Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-08-1983AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELID PLANNING COMMISSION February 8, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Monticello City Hall Members: Jim Ridgeway, Ed Schaffer, Joyce Dowling, Don Cochran, and Richard Carlson. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held on January 11, 1983. 3. Public Hearing for the Final Planned Stage of the Planned Unit Development - Meadow Oak Subdivision. 6. Public Hearing on the Revised Concept Plan and the De- velopment Stage of the Planned Uait Duveiupment tc> be Mown as Victoria Square. 5. Public Hearing - Variance from Curb 6 Gutter Requiremento - Silver Fox Motel. The next regularly ochoduled meeting will be on Tuesday, March 8, 1983. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: John Bondhus, Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Ed Schaffer, Richard Carlson. Members Absent: None. 1. Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on December 13, 1982. A motion was made by Schaffer, seconded by Dowling and unani- mously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held December 13, 1982. 2. Public Hearinq - Conditional Use Permit Request - Mike DeBoor. Mr. Michael Do Boer, who currently lives in St. Michael, Minn - seats, requested a conditional use permit to be allowed to operate a minor repair body chop on a portion of Lot 10, Block 16, Townsite of Monticello. The proposed site is di- rectly north of Moon Motors fronting along Hwy 25 and the property is currently owned by Clifford Olson of Minneapolis. Mr. DCBocr piano on temporarily renting the garage from Mr. Olson for the purpose of operating a body chop. Although Mr. De Boer foals the location would be ideal for his repair buoineoc, the likelihood of him purchasing the entire property including the existing houeo from Mr. Olson doea not, at the currant time, appear feasible. The City'a current zoning ordinance allows for a minor re- pair auto facility an a conditional use within a B-6 zone. Au part of the conditional uco requirements, Mr. DeBoor requonted a variance from the minimum lot oizo requiremento of 22,500 oquare feet as the prop000d aito only containo 10,890 oquare foot. In addition, Mr. DOBoor aloo roquocted a variance from curb gutter and hard ourfacing of the park- ing lot requirements on a temporary baoie to coo if hie buoin000 can be ootabliched before a largo amount of capi- tal in expanded on th000 improvements. Mr. DoBoer'o plano inelud a coma internal remodeling of the garago structure to accommodato a body chop and. aloo come exterior work to make the building procentablo including a major clean up of the lot. Planning Commission Minutes - 1/11/83 Concerns were expressed by scve of the Planning Commission members as to whether any outside storage of cars or parts would occur and Mr. DaBc er noted that he would construct a small fence or screen between the south end of the building towards Moon Motor's build- ing for the purpose of storing a dumpster and possibly one car in that area that would be screened from Hwy 25. Questions were raised by Commission Member Bondhus concerning whether spray painting in the shop would cause some pollution of the air and also Mr. Bondhus felt that this area fronting along Hwy 25 is a prime, commercial area and he felt a body shop in this location was not the hest, suitable use of the property. An additional variance would also have to be granted to allow two principal uses of this parcel of land as the legal descrip- tion is now for one parcel and there is currently a home on the property that is being rented. Although Mr. DeBoe• w. "mj Cyt ing the conditional use permit for one year to see whether th,• business could be established prior to any major improvements such as blacktopping, a motion was made by Dondhus, seconded by Schaffer recommending that the conditional use permit be denied as they felt this wan not the bout ar©a to locate a beefy shop. Voting in favor of the motion were Bondhus, Schaffer and Ridgeway. Opponedi Dowling and Carlson . 2. Review of an Elderly Housing Project Proposal by the IiRA. HRA Committae Members, Don Cochran and Jack Roevo, vara present at the Planning Commission meeting to review with the Planning commies ion a recent proposal their committee had received in regard to the construction of elderly houoing in Monticello. Recently, Mr. Joe Poohlor of Waterville, Minnesota, has mot with the IRU Cosmittoo to discuss his interest in developing a 23 unit, moderato Income, elderly housing project on three lots In Block 51. This property is currently owned by the Monticello Development Corporation but the City of Monticello ham an option agreement to purchase thio property. It was noted by the IIRA Comtmittoo that Mr. Poohler has requested an option from the HRA to purcho o thin property and is in the procano of completing hie appllchtion to Farmers Homo Adminis- tration for funding. Planning Commission Minutes - 1/11/83 The primary reason the committee was presenting this proposal at the present time to the Planning Commission was to gather some in put from the Planning Commission in regard to the location of this proposed housing project and how it relates to the City's current comprehensive plan in regard to zoning, etc. The prop- erty is currently zoned B-4, regional business arod if a housing project, as proposed, would be developed, the Planning Commission would have to consider rezoning the property to either R -B (resi- dential business) or R-3 (multiple family residential). After a brief review of the project, it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed site in Block 51 would appear to be ideal for the location of an elderly housing pro- ject in that the committee felt the property which fronts along River Street would not necessarily be prime, commercial prop- erty. It was noted by the committee members that it this project does proceed, it would be their recommendation that the property be considered for rezoning to allow for this type of develop - me nt . A motion was made by Dowling, seconded by Schaffer to adjourn. Rick Iblfotoller Aoaietant Administrator - 3 - MI NUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELL0 PLANNING COMMISS ION December 13, 1982 - 5:30 P.M. Member Present: Jim Ridgeway , Joyce Dowling, Ed Schaffer. Members Absent: John Bondhus and Richard Carlson. 2. Approval of the Minutes. A motion was made by Dowling, seconded by Schaffer and unani- mously carried to approve the minutes of the special meeting he Id on November 23, 1982. 3. Public Hearinq - Conditional Use to Establish a Retail Activity in an R -B Zone - Clarence McCarty. Dr . Clarence McCarty, who resides at 319 west 3rd St ., Lot 2 - Block 37, requested a conditional use permit to be allowed to establish a eeaauercial retail activity in an R -B zone. Dr. Mr,- Cmrty requested the permit to be allowed to open and sell at retail a variety of birds from his pat shop to be located at his home. Dr . McCarty noted that he currently raises birds as a hobby and wanted permission to occasionally call and buy exotic birds. In addition, he would be possibly selling related iteao such as bird cagoe, bulk food, etc. The proposed retail activity would take place in a separate barn type structure that is located on the property approximately GO fact from his home. A letter was submitted by Anthony and Kathleen Rowan who li va at 400 west 3rd. St. who opposed the uutabliohannt of a pot shop. The Rowans felt that commercial activity such as McCarty was proposing would continuo to devalue their property and result in increased traffic problems. Tlio Planning Commiaoion noted that tho McCarty residence io locatod in a block that in now half commercial and felt that this location would be ouitable for minor retail activity. Therefore, a motion was made by Dowling and eocondo& by Schaffor and unanimously carried to approve the conelitional ut:o permit to establish the retail activity provido& that tho following conditions wore mot. 1. The bucinoso be a family business only with only family members omployod. - I - a 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 12/13/82 2. The retail activity be associated only with bids and not be open to other animals associated with a normal pet store. 