prior to approval.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A- Site Location
Exhibit B- Aerial Photos
Exhibit D- Sune\'
.
"
.
~ SEe 4
"'QqI.Y
)
.
I
1
\
\
\
\
fOUTH 1
\
.
\(, ~
\ \
\~
~ '1
~I,
e6dUT, ! I:k! t. "".>".... r J"
,
~
.J ",,-
L -
Creek
I
'I
'tIJA
f" ~
(~
;:s
~, ~
l,
"
'I ,.....
. ~
,.
. ...;
"
~ ' ~
'lJ
"
~
" ':::<
'0 ~
MI
~
..../....
/.... '(,.
.....~
..........~.....
.....~ '(..
..../.....
...../.....
..../....
/....
.....
/....
// ~s1"
// ",1:1
/ 1:1'" /
/// ~,,1:I~S
.......
.....
./
..~//
/
tr;. ~
Ijt.
00 I
~ ,I
..../....
..../....
//....
/....
..../....
....//
'Co
- ':t~
-t
.-1 J.J (
I
, "
I JJ I
I I/IU,,,,-.,, I.'
, I / I
I ~
I ..... ..
& .,
j ."
I
I 'I
5 0.1-42' 00" E 155.5 I I
9 I
I / i
I /
I I
I I
I
/ I
I I
I JJ I l::
I JJ
I I
I
I
~ ~~l
" :: : ...,
" ~~&I
" i~~f
;~ .t~S~ ~~
~
", t, Ii
,,' ~;::r--.
'" ...:{,
'I. ~') ""'fr--O
y ~~
"1 ~.{~ ~~:
t '. Lrj.....
....,-i
C". ""'f "[) ~
~ ""
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 08/05/03
7.
Consideration of yariance from the followin!!: J) Minimum ten foot side Yard
setback associated with accesson' structures. Ar)(llic~tnt: Dayid B. Kranz. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROlTND
Background. Mr. Da\"id 8. Kranz has requested a \"ariance from thl..? City's side yard
setback requirement. Such variance responds to the applicant" s desirl..? to construct an
addition to an existing attached two~stall garage. Specifically. the request is to construct
an additional garage stall in order to store a motor home \'ehicle during the winter.
however the dimensions of the proposed garage are not clear from the submission. The
applicant should clarifY the request in his presentation at the puhlic hearing before the
Planning Commission. The subject site is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residl..?ntial
District.
Variance Eyaluation Criteria. Section 23-3 of the ordinance states that in considering
requests for \"ariance, the Planning Commission and city staff must make a finding that
approval of the \"ariance will not:
1.
J
. ...
_1.
4.
Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
Increase the danger of fire or endanger the puhlic safety.
Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood
or in any other way be contral)' to the intent of the ordinance.
The ordinance further states that a finding of non-economic hardship must be made and
that the property in question cannot he put to reasonable use if the variance is denied.
Prior to formal approval. the applicant should identi(y the proposed dimensions for the
neVi garage. While the pre-existing driveway condition is recognized, the proposed use
\\'ill cause an additional driveway area to be within the right-of-way off of Elm Street.
Hardship. As noted previously. the Ordinance stipulates that a finding of non-economic
hardship, unique to the subject property. must he made to justify variance approval.
Currently. the applicant has a t\vo-stall attached garage. Given the current location of
the garage and the fact that the vehicle parking area in front of the garage is located
within the right-of-way, it is in the opinion of staff that no non-economic hardship has
been demonstrated by the applicant to justify variance approval.
.
\\'hi Ie the req lIest for \'ariance is to all 0\\' storage of a Illotor home, the appl icant' s current
t\H)-stall garage does not constitute an undue hardship. FUl1hermore. the t\\'o-stall garage
is consistent \\ith other uses \\"ith the area in size and dimensional standards.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
.
Finally. it \\"ould clearly be possible to construct a garage on the property that could meet
the required setback standards. The variance would appear to be requested as a matter of
convenience to the applicant. rather than a true hardship in putting the property to
reasonable use. The current condition results in driveway access and parking that may be
considered to have an impact on public safety. Expanding the garage as proposed \\ould
increase the concern.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
DECISION:
A. Variance Approval. Motion to approve a variance from the minimum 10-foot
setback requirement to allo\l-,- a garage to be placed 6 feet from the property line
subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit C.
1. Findings
a. Approval of the variance will not:
(1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
(2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
(3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. .
(4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this
ordinance.
b. The subject prope11y cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance
request is denied.
B. Variance Denial. Motion to deny a variance from the minimum side yard setback
requirement.
1. Findings.
a. Non-economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the
requested variance.
b. The expansion of the driveway use within the public right of way would be a
danger to public safety.
RECOMMENDA TION
Because approval of the requested \'ariance \\ould further encroach on the right-of-\\"ay
of Elm Street. and because hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the
requested \'ariance. planning staff recommends denial of the requested variance. It is .
recommended that the applicant look at side loading the garage in order to avoid \'Chicle
parking conflicts on the righH.1f-\\'i1Y.
..,
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
C. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A- Site Location
Exhibit 13- Site Aerial
Exhibit C - Sitc Plan
Exhibit Z - Recommended Conditions if approved
"
-)
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
.
VARIANCE CONDITIONS
(]) The accessory huilding shall be constructed to bl' similar to the principal
building in architectural style and building materials.
(2) The combined size of the garage area shall not be more than 1.200 square feet
unless a Conditional Use Permit is applied for and approved.
(3) The size and dimensions of the garage shall conform with applicable
performance standards prior to the issuance of a huilding permit.
(4) The garage entrance should face north (side loaded).
.
Exhibit Z
.
.f
/
.)
\
"
\ , ';0,. '....,N
;l!;~ --;-""!i ~M::'.'IZK~.).... 'Ih~
w. 1I"\i~ 0:,'
~\~)
.
k.... ''''.''.~
'.
, "
\ "'.
"'-, "
<\ ""'"
!;~\'....,!~ "
"'~h,I~ '.
'I' "-, 1~-'-,~' .',/, ".
~ ~---_l' '.
{',..o ' / I ' "
. ~-r-~ \. ~~,
'~~{...>-4k?'i./;.' h '. '",--_
. .,l""J;~'r;(f/~ .~ 'i"/~'~ ". ~ ~
-~i"-":" '/:-<...iS"" ' ,'/-... " \
R.4 ~...t~~ t:"4. ~ .("",-'L r0;:. ......
J. , .'" 1... l ';"iro --1Il:..' . ,
~ ! a:l~" "j- ..ffi/l""'i;:..<q.".....--J ,. "
; ',:~'t7",... ~;R-:st~""~.. . '''" ".
'~d,: "i/!:;,.l'~:::..., ' y.. '.i"'J!. '.' ~.:;, /11 "'''' ',,-
.,'....' .- 7~ ~'17..,r... 'l1:-j- J .
""" ,'" :!;';;~~$/~~Jr ,:,{!).'?-k, I 'S.. S
'"., '$!'/.llJ:./:';-/~-1-1i?-;.1.,' /;' ' .. . ". 1 ____
I AI I "-'''-- ""'--..', , "1.lr' .,'''j'--;s!:'"",;,<:,/.- ;" ......-..~,... "
t UII " "II, I I' ~ ~ '1ft' ........-:, '"
f: BI'v)! I 1/- .....-'~~' '.:.}~~::}!'~':"~~':A. ..~~ '/1 , >r- '-';'-P-. '~
t' vu- ""'1W ~'''''''' fl. '~,'" p'" '''~: :?!t,...~, ,....
~~ "'- I ~..... ,....l 1/,1 ~~ ,""~ ,If"!,~~'".,,; ..... 41~41
,- ~'" ~ ~ ""'- '. l:' k" ...ft;j. ,{ . '~,-.'( ...' ' ....
, v!,-} of/; , m'N // /:{f""l , '.1 'N '-'" '.;.. '.
0,,"//;";0;;. III ,', .... '1'", / I ,/'f )~,. '<, to> ......
IJ".1-!.:!> If t'f- I ,f 'j.., 'r ~,t~'d '/'~" .;'{;t-:,..<,<,-" ......
.{ 1"1/1) I~/ 'Si' Ii.:,,/ ::.. 1"/' I ~ '--":'._ ' ,'J~'ii:/ 1/",.:-,( .. ......~
' ' .. 1~1 ~ ~-'..... ~ ~,'.! ..", ... .1..-"f.f;;J. 1;. ~. .4:.r '~1"V't-
!..:-.',,::.... j/ · I ~/?7?;4~- /i/j;fj ;1/$. ".'>. "" ';'/ r":~ iii (:-<.j:;
1 "" ""'-(, / . ~'" " ,/,. ...j<!!','J,'J!!>-! / r--. "'-I, /;.; /' / 1&
~'f';~l':o' 7,~P{T. 'M-!j! /"r"j '4;"'.,;; It',/'i II''''' > ,,'~ /:.' '1k~' , \
" "'" ;,' ,7.", 'J,. I');;."" ,,.. //j '>'/0, ~/,';,.',; / ;-.. '_ 1 If ;'
, '11' "-""-, r:;;: /(J}-I'1:/ t1~~ e:e)1'I/?/);'7;~ 1/177/ i:O ;'1':' -<l c" ~':'" /
1/ 'm..c.~ ''<:j /1'/>-" ~ !(/firJ!y'fj:<;'",-- -4f li/'4'!J;Jf!!fjr;>?~ /l;1r:?~;if!)J'/ / i< 'J ('
" "'(,-:,"'1 r.' ~~II.V/'0.:-;~'I?'- ,,""'.!,l /.; II//I~.. '-'.'i..!{J;~;'ml, 117 ':
- ~ -. - ,~ .. "---",,: Ii< ""'1 "'I~, (4" '''1 [."'">--- ~ M/ I ~>'f;-;, ""/ '1>/'
" ,:~,j"/ "'))22' ""'--!,;J; {~/ / 1'f:o ~/ Ii ~ >/'.7 ... , I //1; / /
pI ...' ~f"" \ .....J ,'" fv ...........-.J;! 1.t""1 ~! A.4:..... ,.. II f..Arr '4~
J ..-,., 'f ' r-..,.,,' 'I' ',.. "",' I~ I'"', ,i<:,. ,,011, {:/.;' "(" ,1;
-, ;,;"" ~.,' /' , '~ ~ n' ;.:t.'., / '.... "" 1/ .' <1:'. '~IIIIf/ 111'1
;-~ . " ;--., I I' "':0'.. ',/l "m I; ,.)'..." ' ~ ...,. "". I; 10,,, "- '';;;-:.1'- /( -,,'" ", 4;
.~'-:- ., ..:. ----................... '--""-.0 );-~~'i t--i ,J{! ! '..,--..~,! ~>~~ :..~, ~-r......,~ I'~ r;-, II- ~ ':W Ij-.r.}-
. " ~ ~ I, ~~ / '0/;::''i-..' ,t; , " ,1.'<:" 'I" ',l/ Ii" " "" ""'", /iff.illll"
'.' '.,";'!' 'I ----..... ,~"""" Ip'/.;/I:';' ~ -.:.,''m,,_',' ;,I.'h~ ~' If:~t>l' J'/ :",...." "'I.;/)/; r_~
..-" 'r"~ '" "Z..,I I '1, " . III ' '1......... "/ ." I" ' 'io / / !<l-1.
--,~!~~ I. ~ / f~!") ..... I. tr-. I.:~ '....... l/.':-..,.' I.,,' 4,;;0 ~-...:... ~ ~~ 1m" ,;~/
ro'''., i'"';1 j'" !....'~--...;<l';I.I'''- /'....",'~ ,r,> ~!~ /."' '. ~ ',J /:1."-,..1 . '!---r :0
''':I''~~('~ ;;'I""/,k"""'.-!'~ ': _--{, ,'''-, "'< ,I.'i/!, ~'...~.. ,.7 '''/ ,k -.../.
:':-~'~,.~):'"",' I('>li jJ;'<?"','7--. '~f.(,1':',,"'--._:J t","-...;:.Jt<~,,:,:,,:~1 /~ .....'h ~''''':', / //'I fi.,">-...
T '.. __" I S 'i-,jf" ' I " I /1" "'" '" / ., , , / ~,;;. .. ~" 'j. /.,,' II
- , ,I Ii/?f,;-"',I / ~ ,',,' 1',,:......... ''-.., "", ^'_ /~ .......,~... 0i
!! r' .......~~lP I,. ,}-''-.. ~ n C'h '''...( ;>, ---.:"'),)' ~r -.....; 1./)"-7'1
(/R/~1'/<' ' 1../ /(!.,'i,~/;'}."f"~'1'/,'~=-(~~s<"~~:! /.t.fI;J. I' N'~wr
U....LJ " '1 " " ;i r)~ ~ " /" I A;... , / Ii"
.... i "" " ,.,~I 1"1 1/ I ~, 'I / /
f-'" ; ''''1f~ 10~ ''--../$ If'> ,'. J t---..,'--v.! ,J j.y. i/~,
I '.......~ /ll&:::r.1@');." '<Q I?'L</~ 1 I /<J..i(~
~I ""-~'fi /)!~ ;! l;;;>~' /'~"'" J
~ ~""/"I"/~ II......... I
~~ ---== ';::"J ".i'f':--I,' /!; iv', '..~ t. t"" ...:..
/... ,.~- ~I /!-', ~ '_ !' >II ,",,,
----______ i---" .. 9/;1_ . - .--l/ ~ _~ ~ <l:- ..'-
I i -Q .i!7 ~ ':1 "j
_____ ' i >...,.~, Irlr.. J j;"" :4:~.' .
__________ ~ I I ,.,~ ~ ~ I"r--.....~
~\ ...... /',1 ..........., j~"~ ~_
~__ HIGHWA-;----~" ~.:l~;1 ~~ :i -! - i i
ir II _____ ~~I
" ; i ---------_______ i i~:;
1 I ---- I ~ -".J If ' ; p .
~--.!'. / I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' &;;;;j
,.... ---- i- - - - - ------- :,j":: '~' '''--J '~, 9 ,ti
I, '" "i ~_J. r'
· ----- r- ~- ~" 1_'- '." ~ ~,'", '-
i ---,.--::----= lot..__';,;~_ "'-, ~-"S !VO, 9,
r=i~] :: ", ._~--____
b:f:j' \ -,;;-
--~ ,L.'Ll, ~~".';-f;~~-:
~\f . f) "1' .. iL!l~.':
, :----------+--i---.- THOMAS
. \1 ' .', , i;--~------=-'
____L_ ~ ~!:-'":.- --- '- " ____J~_______
.......~....,......
.
.
.,,~.
':i',-
.' .~~..,.
" \.",'i'~
,'jJI.f"......
,it1~
'~.-
'~::}~;.:,:
~. ...',,::.....,...:.:;
",~':i,::~""';' -~
j~:-
i:.i)~=_~=
~
.......
.......
~
.......
,
c!:
'-"""""""
.......
,
.......
.......
'-.......
,~ ~
"
,
'"
o
-~
I
.i'
.......
,
~
f ..~ .~-:;'I;: ~:--
,/ -
'I
/j
'I
"
,'t,
~""
s~
~J"
I
"" ' '
"r". /
rj
o
'R
/,
<-'1'1/
\',
/
/
/
S
<>0
OS,
04;;
c.,
, P>~
" .0, 0
""~
0..
"0
q;
",
~
f\J
/ '
/ '"
I, l
/ if
/ -~,
j./
~
-.......
,
,
......
/
/
. "
"
:)
f\J
~
'lti
,
~
t>
~
,
...
.......
.......
"
.4
"
, )
~
......
VI
,
"
~
,
.......
,
.......,
....
..............
I.
, l
~
.......
.......
........
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -.08/05/03
8.
Consideration of a request for preliminan' plat appronll of Monticello Marketplace
2nd Addition and consideration of approval of concept and de\'Clopment sta2e ClJP
Pl:O allowing a restaurant, ret~iil and tin' store in the B-3 district. Applicant:
Brendscl Properties, Inc. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROl1r\D:
Me Brendsel is applying for prcliminary plat approval of Lot I. and Lot 2 of Block 1.
t-.lonticello Marketplace 2nd Addition, The propel1y. located at the corner of High\\'ay 25
and School Boulevard. is zoned B-3. Highway Business District and is guided for
commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan, The request includes consideration of
concept and devclopment stage PUD allowing a restaurant and a retailltire store. as well
as cross easement and joint parking agreements between not only the two proposed lots.
but the car wash and corner store to the south. which is Monticello Marketplace 1 Sl
Addition.
The retail use is allowcd in the B-3 district as a commcrcial planned unit development
and the restaurant use is allowed with a conditional use permit. The applicant will submit
an application for a conditional use permit for the restaurant p0l1ion of the site at the time
a restaurant uscr is secured and detailed plans can be submitted. The follov,'ing analysis
pays particular attention to the site as a whole and the interaction between the separate
uses.
Preliminan' Plat The approximately 2.83 acre sitc is currently Outlot A of Monticello
Marketplace 1 st Addition. The applicant is proposing to subdivide Outlot A into two
parcels. Lot 1. Block I is to be 1.6 acres in area and Lot 2. Block 1 is to be 1.2 acres in
area. The B-3 district does not have a minimum lot area requirement. The district does
have a minimum lot width requirement of 100 feet which both lots exceed.
Land Use The applicant is proposing an 11.058 square foot retail building. attached to a
5.977 square foot tire store on Lot 1. Block 1. Lot 2. Block 1 is proposed to consist of a
4.4 71 square foot drive-in restaurant. As previously stated. both uses are allO\\ed in the
B- 3 district. the drive-in restaurant as a CUP and the retail use as a commercial planned
unit development.