3. That off street parking be provided. 4. Public Hearinq for the Development Staqe of Planned Unit De- velopment - Meadow Oak Subdivision. Mr. Jim Boyle, along with his associates Dick Knutson and Bob Bemboom, developers of the proposed Meadow Oak Subdivision, presented to the Planning Commission their preliminary plat consisting of approximately 177 acres of land. The prelimi- nary plat indicates that there will be 76 executive home sites, 244 single family detached manufactured housing sites, and 204 to 216 manufactured housing attached sites. It was noted that the proposed development will be done in stages with the first phase consisting of 31 executive home sites and 39 manufactured detached home sites. The first phase of the development will coincide with the installation of sewer and water utilities which is expected to be completed by summer of 1983. The preliminary plat has been revoiwod by both the City Engineer and City Planner who have made their comments avail- able to the developers in regard to meeting all of the City'a ordinances and other regulations regarding PUD devolopments. Mr. Dick Knutson also noted that all park trails, and land- scaping requirements will be done in phases along with the actual development of the lots. In addition, they plan to build 5 mcdol homes with three of the homes loving built by Dynamic 11 mos, Inc. and two manufactured typo homes from Homera, Inc. A motion was made by ;chaffer, seconded by Dowling and unani- mously carried to approve the preliminary plat for the Meadow Oak Subdivision ac presented contingent upon the devolopors adhering to the comments submitted by the City Engineer and City Planner in regard to changes that would have to be made on the final plattimj. In addition, it was the Planning Ccmmisaion'a recom.orkiation that the platted manufactured hone uitoo could contain both manufactured housing and sec- tional housing but that the executive home sites would only con- tain hxucing that mat the uniformed building code of Minnesota. Moctim Adjournal. 'T' la, Hick Wolfatel or Aaaiatant Mminiatrator - 2 - v Planning Commission - 2/8/03 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 3. Public Hearing for the Final Planned Staqe of the Planned unit Development - Mcadow oak Subdivision. At the December Planning Commission meeting, property owner Jim Boyle, along with his associates, Dick Knutson and Bob Bem- boom, developers of the proposed Meadow Oak Subdivision pre- sented their preliminary plat consisting of approximately 165 acres of land. The developers have recently completed what will constitute the final platting of the entire proposed Meadow oak Subdivision and have submitted the final platting to the City Engineer and City Planner for review. Any comments received from the planner and the engineer will be submitted along with the agenda, but in my conversations with both parties, the plat appears to meet all of the City's requirements including those recommended by the Planning Commission and the City Council through previous re- views. Mr. Jim Boyle and the Meadow Oak Limited Partnership intends to record three (1) separate plats which is the purpose of this public hearing: A. Meadow Wks - This plat will cover the entire Project amounting to approximately 165 acres and will he sub- divided into 10 outloto (outlets A through P) . At the time of recording, the Project will be owned by Jim T. Boyle and Beverly A. Boyle (outloto A, C, D, G through P) and the Partnership (outloto B, E and F). B. Meadow Wks Estates - 11do plat will constitute a re - plat of Outlet 0 and will be subdivided into large loto intended for single family dwellings. C. Meadow Oaks Second Addition - This plat will constitute a replat of Outlot F into small residential lots in- tended to cervo as homosites for manufactured housing to be installed by the Partnership. The dovolnpero havo also sutxnitted a copy of the Meadow Oak's Second Addition plat indicating all building act back lines on each lot within the aubdivioion. This was one of the require- monto and recommendations of tbw City Planner which the developers have adhered to. In addition, the developers have also uultnitted a grading, drainage and erosion control plan along with a tree precervation and planting plan for the first two places of tho development. - 1 - 1 Planning Commission - 2/8/83 At the time the entire subdivision is recorded along with the re - platting of the two outlots, the City of Monticello will receive 6utlot E by deed for park requirements. In addition, the City will receive all trailways, etc. that abut the first two cutlots being replotted. It is the intent of the developers that the City will acquire all of the other trailways throughout the sub- division in phases to coincide with the actual replotting of additional outlots as their development dictates. Although the original platting of the Meadow Oak Subdivision into large outlots and then replotting some of the outlets in phases is new to the City of Monticello, it appears very logical as only the areas currently being developed are actually platted. In the future, as the development dictates, additional outlots will be replatted into what will be known as the third, fourth, fifth additions, etc. The developers will prepare and record restrictive covenants on the manufactured housing lots for such items as: 1. No storage of recreational vehicles or boats, etc. can be stored for more than two days in the front yard of any manufactured home lot. 2. No out buildings or similar structures may be erected in the front yard of any lot. The developers shall also have the right to imp000 other restrictive covenants as it deems necessary. In regard to utilities to serve the project, the City Engineer has recently completed plane and specifications for extending cower and water services to the project site including the pro- posed first two phases of Meadow oak Estates and Meadow Wks Second Addition. The City has advertised for bids on this pro- joct for February 22nd and will be reviewed by the Council on the 28th of February. After all of the ownership problems can be r000lved by Mr. Boyle, there appears to be no future problems with the development proceeding. POSSIBLE ACTIONa Consideration of recommending approval to the final plat as submitted conoicting of 16 outloto with replotting of two of the outloto into subdivisions for a portion of the manufactured housing sitoo and executive heave oituo. RFFERENCESt Copies of two draft letters prepared by the develop- ers concerning the status of property ownership and also a copy of a letter outlining the proponed Meadow Wks final plat oub- division. Alco oncloced will be comments from the City Planner and the City Engineer relative to the final plat. Also available at City hall for your review to an entire cot of final plats. - 2 - Meadow Oak Limited Partnership c/o McCombs—Anutson, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plvmouth, Minnesota 55441 January 18, 1983 City of Monticello City Hall Monticello , Minnesota 55362 RE: Proposed Meadow -Oaks Subdivision - Plat Approval Gentlemen: This letter is to confirm the discussions and understand- ings which Meadow Oak Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") has reached with officials of the City of Monticello (*City") concerning various matters which must be satisfied before the City will give final plat approval to various plats in the proposed Meadow Oak Development (the 'Project"). This letter summarizes the conditions which various city officials have established as a condition of approval of the plats for the Project. 