Commercial Planned Unit Development The proposed multi-tenant retail and tire store is
allowed in the B-3 district through the planned unit development process. The purpose of
a PUD is to promote innovation in design in hopes of creating a higher standard of
development. It is the planning commission' s discretion to determine if the submitted
building design is sufTicient to be deemed a higher standard of building. The applicant
has informed stall that rock faced block. brick and stucco wi II be used. although the
building design may change.
Parkin!.! The zoning ordinance sets specific parking requirements for each Lise as follows:
Planning COl11mission Agenda - 08/05/03
.
Lise I Requirement I Required
I
I ,
Retail I Min, 10 spaces I per I 85
I employee on ma:-.:imum
I '.
shin (minus stacking) I
Restaurant I I per SO kitchen I IOS
I
I I per 40 restaurant dining I
Carwash ! r\lin. 10 spaces I 10
I
Ddi ---r- I per 80 kitchen I ..,..,
--
I I per 40 restaurant dining I
(nvu. I per (0)
Convenient Store I per ::WO 15
TOTAL REQUIRED: 240
TOT AL PROVIDEJ): 245
The above table includes the Carwash/Convcnience Store/Deli in its calculation. as all
three buildings on the Monticello Marketplace will be have a joint parking and access
agreement. The site as a whole exceeds the required 140 parking stalls. All stalls appear
to meet thc dimension requirements and staff is comfortable with the ovcrall circulation
pattern of the site.
Landscapinl.! The zoning ordinance sets out specific requirements for landscaping in
Section 3-1[G]. For commercial use. the ordinance requires I overstory tree per 50 lineal
feet of site perimeter. The overstory trees need to be 1.5 inches in diameter (Deciduous)
or at least 6 feet in height (Coniferous). The total perimeter of the Monticello .
Marketplace. including the car wash. is 1.553 lineal feet. The required amount of
overstory trees for the site is 31. The applicant has provided 19 overstory trees, two short
of the required amount. Staff is generally comfortable with the overall landscape design
with the requirement that the two deficient overstory trees be added to the plan along
either School Boulevard or Highway 15,
Si!l11al!e The landscape plan shows a pylon sign located on the car-vvash site at the School
Boulevard and Highv.:ay 25 intersection. a pylon sign along the Highway 25 side of the
retail building. and a monumcnt sign along the Higl1\,vay 25 side of the restaurant. The
applicant informed the City via a letter that the signage on both the restaurant and the
retail building will be backlit with individual letters and some company logos
incorporated into the signs. The monument will be a maximum of 50 square feet and the
pylon sign is proposed to bc a maximum of 25 feet in height and 150 square feet in area.
The applicant will need to submit a detailed signage plan for all signage on the site.
showing material and dimensions. The applicant should be aware that the maximum
height of pylon signs abutting Highway 25 is 22 feet. The allO\ved square footage of the
signs along 15 is based on the following equation: (3.03 feet of pylon sign area is allowcd
per e\'ery 10 feet of lineal frontage). As such. tht: proposed pylon sign for the retail site
is not to exceed a maximum of 5] square feet in area. The monument sign is not to
exceed 50 square feet in area.
Trash Enclosure and Sno\\' Remo\al The locations of the trash enclosures haye been
defined on tht: silt:. Tht: trash enclosures arc to be constructt:d of the same material as
.
..,
Planning COIllmission Agenda - ()SIOS/03
.
that of the principal structures. The applicant should submit a description as to thl'
methods and location of removing and storing snow.
AL TER1\A TIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Preliminary Plat
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the applicable
conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
,.., Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat based on findings discussed
at the public hearing.
3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat subject to additional information.
Decision 2: Commercial Planned Unit Developmcnt allowing a multi unit rctail
use in the B-3 district.
.
1. Motion to recommend approval of commercial planned unit development
allowing a multi-unit retail use in the B-3 district subject to the applicable conditions
listed in Exhibit Z. based on the finding that the use is appropriate for the zoning district
and the proposed site.
, Motion to recommend denial of the commercial planned unit development based
on the findings discussed at the public hearing.
3. Motion to table action allowing a commercial planned unit development subject
to additional information.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Monticello Marketplace
Second Addition and the proposed commercial planned unit development. The site is
zoned appropriately for the proposed uses. The plans submitted. with adherence to the
conditions listed in Exhibit Z, comply with the City" s requirements outlined in the zoning
ordinance.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
Exhibit A - Applicant's letter ofrequest
Exhibit B - Site Location Map
Exhibit C - Site Aerial Photo
Exhibit 0 - Site Plan
Exhibit E - Landscape Plan
Exhibit F - Building Elevation Plan
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
:1
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
Exhibit z: Prclimina~' Plat, Conditionalllse Permit, and Planned Unit
Development Conditions of Approval- Monticello Marketplace Second Addition
] . A revised landscape plan. pro\'iding an additional 1 overs tory trees along either the
High\\'ay 15 or Schoo] Boule\'ard site perimeters should be submitted and appnwed by
the City StafT prior to submittal of the final plat.
2. Landscaping of the parcel per revised landscape plan prior to issuance of a building
permit or via a landscape bond.
3. A lighting plan meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Section 3-2[H]. is
submitted and approved by City Staff prior to Final Plat.
4. An in depth signage plan, showing construction material and dimensions for all signage
",-ithin the site. meeting the requirements of Section 3-9 of the Zoning Ordinance. is to be
submitted and reviewed by City Staff. prior to Final Plat approval.
5. final building elevations and layout plans are to be submitted to City staff prior to final
appro va] .
6. All impervious surface is to be curbed with continuous curb not less than six inches high
above the parking lot or driveway grade as required by City Code.
7. The grading. drainage. and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
8. Recommendation of other City Staff, including the City Engineer.
EXHIBIT Z
4
BRENDSEL
PROPERTIES, INC.
COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT REAL ESTATE
July 15, 2003
Jeff O'Neill, Asst. City Administrator
CITY OF MONTICELLO
505 Walnut Street, Suite I
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Request to Plat 2ft<! Phase of Monticello Marketplace
Dear Jeff,
.
This letter is meant to further describe our request for a pun and Plat Approval on the 2ad Phase ofthe land
parcel at the northeast comer of School Blvd. and Hwy. 25.
The building design submitted is meant to be a general design, with some flexibility on just how the
exterior materials will be used in the final design and construction drawings. Rock faced block, brick and
stucco will be used.
Since we have not secured a restaurant for the site as yet, that building design would conform to the same
material requirements when that restaurant is secured.
The lighting has not yet been selected, but it is our intention to compliment any street lighting selected by
the City.
Signage on both buildings would be backlit, individual letters, with some company logos incorporated into
individual signs. The monument sign at the restaurant would be a maximum of 50 sq. ft. The Pylon Sign
at the Strip Center we request be allowed at a maximum of 25 ft. height and a maximum of 150 sq. ft. of
double-faced signage. A design for the pylon is in the works.
.
14860 Fillmore Ave. N.W.
Clearwater, MN 55320
320/558-2167 Phone
320/558-2157 Fax
~A
"'-.; . .
/1 I /: 2,.7 /',jI.. / /'~';::jli/ '~(~I ~~.\
, ;' I 1:,~'.( _ )Ofl~ ...~ > ".
f / I . ( .~~, .
. . ./ / . /. . ~ '''It-,.,.\ 1._
I A . .: . ',' :-': -. '...'..~ . .........~
, . I.~ '" =-- ..-"" I
-. -::-' ~ .-' I I __.. I
'1 ~~ ~ ~ "1 "
:.r - .,
- ~.. . . ..... ~ ...~,..
~PAR>: ..,..... ~........
- ~ ._~ ..:-'-- ~
~ ~ ~-:=-- k::"<L~I' -
; I I 1~'1)
. / . =_ "i@:-jt';'
'" 1 I I ..
'1 D ~., ~ 10.00 :. _
J l/~' .- '["">1 ~'il~
. . I ~ '-
J~:/t _ f .J';
j j h~;~~
1 . 1 . 1~~
DUNDAS ROAD ~ ____~'
"0
.~.'...............
"
, r
~
I
DUNDAS ROAD
~
"
"--
.::l....
J
.1
~
..
PUtllDAS
~~ : j -. I \ ~-:~ J 13 c}
H. ~. ~ ~\\ ~;J ~ a .?~e .
~n!; I ! \\ I! ~ b-c,<.
'I ; · \'. I z ~
ir-=-=--.=--.:.-~.-=--t-.~" -~ ~ t;~;
~ l - . . \ _. ~
~~-PJ:':~~;~.J.;.~~. . . - ~7:"'j"LJ-: .;
1"""1 ~.~-"""'..1' ~_~'{I;I;:;.C._
I ,"''\l, 0. . . ""'1"/ ;. L..:.J
,~ 'J ~ (' ~ll,. i::\:.t;=r- . I
Sl~~~ P\~"\0_ S,r::
f:~', u..( \C:B\~f\Y1i'~ Uttl
) ,-~ (.'.1",1::) Elem.
.' tiJ" ':..~'. "
..J_ .-" -.." ~';'." '.