1. identification of Plats. The Partnership intends to record three plats. These plats are as follows: a. Meadow Oaks - This plat will cover the entire Project amounting to approximately 165 acres and will be subdivided into 16 outlots (Outlots A through P). At the time of recording, the Project will be owned by Jim T. Boyle and Beverly A. Boyle (Outlets A, C, n, G through P) and the Partnership (Outlota B, E end F) . b. Meadow Oaks Estates - This plat will constitute a rep let pl Outlot B end will be subdivided inter largo into intended for single family dwellings. c. Meadow Oaks Second Addition - This plat will constitute a rnplat of Outlot P into small residential lots intended to servo as homesiten for manufactured housing to be installed by the Partnership. ]Recording Order of Plate. The Partnership and the Boyles inicnd to recore the overeil plat of Meadow Oaks at the time the Psartnership acquires Outlote B, E and F. The Partner- sliip will eacquire Outlots B, E and F by a motes and bounds description. The Partnership and the Boyles will then Join in City of Monticello Page 2 tl execution of Meadow Oaks, together with the Federal land Bank and record Meadow Oaks. It is contemplated that Meadow Oaks Estates and Meadow Oaks Second Addition will be recorded shortly after Meadow Oaks has been recorded. 3. Obligations of Partnership. The Partnership will assume the following responsibilities: a. Parkland Dedication Requirements. The City has indicated that the parkland dedication requirements for the entire Project will be satisfied by the dedication of outlot E of Meadow Oaks together uith the dedication of the trailways shown upon the development plan for the entire Project. These areas will be dedicated as follows: i. Outlot E will be deeded to the City simultaneously with the recording of either Meadow Oaks Estates or Meadow Oaks Second Addition, whichever shall be recorded first. ii. The trailways shown the overall development plan for the Project will be dedicated in the plat of each of the outlots of Meadow Oaks as each such outlet is repleted into individual residential lots and streets. , .J Although the foregoing will satisfy all parkland dedica- tion requirements of the City, the Boyles have also agreed to dedicate Outlot A by deeding Outlot A to the City when 501 of all of the anticipated lots in the Project have been sold to homeowners. b. Restrictive Covenants. The Partnership will prepare and record restrictive covenants' encumbering all of the lots intended to serve as homesites for manufactured housing containing the following terms: i. Boats, recreational vehicle and similar vehicles may not be parked or stored for more than 48 hours during any 30 -day period in the front yard of any manufactured home lot. Ii. Nil out -buildings or similar structures may be btrecteA or *nstalled..in the front ,yard of any mshdfactured home lot. iii, Ithn Partnership shell have the right to lwtreee sueh ether restrictive covenants as it deems necessary or proper for a residential subdivision. These covenants shall be recorded at the same time each plat of manufactured home ' to in recorded. City of Monticello Page 3 C. Assessments for Trunk, Water and Sewer Lines. As. represented by the Boyles to the City, the Partnership will assume the following obligations with respect to assessments for the new water and sewer lines which will be extended to serve the Project: I. Yater Line. The new water line which will be extended from its present termination point in an Easterly direction to the site of the Project will be assessed solely against the property it crosses on a lineal foot basis. In other words, no portion of the Project will be assessed for any costs of installing the main trunk water line from the present termina— tion point of the water line to the point at which it intersects with the Westerly boundary of the Project. The Partnership will, however, acjree that the Project may he assessed for the costa of installing any portion of the water line within the Project. ii. Sewer Line. A sewer line will have to be extended from its present termination point in a Southerly direction to a point within the Project. The Partnership will agree to permit all costs of installing this sewer line to be assessed against the Project even though property outside of the Project. will be benefited by the installation of this sewer line. The City will, however, adopt an ordinance requiring that any person subsequently connecting to the sewer line will be required to pay the City a pro rata share of the original construction coat and that the City will forward all such payments to the Partnership or its successors in interest. d. Public Impprovements Within the Project. The City will contract jor and install all public improvements within Meadow Oaks Estates. These improvements will include streets, curbs, gutters and water and sewer lines installed in public rights-of-way. The City, however, will have no obligation to install arky public inprovemrnt.s within Meadow Oaks Second Addition. itith respect to the proposed park (Ou tlot E1, the City will install all necessary sanitary sewer lines to serve the park while the Partnership will install water lines, at the Partnership's cost. o. Propose d Manufactured Homes. The Partnership agrees to suomlt to the City renderings or other descriptive literature of the types of manufactured housing which it intends to install in Meadow Oaks Second Addition. The Partnership has alreadv submitted materials deacrihing the producte of the two producers of manufactured homes which the Partnership intends to r install in Meadow Oaks Second Addition, Dvnamic Homes, Inc, and Homers, Inc. If the Partnership elects to City of Monticello Page 4 furnish products from other manufacturers, the Partnership agrees to provide the City with similar renderings and descriptive literature from any other producer of manufactured homes. f. Submission of Site Plansfor Each Manufactured Home Lot. The Partnership agrees_ to await a Yrauing to the City at the time the Partnership applies for a building permit for each manufactured home showing the proposed location of the home, garage and all boulevard trees to be planted by the Partnership. g. Basements. The Partnership agrees that at least one—third of all of the manufactured home lots in the Project will have basements. h. Sodding. The Partnership will comply with the following requirements: i. Front Yards. The Partnership will sod or seed the front yard and boulevard of each home within one year from the date the City issues a certificate of occupancy for each home errected within the Project. ii. Back Yards. The Partnership will obtain an agreement from each homebuyer within the Project that the homebuyer will sod or seed the back yard of each home within one year from the date the homebuyer closes the purchase of the homebuyer's lot from the Partnership. The Partnership will not, however, have any obligation to sod or seed any back yards if the homeowner fails or neglects to perform such work in accordance with. the homebuyer's agreement with the Partnership. i. Plana Already Submitted to Citx. In addition to the foregoing, the Partnership has already submitted the following plans to various city officialac i. Moadow Oaks loverall plat). 