- -. . '. "I \
-- , -:-.... =- - .-
r
:.,
-
...
l~"':.'V...:~
[..../:,,'
1~!r-:1'
~_~trJ~
~-~""'I:: .
'11' -~r:. ~
t7SriRt!::dL
r:
\<.\ein
j
;
Ct>"'l'!'en:::.P
.....s !f-f.c;?u.4>pv<s-
far... J--
! l>:::e~/t"-{~r
I
I
!
,
0'
'VG::>
1<"( ~
~
P9....~e..t> ~ 0\.1.5 \ I..::J c"..
be veLor^:-e.-vI
I;J.D ~ ACR-.e..S
I
I
I
I
/t
~I
i.t
E
8B
.
8
-.......
-........
.........,........
..................
r
- IS
/
/
/
/
/
~/
~
/
IS
/
U>
0-
m
i mmll ~
~ i;~l:;€ - E
E ..;~ IJ~g ~ l;
3 U"fll g '61 1:
t ~e~ . ~ m "-
Ie !I~2 ....~ () ()
:t 6 . i ~<< c .
t . '" I~ _ ,_
I... w~
~
if
...~
~,
o
-I
(Jl
o
m
I
!Yo.
2S
/
~
t' .
~
..0 !
....
~(J1
to
.:; if! "i'.)'" II
>>'~.... -.t-
o IU
1m
If --j
r- I !!iifd I w lo-
I' .. F
....g
It>r i
~~ ...
L ~ p.. t
!!;!!; ~
'W t>t>
IG' rr !
'r f
i~ (PIP
~~ --l
I ~ .. j{j
;rn
I .t /f(j) .
0 -'I --l
I 0 It
Ie 1 1 i(J
rn
I 'IS.v
t g
I", !
Ii
~~-~~-------.._~. --'-
---lOIJ1il)---lil)
-~ 1:> t.J m "" m
STREET
&
9/
f/ '.../
/ "
ff ;~. ii
I / if
/ l,
...~ / #'/ "'ill
'-... / : ~r
-'. / 0
/ -I
IS>
......... '~........ / / ij
111
) ~..,- / /
I il/
,..1 Ala.
/ r" .1. 1-.
A-
I ... "f// "!'. .,' 2$
I .f
/ I}<o bj/
/ f' /, ,.
I J' .
m/ ()VJ , i/
I l'
0-<' / #'/
-II r9 . ;'
l I "
.~ I
/ ,'~
,
/
. ,',.
1>. / / ,
/tf/. ;' ,/
" I ,
\- /v .
.", b /f' /
..{4'" ,: /
", /~/n/ / /
/1' . / "v
. I,
to
,,'
IS~
~fR
()
~~
YJE
~J:>.
(Jl
1:
.
p:
-/
o
Ii s m
~l IS ~
lilS;Jl J:>.
IS~ c
~" iU
II ~
!tD'."".
j
~ i
~ IS
iji ~
G' ~
w I
~ "'r
;m
~(Jl :
:!/ -/
'0
~ J , i1I
,...~..
g
~
~l
'.'-C"
STREET
&
f
~
m~ c
~ ~ l ~
\-
o l 1 ~
III ~
, ~ \i1
~
*
d
~
\Jj
J
J
;
I"
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 08/05/03
9.
Public Hcarin2: Considenltion of a request to amend the Monticello
Comprehensin Land Vse Plan and Consideration of an amendment to a
planned unit denlopment. Applic~mt: Otter Creek LLC. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND B..\CKGROUl\D
Otter Creek LLC is seeking an amendment to the approyed concept pun for the
Otter Creek deydopment. along with an amendment to the City's Comprehensive
Plan that \\ould change the land use plan in the Chelsea Road \\'est area bet\yeen
90th Street and County lIighway 39, The current land use plan calls for industrial
over much of the area, ,,-ith some potential consideration for transitional land uses
adjacent to the existing rural residential uses to the soutlnyest.
'rhe City has had an cxtensiye program of seeking appropriate locations for
industrial development. The most recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
adopted recently following the termination of the Orderly Annexation Agreement.
incorporated the industrial dc\'clopment goal in this area by designating land
along Interstate 94 and Chdsea Road for industrial uses. Some commercial uses
have also been permitted to encroach into this plan. including the 1-94 exposure of
the Otter Creek property.
Otter Creck successfully convinced the City to accept this commercial pattern as a
pal1 of its overall pu~ proposal. This proposal "tiered" the industrial uses based
on proximity to the freeway. The PUO also identified the proposed residential
area as an area for future study and hinted at possibly mid density residential uses
as a transition between the R-1 area and the industrial area. The new. more
refined adjustment to the PUO would establish broad areas of residential uses in
the areas south and west of the power transmission lines. establishing 19 acres of
the site to a residential designation.
The proposed change would result in a residential edge to the project area. as
contemplated under the original pu~. but would raise several other issues.
Because the long border of the proposed residential subdivision area would border
the power line. the City would need to consider whether changing to this pattern
would result in an attractive neighborhood, While power lines are common in the
community. putting additional land in that condition may not be necessary. when
there are several other areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan for residential
use. many without power line issues.
A second issue relates to the concept plan proposed by the applicants. The plans
show 97 "detached townhomes" on the 19 acres. \\'ith lot sizes of 36 feet wide by
110 feet deep (approximately 4.000 square fect). The City rect:ntly adopted a
district (nR-~A") to accommodate this type or use \\ith 45 feet \\'idths and 7.500
square feet of area. This proposal is significantly more dense than that district
\\ould permit. For attached tCl\\l1houses. the City applies a standard of 5.000
squan: feet or lot area per unit.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
As a final issue. this PUO amendment would appear to be some\yhat consistent
with the concept PUO. but at odds with the City's long-standing goals for
industrial deyelopment. Giyen the proximity to the rest of the industrial area. as
well as the Chelsea Road corridor and the power transmission lines. planning staff
believes that the transmission line corridor \yould be better left \\ith its industrial
designation.
.
At TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
designating the subject 19 aeres to Mid-density Residential. based on a
finding that the surrounding land use and transportation pattern supports
the residential designation.
2. Motion to table the request and direct the developer and planning staff to
prepare concept plan revisions that incorporate industrial development
along the power lines. thereby reducing the area proposed for residential
uses. Motion based on the finding that the surrounding land use and
transportation pattern supports the residential designation.
..,
.).
Motion to recommend denial of Comprehensive Plan Amendment. based
on a finding that an industrial designation is supported by the City's long-
term industrial development goals. as well as the existing conditions of the
area. including proximity to major commercial! industrial roads and power
transmission lines.
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative 2. This alternative places industrial land near the
power lines and maintains some area for residential uses as a transition between
existing residential development and the future industrial land. As noted in the
report, there are several other areas designated for residential uses that are better
suited for residential use. By leaving the industrial around the pO\ver lines. a
major portion of the site is thus reserved for industrial uses as identified in the
Comp Plan.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Aerial Photo
Exhibit B - Narrative description from Developer
Exhibit C - Concept site plan
Exhibit 0 - Copy of Otter Creek Concept PUO
.
..,
.
.
.
07/21/2003 16:12
BIRCHLAND DEV. CO.
PAGE 03
9522490790
Otter Creek Crossings Business Park
PUD Concept Amendment Narrative
The approved concept PUD for this 185 acre project contained the following objectives:
1. Create an attractive extension and transition of uses in the high visibility 1-94 corridor.
2. Provide the City of Monticello with a development plan that is flexible enough to locate large
industrial uses or smaller ones depending on changes in market demand.
3. Extend the Chelsea Road frontage road concept to improve traffic movement between
Highway 25 and CR 39.
4. Buffer existing residential areas (particularly Bondhus Addition).
5. Locate infrastructure that will open up large areas for development beyond this project.
6. Protect and enhance existing wetland areas to serve as an amenity to the business park and
community .
This proposed amendment proposes no changes to the project's overall objectives.
ProDosed Amendment
Recently, the City has begun to look in greater detail at some major City infrastructure projects
within this project (Objective #5) and the proposed extension of School Blvd., in particular, has a
significant impact on the original concept plan. The City has already extended some stormwater
facilities into areas of this project that are not yet annexed and the City will likely be looking for
more detailed planning soon for the location of ilS proposed sanitary sewer lift station that will
serve developments beyond the area contained in this planned unit development. Increasingly, it
seems that the concept PUD should be updated and additional annexation should occur to take
into accoWlt the City's street, storm water and sacitary sewer facility needs as well as to provide
flexibility to the City to annex areas beyond this project which are currently not adjacent to City
borders.
In the first concept approval the project was divided into three areas-A, B and C. Areas A & B
had more detailed discussion, uses and requirements and the developer is proposing no changes
to those areas other than the revision of the street network due to the extension of School Blvd.
Area C, in the original approval, was identified as a future study area that needed to be sensitive
to adjacent residential uses (Objective #4) and it was indicated that this area should be more
concerned with buffering adjacent residential U5t:S, possibly with the addition of some additional
housing. .