1. Tinel plat. ii. Meadow Oaks $states (Executive Home Sites). 1. final plat. 2. Grading plan. 3. Street plan. iii. Meadow (NSecond Addition (Manufactured Home Si J� a a q& ' I . Final plat --together with listing of all Lots and square footage of each Lot. 2. Grading, drainage and erosion control plan. 3. Street plan. 4. Utility plan. S. Tree preservation and planting plan -- in connection with the landscaping for the Project, the Partnership agrees that every lot shall have at least one tree in the boulevard except that any corner lot shall have two trees, one in each boulevard. All trees installed in boulevards shall be no less than (A) Ih inch in diameter if the Partnership is obligated to purchase such trees from a nursery (B) or leas than 2 inches in diameter if the Partnership is able to utilize any existing trees on the site of the Project. 1 The foregoing represents the Partnership's understanding of its development obligations in connection with the Project. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MEADOW OAK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By Ultra Homes, Inc. om By Robert J. Iemboom Executive Vice President and Treasurer 1 Meadow Oak Limited Partnership c/o McCombs -Knutson, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 , 1983 10 City of Monticello City Hall Monticello, Minnesota 55362 RE: Ownership of Meadow Oaks Project Land Gentlemen: You requested that I provide you with a summary of the past, present and proposed transactions involving the land surrounding the Meadow Oaks Project. 1. Past Transactions. The original owners of all of the land constituting the Meadow Oaks Project and other land were Maurice Hoglund and Gladys Hoglund. Since 1975, the following transactions have occurred: a. On December 3, 1915, the Hoglunds sold a tract of land amounting to 600 acres to Jim T. Boyle under a contract for deed. b. Jim T. Boyle and Beverly A. Boyle then sold a one-half interest in approximately 280 acres of the land purchased from the Hoglunds to Ronald Offutt of Fargo, florth Dakota in 1976. This 280 -acre parcel does not include any portion of the proposed Meadow Oaks Project. C. The Hoglund@ then mortgaged the land encumbered by the contract for deed with the Boyles to the Federal Land Bank in 1976. d.The Boylan have agreed to give the Partnership an option to acquire a 165 -acre tract of the land which the Boyles purchased from tha,.Hoglunds. The Option Agree- ment between the Boyles and the Partnership gives the Partnership the right to acquire this land in increments by exercising various options over a ten .year period. The Boyles' obligation to give the Partnership this option is subject to several contingencies. City of Monticello Page 2 2. Ob)'ectives of Boyles and Partnership. The Boyles and the Partnership recognize that the following requirements must be satisfied in order for the Project to succeed: a. Utility services must be provided to the Project. The proposed utility lines will cross property owned by the Hoglunds but subject to the Boyle contract for deed and other property owned free and clear by the Hoglunds. The Hoglunds will not consent to or provide the City with easements for :hese utility lines unless the Boyles satisfy the contract for deed with the Hoglunds. b. Offutt will not agree to the installation of these utility lines unless Offutt receives a substantial payment from the Boyles. C. The Partnership will not enter into the option Agreement with the Boyles until the Boyles have acquired fee simple title to the land constituting the Project subject only to a mortgage containing provisions which will permit the Partnership to obtain the release of portions of the land constituting the Project on terms similar to the terms of the Option and Purchase Agreement between the Boyles and the Partnership. ]. Proposed Transactions. In order to accomplish the foregoing objectives, the Boyles, Hoglunds, Partnership and Offutt are arranging for the following transections, all of which will occur more or less simultaneously: a. Boyle has arranged for a new loan from the Federal Land Bank covering all of the property which the Boyles have purchased from the Hoglunds except for the three outlots designated in the overall plat of the Project as Outlots B. E and P. The proceeds of this mortgage will be used to satisfy the contract for deed with the Hoglunds and to satisfy the original mortgage which the Iioglunds gave to the Federal Land Bank. b. The Boyles and the Hoglunds will grant all necessary e:cements for the proposed water and sewer lines which will orve the Project. C. The Boyles will repurchase the one-half interest In Cho 200 -acre parcel which the Boyles originally sold to Offutto. The Boyles will pay a portion of the repurchAso prieo in cash and give Offutt a second mortgage to cover �® City of Monticello Page 3 the balance of the repurchase price. This mortgage will be a second mortgage to the new mortgage to be given by the Boyles to the Federal land Bank. d. The Partnership will pay the Boyles approximately $170,000. Of this sum, $150,000 will constitute the entire purchase price for Outlets B, E and F of Meadow Oaks and the remaining $20,000 will constitute option money for an option on the remaining portion of the Project. 4. Status of Real Estate After Transactions. Following the completion of the above transactions, the following will occur: a. The Boyles will be the fee simple owner of all Of the land which the Boyles originally agreed to purchase from the Hoglunds under the contract for deed except for the approximate 40 -acre parcel (Outlots B, E and.F) which the Partnership purchased from the Boyles. The Boyle's property will, however, be subject to the Federal Lend 10 Bank Mortgage, the Offutt second mortgage, utility easements running in favor of the City, and the Option Agreement in favor of the Partnership. b. The Hoglunds will have no further interest in the land sold to the Boyles under the contract for deed. The Hoglunds will, however, retain fee simple title to a parcel of land lying to the North of the Project subject, however, to an easement for the proposed sewer line to be installed on this property. C. Offutt will hold a second mortgage on the 260 -acre parcel referred to above which lies to the west of the site of the Project. d. The City will hold appropriate easements over all of the land for the proposed utility lines. C. The Partnership.will own fee simple titlo to Outlets R. E and F. 5. Subsequent Transactions. Following the conclusion of the above transactions, the following will occur: . a. The Boyles, the Partnership, the Federal Land Bank and the City will join in the execution of the plat of Meadow Oaks. This plat will then be recorded. Ci)o- City of Monticello Page 4 b. The Partnership and the City will execute the plats of Meadow Oaks Estates and Meadow Oaks Second Addition and record both plats. C. The Partnership will have a n option to acquire the remaining portions of the Project from the Boyles and will commence the development of the Project. If you have any questions or comments concerning the fore- going, plcasc contact me. Very truly yours, MEADOW OAR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By Ultra Homes, Inc. By