The dominant feature in Area C is the large easement for overhead power structures and the
irregular shape that they create in relation to the property lines. This Concept PUD amendment
1
byh(blt q - E
_..!I/21/213133 16; 12
952249137913
BIRCHLAND DEV. CO.
PAGE 134
proposes to use that large easement as a logical buffer area betWeen the residential uses to the .
south and west of Area C and the non-residential uses to the north and east of Area C. This
proposed amendment shows a density of 5.24 units per acre for this triangular shaped area,
although planning of the local street system and lots are only conceptuaL The land will likely be
marketed to a development company that specializes in residential projects and the residential
developer will complete the detailed, development stage PUD planning process.
.
.
2
1.....-..._ ......_..1
.
~)
r
J
1
I~
itn~
~O
g ~
::to (l)
n ~
('l)
~n
" ~
2g
~
n
a
r:/l
r:/l
S.
.
(j
o
=:s
n / //
(l) ./ /
/
~
~
~
~
~
o
S.
~
~
tv
w
~I-+-
wi
L
.
-,
I
Cl i ~ :;ilZ~
.... ~Ec:>
7: c ~~t
~ ~ t
,., ~~
:.. :..
c:> c:
t ~
,., iil
:.. I
! N ;;
... i,. e
:.. ~ ...
!;l 1; ~
,., :<I :<I
III ,., ,.,
III III
"'"" -
..."p
-:rl::
lf~:..
~[;l&l
" ,.,
>> III
n
:<I
,.,
Gxhibi+ q - c...
I
---'
I
~
-<
tv
w
~~..-
L'" I
~ ~
No ~ ;
~ :;' ~
~ .
1/1 ~ ~
lil ~
I
.
'h
"
r-\...
~.
~
"
~
C
"
~
~
.
l;xhibit q - ~
,
.
.
.
Otter Creek Crossings Business Park
Description of Approved Concept Stage Planned Unit Development
Development Projects Require Development Stage PUD Approval
Obiectives:
The Otter Creek Crossings Business Park is a large project ( 185 acres) and is intended to fulfill
the follO\\'ing objectives:
. Create an attractive extension and transition of uses in the high visibility 1-94 corridor.
. Provide the City of Monticello with a development plan that is flexible enough to locate
large industrial uses or smaller ones depending on changes in market demand.
. Extend the Chelsea Road frontage road concept to improve traffic movement between
Highway 25 and CR 39-.
. Buffer existing residential areas (particularly Bondhus Addition).
. Locate infrastructure that will open up large areas for development beyond this project.
.
Protect and enhance existing wetland areas to serve as an amenity to the business park
and community.
Sub-areas:
There are three areas of the proposed business park that have unique characteristics. A Planned
Unit Development approach is being utilized to provide the flexibility to take advantage of those
unique characteristics.
Area A:
This area has superior visibility from 1-94 and is immediately adjacent to the existing commercial
businesses on Chelsea Road. The goal in this area is to provide development that has uses and
aesthetic standards that are compatible with the adjacent commercial businesses and provide a
good image of the City to travelers on 1-94.
Although the underlying zoning in this whole project is based on the 1-1 A standards. the
Concept PUD calls for building types in this area to be held to a more stringent design standard.
Specifically. the PUD eliminates the use of exposed metal or fiberglass finishes in Area A rather
than allow its use on up to 50% of the wall surfaces. This will make the building design much
more consistent with the commercial areas to the east. In addition. the setbacks in this area may
be the same as in the commercial areas to the east so that there is a consistent "feel" and massing
along the frontage road and 1-94.
finally. in order to provide a softer transition of uses. provide conveniently located servic~s to
bxhlbi+ Cj- D
future employees of the business park and to allow for expansion of the rapidly diminishing
undeveloped areas in the city that have highway visibility. the following uses to be added to .
Area A.
-,
· Enclosed boat and marine sales
· Books. office supplies. stationery stores and copy services
· Furniture. carpet. rug. tile. glass. paint. wallpaper. hardware. and electrical appliance
stores
· Motor fuel station. auto repair. car wash. auto body shop. tire and battery stores and
servIce
. Machinery sales
· New and used automohile/light truck sales and display
. Day care center
. No outdoor Storage
Area B:
This area has limited highway visibility and most of this area is buffered from the developments
to the cast by a large wetland and the existing cemetery property. The goal in this area is to
provide a flexible development plan that would enable the city to develop a large industrial use
or smaller users in response to changing market trends. In addition. since much of this area is
more remote with low visibility. it may provide an opportunity for locating or relocating uses that
the city might not \-vant in a high visibility area. One of the goals in this area is to develop a plan
that quickly got truck traffic onto Chelsea Road and highways rather than diverting it towards
residential areas.
.
Since this area is not a continuation of existing developed areas. the setbacks remain according
to the I~ I A standards.
The uses that we would propose in this area in addition to \vhat is already provided for in the
I-I A are the following:
· Trucking and trucking service
· concrete/asphalt plant and manufacture of concrete products
· Automobile assembly and major repair
Uses above must be conducted inside. Outdoor storage by conditional use permit only.
Area C:
The development in this area will need to be sensitive to the adjacent residential uses. Given that
the overall Otter Creek Crossings Business Park development is quite large and will likely take
many years to develop. the PUD allows this area remain an area for future study to ensure that
the interests of the adjacent residents are preserved. Depending on the market conditions and
development patterns at the time this area is studied. this area potentially ending up as an .
.
industrial development with special concern for buffering and uses or even a mixed use
development area that provides some housing for the workers in the business park in addition to
industrial opportunities. The property owners and the City will be in a better position to create
the best standards for this area in the future when all have had an opportunity to see the results of
some of the earlier phases of this project.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
to.
Public HeuiDl!: Consideration of a request for concept sta2;e residential
development for a townhome development and a request to rezone from AO to R-t,
R-2A, and R-2 Pl!n. Applican't: Bison Development Company Inc. and Sylyia
Development, L.P. (NAC)
REFRENCE AND BACKGROllND:
Bison Dcvelopmcnt Company. Inc. and Sylvia Development LP are requesting conccpt
rcvic\\' of residcntial dcvclopmcnt on a 94.6 acrc site, The subject site is located east of
County Road 117. north of851h Street. west of Fallon Avenue and south of Klein Farms
development Bison Development Company. Inc. has o\vnership of approximately 38
acres of the site and Sylvia Devclopment LP has purchased the remaining 56 acres. The
two dcvclopment comr~lI1ies are utilizing the same engineering design firm and are
working together to cn Ie a unified development consisting of a mix of R-l and R-2A
single family lots with a number ofto\',-nhome units. The site is cUITcntly under the
jurisdiction of Monticello Township and an anncxation request has bcen submitted and
will bc forwarded to the public hearing stagc once approval of the concept plan occurs.
At the time of annexation. the site is zoned A-O. Agricultural-Opcn Space. The
applicant's are requesting at this time to rezone the site from A-O to R-l. R-2A. and R-2
PUD (townhomes). This request is allotted as a special action per Section 4-3 of the
Zoning Ordinance. At time of annexation. subject to approval of the requested rezoning.
the site will enter into the City's jurisdiction as the approved zoning district rather than
A-O.
Land Use The proposed project consists ofa mix ofR.l (detached single family). R-2A
(detached townhome). and R-2 (attached townhome) type residential uses, The south and
eastern portion of the site, as well as the northern most triangular area abutting Klein
Farms. consists of the R-l type development The R-2A and R-2 lots are centrally
located on the site. just east of County Highway 117 and south of the overhead powerline
easement. The R-2 portion (townhomes) of the site is proposed to be zoned PUO.
The following table illustrates the lot summary for the proposed project:
Lot Summary
R-I 140 Lots
R-')A 4') Lots
Townhouses 90 Lots
TOT AL: 272 Lots
The proposed density for the entire 94,6 acre site is as follc)\\'s:
Gross Acr<;,a!.!e
Net Acreage
2.87 units acre
Appro:\il11atel~ 3.6
units acre
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
The future land use plan designates the subject site for low density residential
development. It has been the city's standard to consider low density as 3 units per gross
acre and -+ units per net acre. Tlie proposed project is consistent \\'ith this standard. In
developments that are attempting to utilize both attached and detached housing. the city
requires that dc\-elopments not exceed a ratio greater than one attached townhom(" to
eYery t\\'o detached single-family homes. In calculating the 2: I ratio. the applicant has
included the R-2A lots with the detached single family lots. This allows the site to
increase the allowable attached to\\"llhome units to the 90 units as presented. StatT feels
that this method takes advantage of the R-1A district standards. allowing for morc
attached housing. and undermining the intent of the 2: I ratio. The 42 proposed R-2A lots
more clearly represent detached townhome units and are more closely linked to the
attached to\vhome development. As such. staff feels that R-1A standard lots should be
included with the attached housing units when calculating the O\'erall 2: ] ratio.