Robert J. Bemboom Executive Vice President and Treasurer ORR-SCHEIEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors February 4, 1983 Mr. Thomas A. Eidem, City Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Street Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: Meadow Oaks Final Plat Review Dear Tom: The final plats of Meadow Oaks, Meadow Oaks Estates and Meadow Oaks 2nd Addition received by our office on January 17, 1983 have been reviewed by my staff and we offer the following comments based on the zoning and subdivision ordinances of the City. For review purposes, these final plat copies were marked Preliminary in red. I. MEADOW OAKS PLAT As to the Meadow Oaks Plat consisting of four sheets our comments are as follows: 1. This plat borders on both county and state highways which requires county and state review according to Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdi- vision 2. The preliminary plat, I understand, had been sent to the County Highway Engineer and the Commissioner of Transportation. According to the Statutes the City cannot act until recommendations have been received from these two agencies or a period of thirty (30) days has elapsed since submittal. I believe the Developer is aware of this requirement. 2. The wording shown on Sheet No. 1 of 4 sheets indicating Planning Commission Review and City Council approval is different from the certification shown in City Ordinance 11-4-2(B)4. 3. The City requires one (l) reproducible copy of the final plat for their files. 4. Outlots ., and E according to thb preliminary plat will be dedi- cated to the City for park purposes. These outlots should be deeded to the City, Ordinance 11-6-3(E), simultaneously with approval of the final plat by the City and prior to recording of the plat. According to the Meadow Oak Limited Partnership letter of January 18, 1983, the conveyance of Outlot A follows a different procedure. II. MEADOW OAK ESTATES This is a re -plat of Outlot B, Mgadow Oaks to Meadow Oaks Estates consisting of two sheets. 2021 CastNwwir✓n �� .^mrn '�-�p l�Tl,nnrn/n t, h9i--solo 55413 - 6121331-8660 7 Page Two Mr. Thomas A. Eidem Re: Meadow Oaks Final Plat Review February 4. 1983 1. If the requirements of No. 1 above were fulfilled in the Preliminary plat stage, nothing further is required from the Highway Departments for the Final Plat. 2. Same as Paragraph No. 2 above 3. Same as Paragraph No. 3 above. 4. The dedication statement for easements, shown on Sheet No. 1, should indicate reference to both utility and drainage purposes. On Sheet No. 2 the drainage note should indicate 12 feet on all front and rear lot lines and a 6 foot easement on all side lot lines. City Ordinance 11-5-4(A) indicates this 6 foot easement requirement and also the preliminary plat stated that the easements in this area as required by ordinance. 5. Outlots A, B and C according to the preliminary plat will be dedi- cated for park or trailway purposes. These lots should be deeded to the City, Ordinance 11-6-3(F,), simultaneously with approval of final plat by the City and prior to recording. 6. The matinematics and format of the plat should be checked by the County surveyor. 7. On Sheet No. 2 the note relating to 'the east line of Outlot E' should be corrected to show the east line of Outlot B. Meadow Oaks is having the bearing noted. Also the east line of Outlet B, shown at the top of Sheet No. 2, should be labeled the 'East Line of Outlot B, Meadow Oaks ". B. Any drainage and utility easement along a line common with another lot Is acceptable at the six foot width. An example is the common line between Lots 5 and 6, Block 3. 1I1. MEADOW OAKS 2ND ADDITION This is a re -plat of Outlot F, Meadow Oaks to Meadow Oaks 2nd Addition conainting of 2 Sheets. 1-3. The co mmonts noted above in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 apply to this plat as wel 1. 4. The drainage note shown on Sheet No. 2 should indicate that the 12 Coot wid th applies to all front and rear lot linea. The 5 foot width indicated for all side lot lines is exceptable in this area. The preliminary plat also showed this and further stated that if a garage in attached to a dwelling, a five foot setback would be required. This will then place the garage ntructure at the easement line instead of overlapp inq into the easement as would have been the case under Ordinance requirement. 4 Page Three Mr. Thomas A. Eidem Re: Meadow Oaks Final Plat Review February 4, 1983 5. Paragraph 5 above also applies to Outlot A in the Meadow Oaks 2nd Addition. 6. On Sheet No. 2 the utility easement in the northerly portion of Meadow Oaks 2nd Addition should be labeled as such; that is the 150 foot easement of UPA. Also the utility easement located near the southerly portion of the plat should also be labeled utility easement. 7. On Sheet No. 2 the bearing location for the east line of Outlot F should read 'S O1' 10' 00' E'. The notation 'The East line of Outlet F Meadow Oaks' should be shown on the east line of this plat or at the top of Sheet No. 2. R. The mathematics and format of the plat will have to be checked by the County surveyor. 9. Any drainage and utility easement along a line common with another lot is acceptable at the five foot width. An example is the common line between Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block No. 2. This concludes our comments regarding the Final plat review for the three Meadow Oaks Plate. Being that the developer did not furnish us with sufficient copies of the preliminary draft of these plats, I cannot include any of the marked up plats for your review. in addition to our comments regarding the plats, it is very important that we get the necessary easements for watermain from Chelsea and Fallon Avenue to the westerly boundary of the -Meadow Oaks plat and the easement for sanitary sewer through the Ilogland property from C.R. 75 to C.R. 39. If you have any questions in this regard, please give me a call. Yours very truly, 0RR- SC If E LEN -MAYE RON AS SOT E)S John P. Radalich, P.E. City Engineer JPDtmin cc: Mr. Peter D►ahop/enclosure - McCombs -Knutson Associates, Inc. I Considbm Planners One orovehnd Terrace (6121377-3538 Minrummo(s Minnesota 55403 a k w Assacid a / UcorporM PLANNM FEPM DATE: 8 February 1983 TO: Monticello Planning Co=ission FROM: C. John Uban RE: Subject Property: Meadow Oaks Subdivision Owner: Jim Boyle and Others Consultants: McCombs—Knutson, Inc. Action Requested: Preliminary Plat - Meadow Oaks Development Stage PUD Final Plat - Meadow Oaks Estate Final Plat - Meadow Oaks Second Addition PLANNM CCNMERATM COMPLIANCE WITH CONCEPT APPROVAL 1. The restrictive covenanto will prohibit the storage of recreational vohicleo in the front yard. 2. A tree proaervation plan and erosion control plan have been prepared although they aro vary general thay should suffice for a single family plot. There are Dome ditchos and elopes that should receive additional erosion control measuroo. 3. Plano have been submitted with ootback linea showing that all the Iota have buildable oitoo for the proposed homes. No Iota have boon exc000ivoly encumbered by one of the utility cacesento. 4. Lot size compliance is oummrizad as followo: a. Meadow Coke Estate has 33 Toto that are all in axecao of 10, 000 aquaro foot. b. Meadow Oako Second Addition has 39 Iota of whteh 18 lots aro oubatandard to the 10,000 oquaro foot requircmont. The PLANNING REPORT APPLICANT: Jim Boyle et al DATE: B February 1983 Page 2 previous approval stated that up to 20 percent of the lots could be substandard by area or lot width. This Second Addition has 46 percent of the lots below standard. However, the average lot size overall is 10,049 square feet. When looking at the total of the two proposed plats - 72 lots - only 25 percent are below standard. As subsequent plats are submitted a running tally should be kept so that overall only 20 percent of the developed single family lots are substandard. 