Staff is comfortable \vith the types of residential uses as well as the location of these uses
on the site. The applicant is not requesting to deviate from the zoning district standards of
the R-2A and R-1 portions of the site. The townhome portion of the site would need
development stage PUD approval. which can be obtained during the Preliminary Plat
stage of the development. The applicant should also be madc a"..are that although the R-
2A district was created to accommodate small lot residential development. as is being
proposed. the district requires a high level of amenities.
Lot Standards The following table illustrates the lot requirements for the R-l. R-2. and
R-2A districts:
R-I R-2A 1~-2
LOI Area 12.000 sf av!!. 7.500 sf av!!. 12.000
LOI \Vidth 80 feet av!!. 45 feel 80 feet
Front Setback 35 feet av!!. 10 feel 30 feel
Side Setback - 15 feet 6 feel 10 feet
House Side
Side Setback - 6 feet 6 feet 10 feel
Gara!!e Side
Rear Setback 30 feevusable 10 feet 30 feet
Roof Pitch 5/12 5'12 ]'12
Gara!!e Size 450 sf 450 sf none
House Size 2.000 sf 1.200 sf none
Finished Size 1.050 sf 1.200 sf none
Foundation ] AOO sf None none
Size
I Garage I Standard No closer than I none
Location S':lbacks front buildilH.' line
-
of I i\ilH.' s ace
2000 brick slolH.: or
1000 if 700 0 is
covered \\'ilh \\ood
or SIUCCO
standard
F<I<;<Id.: DClail
none
I
i
I
J
")
.
.
.
.
- " - ,.
Garage nonc 5000 of bldg.. width standard \
Fronta!!c in front-facin!!.
Landscaping Sod & two trees Special standard
per lot in new requirements for
subdivision or front yard
four trees for landscaping I
corner lots I
Plannino Commission Aoenda ~ 08/05/(H
The proposed lots appear to meet these requirements. however at concept level the
overall makeup and layout of the site is of more interest to staff. A closer look at the
individual lots \\ill be taken at time of preliminary plat.
Circulation and Access The site consists of two connections to the west off of County
Highway 117. two connections to the Klein Farms development to the north. one
connection to Fallon Avenue to the east one connection to 85th Street to the south and
one connection to the remnant site at the northeast corner of the 85th Street and County
Highway 117 intersection. The two connections to County Highway 117 align with the
Gold Nugget development. The applicant will need permission from the county for both
of these access points. Staff suggests that a connection be added to the remnant piece of
land. south of the pO\ver line easement and owned by Mr. Klein. for future development.
It should be noted that funds will be requested for the reconstruction of both Fallon
d 8 -Ih S
avenue an ) treet.
.
Staff is generally comfortable with the overall street pattern with the following
suggestions:
.
The east/west connection from Fallon A venue to the southern access off of County
Highway 117 should be more of a direct route.
The City Engineer and Public Works director should make comment as to the
acceptability of the two eyebrows.
Although staff is comfortable with the meandering street pattern. efforts should be made
to eliminate corner lots that are difficult to determine the front lot line.
.
.
Park and Trail The Subdivision Ordinance requires that approximately 10% of the final
plats gross area be dedicated for park use or that a per lot cash payment in lieu of park
dedication be paid to the City at a cost determined by the City Council. The site does not
provide area for a park. The Parks Commission is currently in the planning process of
expanding its parks plan to an area which includes the subject site. In recent meetings it
has been determined bv the Parks Commission that a five acre site at the southwest
comer of the site. abutting 85th Street. be obtained from this development for a
neighborhood park. The applicant will need to incorporate this neighborhood park into
the plat accordingly. The remaining approximately four acres of required park land will
be taken in cash payment in lieu of land at a payment to be determined by the City
Council.
.
:>
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 08/05/03
A public trail has been added to the plans. providing a connection between the Klein
Farm's development to the proposed trail system within the Gold Nugget development to
the west. This trail connectiOl1is an important aspect of the oycrall trail system
connecting the large park in Klein Farms with the future City park in the Gold Nugget
Development. The applicant's plans must also provide for a nOl1h/south running trail
along the west side of Fallon. connecting 851h Street to the park adjacent to Klein Farm' s.
as well as an east/west running trail along the north side of Syh Street. The City needs to
determine \\'hat portion of the trails arc to be paid for as basic improvements of the plat.
.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
] . Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site. from A-O
to R~ I. R~2A. and R-2 (with concept PUD) based on a finding that the request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion contingent on Developer
meeting the 2:] ratio (single family to townhome) with the next submittal. and
contingent on identification of a 5 acre park to the satisfaction of the Parks
Commission. The formula to count detached single family units as townhomes.
2. Motion to deny the request for a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the sit form A~
o to R~]. R~2A. and R-2 PUD based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan.
...
:J.
Motion to table the request for the rezoning and concept PUD approval. pending
revisions to the plan that result in a 2;] ratio of single family to townhome
development and inclusion of a 5 acre park. The 2: 1 formula to count small lot
single family as a townhome.
.
STAFF RECOMMENDA TIONS
Staff recommends approval under alternative] above. or table the item per alternative 3,
based on the applicant having to redraw the concept plan and meet the 2: 1 ratio
requirement prior to preliminary plat submittal.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit c:
Exhibit 0:
Site Location Map
Project Narrative
Draft copy of Parks Commission meeting minutes
Site Plan and Building Elevations
.
-4
.
.
PROJECT NARRATIVE
94 +/- acre development by:
Bison Developme~t Co., Inc. and S)'lvia Dev. LP
Bison Development Company, Inc. and Sylvia Development LP are proposing to develop
94.62 acres ofland as a planned residential development containing a mixture of housing
styles and options. The goal is to appeal to a broad range of buyers who wish to make
Monticello their home.
Hokanson Development, Inc., doing business as Bison Development Company, Inc.,
purchased 38.17 acres ofland and Sylvia Development LP purchased an adjacent 56.45
acres. The two development companies are utilizing the same engineering design fiml to
design the project as a unified development. At this time, we are requesting that the
property be annexed into the City; we are also seeking rezoning and concept Planned
Unit Development (POO) approval. The development is utilizing the PUD ordinance for
the purposes of integrating housing types within a single development. The development
does not require any deviation to the zoning standards that were used in designing the
separate segments within the POO.
.
The property is presently located in Monticello Township but is directly adjacent to the
current municipal boundary. Said property is included within the City's long range land
use plan for annexation into the City of Monticello with a land use designation of low
density residential. The site is located east of County Road 117, north of 85th Street, west
of Fallon Avenue and south of the Klein Farms development. The northern portion ofthe
property is traversed by overhead power lines and an underground gas line. An existing
single-family home, built in 1995, is located on the property as well as a 40' x 52' pole
building. The house will remain and will be incorporated into the development plan; the
pole building will be removed.
The Klein Farms development has two street stubs to the property. Our conceptual
development plans include connection to these streets, as well as street entrances from
Fallon Avenue (1), 85th Street (1) and County Road 117 (2). The two street connections
to C.R. 117 align with the streets in the recently approved Gold Nugget development
across the road. The Klein Farms development, which is primarily located north of the
electrical easement, has a 3.5 acre undeveloped portion that is located south of the
easement and adjacent to our property. We had discussions with the developer of Klein
Farms about the purchase of land outside the easement for inclusion within our
development. David Klein wished to sell the land under the easement as part of the
purchase, however an agreement on the purchase price could not be reached. Mr. Klein
has access to the buildable area from Fallon Avenue for his use and development.
.
The proposed rezoning request consists ofR-l and PUD designations. The Bison parcel
is proposed to be entirely R-llots; the Sylvia parcel is a combination ofR-llots and a
PUD. The PUD portion of the development is centrally located on the site with County
Road 117 to the east and the overhead powerline easement to the north. The PUD will
include attached townhomes consisting of 2-6 unit buildings and single-family detached
townhomes (patio homes). The mixture of product types will provide an appealing
variety of owner-occupied housing. The prices of the attached units will vary depending
on the size and style of unit within each unit building. The detacbed units are tYPiCE: hibi+ 10-6
marketable to buyers who are empty nesters looking to downsize and eliminate some
maintenance responsibilities. The homes will be two-stories and designed with multiple
styles. The homes are built with several architectural design elements such as brick fronts
and varied pitches along the roofline-adding to their distinguished appearance.
.
The property was designed to reflect the developer's strengths in Single-Family and
Townhome construction and to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. The
property owner's development plan needs to have an association of at least 40 plus patio
homes that can be integrated with single-family homes and townhouses. To create the
association, the development design needed to keep the patio homes in a general location
but also transition effectively with the whole development. The townhomes also needed
to be in an association and provide several styles to serve the rising demand in townhome
living. The grouping and varied styles oftownhomes gives this area a unique and creative
element that integrates well with the rest of the development.
The primary goal was to meet the housing mix of the development plan and not to exceed
an overall density of three units per acre (284 units). This was achieved by first creating
the single-family lots on the east parcel and on the north and south side of the west
parcel. The second step was creating an association of patio homes. The remaining area
was to be used for a mixture oftownhomes. This area was to be adjacent to County Road
117 to provide efficient access for this higher density segment of the development. Using
these design parameters, the development resulted in the following housing mix:
R-1 Single-Family Homes
Patio Homes
Town homes
140
42
90 ( 20 row units, 6 twins, 10 quads and 3 sixplexs)
.