5. Neither the plate nor written statements that were submitted indicate which lots will receive basements. This is likely to be a customer choice which will be detormined at the building permit time. Past approvals have been based on the condition that 50 percent of the homes will have basements. This mix should be kept current with each plat and permits issued based on compliance. 6. All front yards, right-of-way, and park land should receive either sod or seed as is being proposed. Any seeding should be hydromulched for best germination and drought protection. Consistency of lawn treatment can add greatly to the development's appearance. 7. The City Ordinance (8-3-5) calls for the planting of two trees par lot r where none exist and that the minimum tree diameter be at least two (2) inches. The developer is proposing one boulevard tree at 1, inch diameter. I believe the developer should be encouraged to actually move as many troes as possible to untreed areas. The developer has also promised to save all trees within five feet of the curb. PARK DEDICATION 1. The trail system proposed under the power lines should only be 30 to 40 foot in width. The aesthetica of those trails can also be enhanced by having the trail curve in a natural pattern through the power lino casements with small mini-parko along the way. A straight, 60 foot wide trail oyatem (i.e., Outlet C in the Meadow Oaks Estate) may not be aesthetically pleasing and may be more land than the City wiahoo to maintain. 2. An asphalt trail eight (8) foot wide should be included in the park dedication along with coma landocaping of those otherwise barren utility casements. 3. Water service should be brought to the proposed parks for use in each park. C PLANNING REPORT APPLICANT: Jim Boyle et al DATES 8 February 1983 Page 3 4. The developer is proposing in Outlot A of the Second Addition to build a parking lot in the dedicated park land for the use of model home visitors. Picnic tables, barbeque pits, etc. should be added later to complement this park development. 5. Park land that is proposed by the developer is ten (10) acres in size with an addition three (3) ♦ acres of power line easement. The City should be careful about how much power line easement is incorporated into the park system. Trails and these power line easements are a natural combination but the City should not end up providing maintenance for NSP. PARK DEDICATION MEADOW OAKS Outlot E 9.00 acres Power Line Easement 1.88 acres MEADOW OAKS ESTATE Outlot A 0.11 acres Outlot 8 0.25 acres Outlot C 0.06 acres Power Line Easement 0.64 acres MEADOW OAKS SECOND ADDITION Outlot A 0.59 acres Power Line Easement 0.66 acres TDTAL PARK DEDICATION 13.19 acres Q Planning Commission - 2/8/83 Public Hearing on the Revised Concept Plan and the Development Stage of the Planned Unit Development to be Known as Victoria Scluare. Mr. Mike Reher, who owns a parcel of land in the vicinity of Cedar Street and Dundas Road lying east of Highway 25, previous- ly presented a concept plan for a Planned Unit Development on that property to include office condos and townhouses. The original concept plan included three parcels, parcel A, B, and C. Parcel A proposed 29 townhouses on 2.24 acres, parcel B contained office condos of 52 units on 4.46 acres and parcel C would contain retail space of 11,065 square feet on the 1.7 acres of land. The original concept plan also proposed a re- alignment of old Cedar Street from its present location to an easterly direction extending to Dundas Road. The new Cedar Street would then proceed in a southerly direction parallel- ing Hwy 25 to the edge of Mr. Rcher's property. The revised concept plan now includes a fourth parcel D located south of Dundas Road and east of Hwy 25. This property was previously owned by Ken Krienke which Mr. Holier has re- cently obtained a purchase agreement on. The revised concept plan now proposes this parcel for a future motel/restaurant Bite. As part of the proposed concept plan, the City Staff has been working with Mr. Reher and other property owners abutting old Cedar Street such as Automatic Garage Door Company, Danner Trucking, and Mal Wolters to work out an exchange of property if old Cedar Street would be vacated by the City. The vaca- tion of Cedar Street in feasible if the now proposed Cedar Avenue extension is approved in Mr. Reher's concept plan. Also as part of the vacation of Cedar Street, the City would acquire the land to extend Dundas Road directly onto Hwy 25 which now currently endo at old Cedar Street. Before this entire concept plan au revised could be accepted and developed into a final plat, all of the property ownero Involved would have to agree to the property exchanges and also property owner Mel Moltore, who owno a cmall sliver of land, would have to he involved in the platting sinco the now parcel D for the motel/rostaurant Bite includes hio land as part of the plat. In diccuosions with Mr. Woltera, ho has indicated intorest in the propoced concept and appoars willing to go along with the platting in the future. - 3 - Planning Commission - 2/8/83 The purpose of this public hearing is, in addition to reviewing the concept plan as revised, to also review the final platting of parcel A for 29 townhouse units. Mr. Rehr has presented a final plat for this parcel that would consist of 29 individual lots with 29 separate lots for garages with the balance of the property being plotted into an outlet to be owned in common ownership by owners of the proposed townhouses. It is the recommendation of the City Planner and City Staff that if the concept is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, the entire Victoria Square development should be platted possibly into four autlots which would then deed to the City the new Cedar Street right-of-way as proposed. At the same time of this platting, the City would,along with property owners involved along Cedar Street, exchange properties to coincide with the concept plan. Then it was recommended that Mr. Reher proceed with replatting parcel A initially into the proposed townhouse units with the remaining three outlets remaining as outlets. This would be similar to the procedures now being used by Meadow Oak Subdivinion in that the entire project is only sub- divided into large outlots with replatting taking place as de- velopment dictates. A concern that ahou 1d be addresced by the Planning Commission is whether the City will be requiring Mr. Reher to pay park dedication fees along with all normal subdivision fee require- monto. Mr. Reher has indicated that it was his understanding through the former building inspector's review that possibly the City would waives all park dedication fees and subdivision fees incurred in oxchange for the now Cedar Street road align- ment. It would appear in my opinion that this may be unreason- able, although the City io acquiring a new right-of-way, the City in also vacating the old right-of-way which Mr. Roher does acquiru in the prop000d concept plan. In addition, normally a subdivision of thda size would need some roadway dedication for propor development and thin has always been the responsibility of the developer to dedicato this to the City. Current sub- division ordinances roquiro that either l0% of the land be given