Total Units
272
The lot design and setbacks that were incorporated into the development meet the
standards established in the R-1, R-2 and PUD Districts. The vast majority of the lots
exceed the districts' average standard. The Lot dimensions and setbacks that were used
are as follows:
R -1 Single Family Patio Home Lots
City Standards Dev. Standards R-2A Standards Dev Standards
Lot Area: 12,000 sf avg 14,000 sf avg 7,500 sf avg 9,000 sfavg
Lot Width: 80 ft avg 80 ft + avg 45 ft 52 ft
Setbacks
Front 30 ft 30 ft 10ft 25 ft
Side 21 ft total 21 ft total 6ft 6ft
Rear 30 it usable 30 ft usable 10ft 20 it
Corner 20 it street 20 ft street 20 it street 20 it street
6 it int. 6 ft int 6 it int 6 it int .
Townhomes Minimum Setbacks:
30 feet from the public road separating the townhomes from the patio homes
.
22 feet from public road R~O~ W inside the townhome area
25 feet from internal private streets
50 feet from County Road 117
30 feet from the Single~family homes to the south
25 feet between townhome buildings
Street Widths:
Public Streets R~O~ W in SF and Patio Homes:
Public Street R-O~ W in Townhome:
Private Streets R~O~ W in Townhome
60 feet
52 feet
24 feet
The final plan has a harmonious configuration that met the design objectives of the
developers; a connective street system, compatibility to adjacent land uses, unifonnity
along street corridors and meeting the city's housing density. The plan provides an
effective use of the land without "shoe~horning" units for the sole purpose of achieving a
higher density. The R-l single~family lots were designed at 12,000 square feet in size
with most lots being larger. The average lot size is 14,324 square feet.
.
The patio home segment of the PUD was modeled under the standards of the city's R~2
district. The R-2 district has a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet and a minimum
width of 45 feet. Again, the owners did not design this segment to maximize the number
of lots but to meet their overall design plan. The proposed lots are well above the
minimum R~2 standards having lot widths of 52 feet and an average lot size over 9,000
square feet. Sixteen of the lots are over 10,000 square feet, which is an allowable
minimum area in the R~1 district. The patio homes are proposed as part of the PUD for
the purposes of integrating housing types within a single development. It is not being
used for the intention of reducing zoning standards.
The concept plan incorporates the direction of the city's planning staff that were outlined
in a memo to Jay Roos of Hokanson Development, property owner, dated March 12,
2003. This memo followed several discussions and plan reviews since the owners initial
meeting with city staff in the fall of 2002. Staff comments included, avoiding the use of
cul-de-sacs, uniformity of housing along main street corridors, creating a park or public
trail, a pleasing transition between housing types and a connective street system that
matches the surrounding developments traffic patterns. The following changes were
made to the plan:
. Cul-de~sacs were removed except in the NW comer. The existing street alignment
and power easement limited access availability to this developable area. The owners
requested access from County Road 117 for this area but were denied by Wright
County.
.
. A public trail was added that provides a connection between the Klein Farm
development to the proposed trail system within the Gold Nugget development to the
east. It is hoped that this trail would become part of a larger park system connecting
the large park in Klein Farm to a future city park south of the Gold Nugget
development.
· Utilizing public and private streets in the townhome segment provides an efficient
traffic pattern that limits traffic congestion. The internal private streets provide
emergency access and convenient trash collection services to all of the units.
.
· HarnlOnious transition of housing was accomplished by having R-I single-family lots
along the perimeter of the development to match existing and expected surrounding
land uses. R-I lots are also planned along main street corridors to create an overall
uniform look. Larger patio home lots were also created along main street corridors to
match the R-I lots. The only exceptions are the four-unit townhomes adjacent the
north south street corridor. The transition of the townhomes was softened by having
the townhomes face the road giving an appearance of twin homes. This also places
their front yards toward the main street, which matches the single-family design
throughout the entire development. Twin homes are also used along the periphery of
the townhome neighborhood that is adjacent to single-family homes.
City staff had also recommended that the development does not exceed a ratio greater
than one attached townhome to every two detached single-family homes. However, it
was unclear on how the detached patio homes should be calculated. Even though they are
a detached single-family lot, staff was uncertain if they should be considered as a
townhome type use. It was suggested that the city may divide the patio homes between
the R-Ilots and the townhomes at a SO/50 split or some other type of hybrid calculation.
If the patio homes are split SO/50, 21 units added to each (161 SF and III townhomes)
the development would exceed the 2: 1 ratio. At this ratio, only 80 townhomes would be
permitted. However, if the patio homes are considered as detached single-family homes,
which they are, the development meets the recommended ratio.
.
As stated earlier, the average lot size for the patio home is 9,000 square feet. This is
slightly less than the minimum lot size in the R-I district and 1,500 square feet larger
than the R-2 lot size standard. The developers wanted the larger patio home lots to meet
the needs of their buyers and to integrate them into the predominately R-I development.
The owners can convert the patio homes into R-Ilots by reducing lot sizes and widths
throughout the development, as allowed by the city's averaging standard, to create the
182 lots needed to meet the 2: 1 ratio for 90 townhomes. However, they hope to have a
patio home housing mix to offer their buyers and to keep a more spacious feel throughout
the entire development that the larger lots create.
We believe that this development meets the intent of the city's comprehensive plan and
zoning standards. The use of the PUD enabled the owners to design the two parcels as a
uniform development harmoniously integrating streets, utilities, and housing within the
site and in compatibility with the surrounding land uses. The use of the PUD was not
used to relax zoning standards, which none were required, but for the purpose of
providing different housing needs. We hope that the benefits achieved by using the PUD
are not overshadowed by a strict ratio calculation but are seen as an efficient use of land
that meets overall density standards. As noted in the March 12, staff comment memo it
was staffs interpretation that there should be an approximate ratio of 2: 1 single-family
homes to townhomes. If the city deems it necessary to establish a specific ratio to define
the number oftownhomes, we ask that the single-family patio homes be considered as
single-family lots in your calculation.
.
.
.
.
Parks Commission T\linutes - 7/24/03
Added Item:
Lynn Gioyannell and John \Vingard \\ere present to reyie\\' the park land layout for \\hat \\as f(Jrmerly the
Wild MeadO\\ de\e]opmcnL no\\ renamed Sunset Ponds. It \yas explained that the City \\ill be taking the
Tyler East runoff so only about 6 acr\?s from the Tyler East area and drainage from the back yards on the
east side fot he plat \\'ould being into ditch #33. The deycloper has met \\'ith Kerry Saxton of Wright
County Soil & \Vatcr District who is in atlirmatiyc with their plan although it has not been officially acted
upon by thc County. The dcveloper also received notification from the gas company relating to the park
area in the easement area. The gas company would allow filling of the area but \\'ould require a reinforcing
concrete structure for the gas pipe. Ben Hitter didn't feel a playstructure should be placed in the eas\?ment
area. Lynn Giovanelli stated that other cities consider easement area as usable land.
.1ohn Simola and WSH & Associates and had reviewed the grading plan in a preliminary way and had the
following comments: ]) Lift station location mmld require the area designated on the sketch as Park # 3 and
possibly a portion of Lot 20 as well: 2) Change routing of the drainage pipe so it moves ;:may from the open
area. The park in the south \vould be assessed for drainage to ditch #33 and the City would like that
changed. It is approximately 2 acres that wou]d be going to ditch #33 and John Simola felt that some
additional filling would accomplish this. John Wingard stated that when the developer was doing the filling
they could shape the area for ballfield use. Larry No]an stated the hallficlds in this area would be pick up
games not league play. Larry Nolan asked about parking spaces. John Simo]a stated the ordinance
specifies the number of parking spaces required and 10 spaces would be typical for a park area.
Of the park areas shown on the sketch, areas #3 and #5 would not be U\'ailable. According to Lynn
Giovanelli there would be 4 1/2 acres of park land \\'ith no restriction and 1.2 acres in the casement area
\yhich would be restricted. Park dedication credit \\'as discussed and the consensus of the Parks
Commission was that 25% would be an appropriate amount. It was suggested that park area #5 be owned
by the homeowners association and John Simola suggested that the filtration pond area should also be
sodded. .lohn Simola also suggested that the Parks Commission consider amending the park dedication
ordinance to spell out the procedure for granting park dedication credit.
NANCY MCCAFFREY MOVED TO APPROVE THE PARK LA YOUT AS PRESENTED AND
ALLOW A 25% CREDIT FOR THE LAND AREA IN THE EASEMENT AREA. FRAN FAIR
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOT]ON CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5.
Klcin/O'Bricn Devclopmcnt Plan Reviewer (Hunter's Crossin!:!)
The proposed deyelopmcnt includes townhomes on the.north and single family homes on the south.
Jeff O'Neill submitted a sketch sho\\ing future park locations in this area. Jeff O'Neill updated the
Parks Commission on possible acquisition of a site for the relocation of the redi-mix plant. The
proposed relocation site is 25 acres and is the current location of Our Back 'Yard. The redi-ll1ix
plant would need between 5-7 acres Iea\'inl! ] 8 acres for ballficlds. The site has hi!.:dlWay fronta!!e
"- ..... 'P "-
and is a\\'ay from residential neighborhoods. Another option is 25-40 acres to the \\est of the
4
&~'bit j D -- L,
"~", ~
Parks Commission Minutes - 71:2-1-/03 .
Groveland developlllent. There is some preliminary development activity in this area. .lefT O'Nei I
also updated the Parks COllll11i~sion on the dri\'ing range site. At $..J.5.000/acre the cost for this sitl'
is somewhat prohibitive as far as the Parks Commission was concerned. The relocation site for the
redi-mix plant would run about $28.000-$30.000/acre but it is flat land and \vould require less \\'ork
to make it usable for ball1ields. The consensus of the Park Commission was that this \\'as a good
site to pursue for the ballfields. After the update. the Parks Commission again looked at the layout
of the Hunter' s Crossing plan and where in the dewlopment a park should be located. It was felt it
should be midway between the townhomes and single family homes with 85th Street as a boundary.
The Park Commission felt a 5 acre site would be adequate and the balance of the park dedication
would be in cash. Ben Hitter suggested a park along the Country Road] 17 side to separate the
flow of people. Jeff O'Neill pointed out that there is no sidewalk on side of CR ] ] 7 that the
development is adjacent to. The Parks Commission also felt the park should be located centrally
between the park in the Featherstone development and Pioneer Park.
7. East Brid2e Pathway.
Adam Hawkinson informed the Parks Commission that the City did not receive a grant for the trail
at East Bridge Park. The Parks Commission needs to decide whether to proceed with a trail or
replace the existing steps. It was suggested that cost estimates be obtained for each option. Adam
Hawkinson said he would prefer to have the pathway. even if it is only 8' wide. primari Iy becm..'
accessibility for users and safety issues of utilizing the pathway connection under TF! 25. Larry
Nolan asked if a pathway is put in would a retaining wall have to be installed by an engineer. Adam
Hawkinson felt it wouldn't since retaining walls in excess of 4' need to be engineered and he didn't
believe the wall would exceed 4'. Fran Fair felt the cost comparison would be a major factor.
Because of the time element. the Parks Commission will hold a special meeting to look at the costs
and authorize action. The Park Department \vould plan on doing the work during August and
September so it is important to get going on this.
8. Groveland Pay Eauipment
':~ ~._,~
Adam Hawkinson got a call from a resident who was concerned about noise generated by the play
area. Adam Hawkinson suggested that the layout could be re-configured to encroach slightly into
the ballfield area thus eliminating the noise concern. Since the pressure may be easing for ball fields
because of the possible land acquisition, the City may not need all the space at Groveland for
ballfields. Parks Commission discussed the distance there should be bet\veen acti\'ity areas.
Generall\' the\' felt 40-50 feet \yould be a good distance and as lov; as 30 feet for acti\'it\ areas used
.,..' -..... '"
by younger children. Adam HU\\linson will bring back a drawing of the layout change. Adam
Hawkinson noted the structure cost is $47.000 including installation. It is anticipated installation wi I
be done towards the end of August.
.
5
II ~
~
..,
~
o ~
-~..........._-~.~.............................._~~--~--------.~_..
-.................,---
, ,\
..
1,,:'
,
'I
~
II
r!
II
~
~~ r
~ ~
. X
f' ;,~
~'~ ~.1
~ ~~. ~;'~
[
,
,t,
I .' I 111
~; 1'~, -',
",
,
~'-'-.~-----------~
",' ~
~ ~i
.m.: 'LOv.EIVIHo-A4
)1'-0.
~-,:,::'" "-0' ,'.,.
~'-g' 3'-0"
3'-" 4'-0' ,'-g. 4'-'" 5'-0'
j;. '
''',
f-
....
.. .. .. ....
" "i ;; if '"
~ .... ,", ';) ,
" " .. ~
.i j~~ JI
.... ~~ ~~~
" "! "-
", .!., ....
'I J L ~I::~ .l:
1, ",
~
I
I
I
..~ I [ill a
r I
'0 t I ji
-0 I
bAJ I ll: I
1) 0; I ,.J
r s; I I
:> I
z P I I
~ ;r I ~
1. ! I ,
C I "l
~ I
.... ~ I
}>-. I
~ I
I
I
I
I
____~_____J
31'-,. 5'-:/" 1'-"
)5'-0.
f
'"
~
5
~
10'.0'
oJ>.
~'-O' 5'-0'
10'251.O1l
~ ~!~ 'I.
z 1, ~B
\ 0 I~;
~
..i
"
~'" '"
.l..
~~ ~ ~! a!:lli
, ~
"0 "\
-z t:l~~
"0 .. r
,~ ~,
: IlIi~ II
~, Kill ::i i
... ~
· ~ l ill i~'i!! ..~n~-""Il . IIf :: :: CI)
E iJ ;; II II z
w ". gd =t Ol ~ 0
0..... i : ~ d II X31d 9 O131:1}13M01:1 I: I: i= t
~ .~;: < D
:II:r ,~.~ Ii!'! ~ o 0 E
-co ~!d t;ftAIo i I i > :>
I SU!PI!na pasodoJd UJ z
-'... ~ E H ~ ;g'if i ~ JO:l m ;;
td ill "
<<( -~ Oi
..
~
~t
e..
n
h
-~
z
0
~
<(
;:.-
loJ
-'
loJ
I.J.JO
0'
Vi:
~ x.,
.,-- loJ_
-'
CL ..
.b~
........
<(
~
,
z
0 11-
F
~ \" ~
I.J.J
-'
I.J.J
a:;
<(
I.J.J
a::
; I-
~'j'
a:;-
1.0..,
x~
I.J.J_
-'
~~
-!;(
:4
,.
l
I
J
I
~~
~i
~ i ij!". II
~ ~;
i . ..~
) )
/
, /
rrI
,...-
rrI
<
J>
-t
6
z
~ ~
I:
,
~... ~-~---JIf't
~~ I
~
,...-
-,...,
"X
';0
-,..., ~
b~ ~
,.,.,
r
r<1
~
::J
0
Z
~-~.......""
~
A ~
~
..
;:;
~.... ~
lIllo<
~I
.. 1)
r
-::r'1
~ llli~ 0. !!'
~'J~~I!i " "
;~ Jill ... ~ ~
rl"II:'....... :1 " a I o ~ ~
g' I' ;; V a:'I
... '" . dllil: ~~ (>: iil w ~
~': l~~ X31d 9 a131:1~3M01:l /: /: .... l- t
~ fint ~ 'll ~ " " J:J
o!.CIf ~ E
'" ....~ lJUl;li ~ 1 '" '" I-O=> ~
""u "~d I ~ ~u!Pl!n8 pasodoJd "," z
~ Igllil JO:l .. 11 . ....0
...J<< ae] ! ri ~li "
-c ~~ !L~ b j 5 ~ <'I .. ~
.O-.tl
;i ~
I
...
~ ]:0
I
to I-
Z
~ ::>
1
... I
.O-,tl ~ Z
I <(
~ -'
u.
;~ 0:
.. 89
I
;" -'-
~ "'-.
0"
.o-,t. - z_
0..
.. ~~
I
;"
N'"
<(
~i" ~ "'
g \
J~ III
I 2
~ ~S ~
l
-~~~
.L~.f'
~
l'l
t .0-<<
. .'-' i .,,-, rn
~--rId~ "
..-" }--
,----------- · r-
fl_~.~.Hf.(~IJ-Io.Ci
\
,i
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~__...J
--------'.2' - 0"
:lI'-"-
J5'-0'
jH~
"'8~
llz
;S~
...
B'-6-
12'-10"
5'-0"
3,I_Q-
30'-,"
...
iii
!
~
I
1
~I
U'-J-
IB
.
.
.
li:
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
Considenltion of appointim! a I'Iannin2 Commission member to the c.R. 18.1-9-1
Policy Adyisory Committee (I' ~). (JO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City Council is requesting Planning Commission representation on a committee
charged with assisting the City Council in addressing various issues arising from the
proposed C .R. 18/194 interchange. The Committee is comprised of t\>,/O Council members
(Theilen. Smith). t\\'o at large area resident representatives from both sides of the freeway
(Clint Herbst Roger Belsaas), a County representative (Pat Sawatzke perhaps) and a
member of the Planning Commission. This group will be involved in managing the
public review process. evaluating alignment options, development of the finance plan and
will address other issues as they arise. It will be staffed by the City Engineer and the
Deputy City Administrator.
Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission consider appointing a member to this
important committee.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Seek volunteer and/or nominate a Planning Commission member for this committee.
SUPPORTING DATA
None