to the City for park dedication purposou or 10% of the market value of the property Lasing subdivided. The park dedi- cation fees if paid in canh would amount to approximately $2,500 to $1,000 and so far the City has incurred approximate- ly $2,500 in engine ging and planning fees for reviewing the concept and preliminary plat stages of victoria Square. By the time the final plat is ready to record, I am cure addition- al planning and eng incering fele will be accumulated on ro- viewing of thin plat as the City Cngineor has already done survoy work acaocia ted with the potential vacation of Cedar Street and for the preparation of deeds to transfer the prolxnty. - 4 - Planning Commission - 2/8/83 One additional item that will be addressed at the time of the final plat review will be the rezoning of the property to match the proposed concept plan. Currently the parcels B and C lying north of Dundas Road is currently zoned B-3, Highway Business, which is a correct zoning for parcel C, but parcel B which proposes office buildings on the lower level with residential on the upper levels of the buildings would probably be rezoned to R-3, residential business zon- ing district. The property lying south of Dundas Road is currently zoned R-1, single family residential and it is recommended at the time of final platting that parcel A. proposed for 29 townhouse units be rezoned to R-3, multiple family residential and parcel D proposed for the motel restaurant site be rezoned to B-3, highway business to match our zoning classifications. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approving the revised concept plan as submitted and recommending approval of the final plat for the first phase consisting of 29 townhouse units. The approval, if granted, could be contingent upon Mr. Rehor being required to plat the entire Victoria Square project into four (4) outlets with the dedication of new Cedar Street being included in the ovarall plat and could be subject to approval of all property owners involved regarding the vacation of Cedar Street. REFERENCESs A copy of the oriqinal concept plan and a copy of additional parcel D being added to the concept plan and comments from the planner and engineer and latter from Ken Krianko indicating his agra®ant with the proposed concept plan. The entire revised concept plan along with the proposod final platting of parcel A in availablo at City Hall for the Planning Commiaoion'a review. - 5 - ORR•SCHEEEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors February 4, 1983 Mr. Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator City of Monticello P.O. Box777 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: Victoria Square Concept Plan Dear Tom: On Friday January 28, 1983, Mr. Mike Reher, Developer for Victoria Square, visited my office and handed me a revised Concept Plan for Victoria Square indicating that a Parcel D was added to the Planned unit Development. Previously, on three different occasions between June and October 29, 1962, we commented on the basic concept plans prepared by Mr. Wallace L. Case the Architect -Planner for this development firm, Minnesota Exchangers, Inc. This revised plan, dated November 11, 1982, contains the addition of Parcel D. The significance of this plan is the addition of lands not previously included in the plan. These lands involve the triangular parcel of property between Trunk Highway 25 and existing Cedar Street, the existing Codar Street right-of-way and approximately a 3 acre tract of land oast of existing Cedar Street. It appears that the Developer is acquiring or intends to acquire the land on each aide of Cedar Street south of Dundee Road. If this happens and Cedar Street is vacated, he would acquire the entire right-of-way of Cedar Street South of D rides Rdadi This w(,u1d than provide a 3.69 acre parcel of land Parce� D. withnuE more d@tailed information an the proposed motel/restaurant, it is hw,d'sjjNip Ed ddidulat• the number of parking spaces required. The ude�'1��1 i�itlotl �O���fa •at'Oinel unless a determination can be 94$b es .. wt as o[ t ese etal n. That is, the motel occupants are alro the restaurant customers utilising the name parking spaces. This development will require cooperation with and from other property owners to obtain the necessary roadway extension for Dundas Road to Trunk Highway 25 and the vacation of existing Cedar Street. It is my 2021 fest Hennepin u. 1 �... n., ,•,. nJ,rs. 55413 . 6121331-8660 331.8G60 Page Two Mr. Thomas Eidem, City Administrator Re: Victoria Square Concept Plan February 4, 1983 understanding that the Developer would like to first proceed with Parcel A and have that platted initially. It would be my recommendation that all the property owners involved consent and the entire parcel of land consisting of Parcels A, B, C and D be platted as outlots which would show the dedication of new Cedar Avenue as well as the vacation of old Cedar Street. This way the City would be assured of a new roadway before any street vacations are given to facilitate this development. This would also give us the necessary extension of Dundas Road from old Cedar Street to Trunk Highway 25. This platting would be similar to what is now transpiring in the Meadow Oaks development and on this basis, the Developer can then re -plat each one of the outlets as time and conditions may dictate. This concludes our comments on this Concept plan and in the event you may have any questions, please give me a call. Yours very truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON VP . Badalich, P.E. yngineer JPB:min ccs Mr. Mike Reber Wallace L. Case D _ C<w uthm P6nners One Grovefand Terrace f6121377-3$36 Minnsawfis Minnesnt 55403 Howard Dahlgren Aaso0WW / h0OMor W PLANMG REPORT DATEt 8 February 1983 TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: C. John Wan RE: Subject Property: Phase One Development of 2.24 acres, South of Dundas and East of Extended Cedar Avenue Development Names Victoria Square Owner: Mike L. A. Reher Planner Landscape Architect: Wallace L. Case Engineorinq/SurvoVinq: Sathro-Bergquist, Inc. I Action Roquented: Amend PUD Concept Development Stage PUD for Phase One Preliminary Plat Conoidoration of Proposed Rezoning from R-1 and B-3 to R-3 PLANWO C LAND OWNERSHIP The prop000d development and preliminary plot includoo land not owned by Mr. Rehor. The other land owner hao now signed the PUD Application and is cooperating in development with Mr. Rohor so prop000d on the amended PUD Concept. COMPREHENSIVE PUN The proiwood project will alter the Comprchonaivo Plan Guido of future land uoos in Chia arca. The City ohould undertake a atudy to ro-exanine land uoo pattorno in the oouthorn fringe arca of Monticello. PLANNING REPORT APPLICANT: Hike L. A. Reher DATE: 8 February 1983 v ROAD REROUTING Page 2 The plat for this project should be the instrument for the realignment of Cedar and Dundas. The right-of-way for Cedar should be dedicated with this plat. ZONING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE 1. The R-2 minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet (required) with 8.7 units per acre. This development proposes a minimum lot size of 3,364 square feet and 13 unite per acre. 2. The required front yard setback is 30 feet minimum. The proposed minimum setback in this development is 30 feet. 3. A minimum aide yard setback of 20 feet is required. This development proposes a minimum setback of 30 feet at the perimeter of the property and the proposed interior building side yard setback minimum is 12.5 feet. The PUD Ordinance requires one-half of the sum of the two buildings' height which is 35 feet or 28 feet in this case to be the distance between the buildings within a PUD development. 4. Rear yard setback is 30 feet (required) except where adjacent to single family zoned land, then the minimum setback is 40 feet. The proposed rear yard setback is 30 foot even along the southern border whore the property is adjacent to R-1 land. Building D at the corner of Dundao and Cedar has added an extra tan foot to 20 foot of setback to mitigate the impact of the future intersection. This arrangement has used land that would normally be required for Buildings B and C. 5. Parking masts the required number. I would suggest that the parking apron in front of the garages have a depth of 22 foot to safoly accommodate the loading and unloading of the trunk. People also tend not to park as close to a garage door as they would the curb at a normal parking lot. DENSITY The R-3 Ordinance normally would allow 19 units on this property. When Dundas was platted the City made note of some compensation to Mr. Reber by transferring density credit of the 80 foot right-of-way to the remaining land. The Preliminary Plat indicates that one-half of the right-of-way is PLANNING REPORT APPLICANTS Mike L. A. Reher DATE: 8 February 1983 Page 3 to be considered for density allowing 2.5 units in addition to the allowed 19 unite. In order for 24 units to be allowed on the site, density credit for all of Dundas would have to be applied. Usually, this credit is split half and half to the north and south adjacent property. Putting all the credit on the southern piece may be too much for the land to hold without significant variances. I believe some mitigation through good site planning has already happened here. The further intensity of landscaping on the perimeters of the property will be necessary to help mitigate the variances needed for the setbacks. The proposal is asking for 5 to 7 unite more than is allowed or can be justified. Total Platted Site 2.5 acres x 5,000 sq. ft./acre - 22 units Half of Dundas R.O.W. 0.3 acres Additional Property 0.2 acres The proposed density on this land excluding right-of-way is 13 units per acre. GRADING The plan should provide for more positive collection of surface run-off along the southern boundary. On -situ water can be temporarily stored in the drainage awales. Berms should be extended and raised (Elevation 966-967) along the right-of- ways to bettor buffer the endo of the buildings and the aide yards. This io important bocauso of all the commercial and industrial traffic that will ono day use Dundee and Cedar. A 1.5 percent alopo io adequate for drainage between the garages and the buildings if all root arean aro guttered to a tilo oyatem or open awalo. SITE ELEMENTS The play area is nicely dooigned and will help mitigate the tightness of tho development. Traoh and otorago aro handled wall. The five foot wide side - we Ike are needed becauno they run adjacent to building wallo. The common areas and overall podectrian pattern is designed quite effectively. Mail toxon and entry signs aro in good locations but details of theac should be submitted and reviewed. Lighting should be added to the aito plan covering pedestrian lighto in the common arcao, building lighto for front and rear of garagen, entry lighto 0 V N PLANNING REPORT APPLICANT: Mike L. A. Reher DATE: 8 February 1983 Page 4 on each unit and street and parking lights at the road entrances as well as in the interior parking area. LANDSCAPING The southern 30 foot setback area adjacent to R-1 land should receive more shade trees and shrubs along with some privacy fencing to provide a successful buffer. Sizes of shade trees next to paved areas should have a minimum trunk diameter of three (3) inches to sustain abuse from cars, people, and plowed snow. The pines should have an average of six (6) feet in height when used along street right-of-ways. A more intense overall landscape plan could help mitigate some of the problems of this development. PUD CONCEPT A14ENDMENT The proposed motel would be a good land use highlighting the entrance on Dundas to the commercial/industrial area. The land is partially zoned B-3 and R-1 which is a natural blend for a motel. As shown on the Concept Plan there should not be direct access onto Highway 25. Access should come from Dundee and Codar. The owners should prepare a plat that will document all the land exchanges, right-of-way vacations, and right-of-way dedications needed to carry out the road alignmonto shown on the PUD Concept Plan. WHO V -1Z r �. ti K -,u -*t A--& (;& ✓ r � �`77�7 rt�i?I a UtAr O—a z h e ,vim x£3.1 e c� r a�-, s Vii/) O� 0 Planning Commission - 2/8/83 5. Consideration of Variance Request - Curb and Gutter Require- ments.- Silver Fox Motel. Recently, Reinert Construction of Sauk Rapids, on behalf of the Silver Fox Motel has submitted plans for a proposed ex- pansion of the dining facilities at the motel along with an 18 room addition. The expansion of the dining and bar area would be approximately 26 % 52 feet and the 18 unit motel addition would include an area for a sauna and whirlpool. A site plan has been presented adding an additional 45 new parking spaces making a total parking provided of 124 spaces for cars and 5 spaces for truck parking. In reviewing the overall requirements for the motel and restaurant operation, the 129 spaces would be sufficient according to our city ordinance. The proposed now parking area will be black topped and will also include curb and gutter around the new parking areas as required by city ordinances. The zoning ordinances currently require that before any non- conforming property can be anlargod, they must comply with all city currant ordinances. At the time the motel was built, the city did not have a requirement for curb and gutter around all of the existing parking areas and as a result, the Silver Fox Motel had some of their existing parking without curb and gutter. Reinert Construction has requested that a variance bo granted from requiring curb and gutter around the former parking areas because at the time it was originally built, the City ordinances were met. Reinert Construction has in- dicated no problem installing curb and gutter around the new parking areas to mot current city ordinances which their site plan does indicate. The existing parking areas do have curb and gutter where parking is adjacent to the building and curb barricro have been inatalled around the outer edges of the existing parking lot. It appears that the roqueat is reasonable in that they are willing to comply with the current ordinances in eotabliuhing a curb and gutter barrier around the now parking expansion and the fact that at that time the motel was originally built, the City did not require curb and gutter only that a curb barrier of come sort be cotabliched. The concrete curb barriaro did moot the ordinance at that time. - 6 - V Planning Commission - 2/8/83 POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approving or denying variance request to eliminate permanent curb barrier around existing parking lot at the Silver Fox Motel. REFERENCES, A copy of site plan indicating proposed parking area expansion and motel expansions. - 7 - TO: All Council Members and Planning Commission Members. FROM: Tom Eidem DATE: January 7, 1983. SUBJECT: Updating Ordinance Books. We have had several changes again in the ordinance books which have not been updated in your books. I would appreciate you bringing your books along on the next meeting night which is next week and leave them here and we will have them ready for you by the next meeting. Thank you.