Planning Commission Agenda 08-04-1998
.
.
.
AGE DA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August , 1998 - 7 p.m.
Members:
Dick Frie, Richard Martie, Jon Bo art, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
1. Call to order.
2.
A.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 7, 1998.
B. Approval of minutes ofthe special meeting held July 7, 1998.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agen a.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing-Consideration of a side y d variance for garage. Applicant, Edward and
Maria Hughes.
6. Public Hearing--Consideration of a condit onal use permit for shared driveway.
Applicant, Blue Chip, Inc., representing enneth Lantto.
7.
Public Hearing-Consideration of a prelim nary plat and final plat and consideration of a
side yard setback variance. Applicant, Br an Worth and Bev Abrahamson.
8.
Public Hearing-Consideration of a condit onal use permit allowing a drive-through teller
and canopy and consideration of a varian e to setback standards. Applicant, First
Minnesota Bank, NA.
9. Public Hearing-Consideration of a 55 lot ubdivision and consideration of front yard
variance. Applicant, John E. Chadwick, LC and Residential Development, Inc.
10. Public Hearing-Consideration of a condit onal use permit for a PUD (Planned Unit
Development) amendment. Applicant, 'onticello-Big Lake Community Hospital.
11. Public Hearing-Consideration of an ame dment to the City Zoning Code to provide
standards for the erection of government 1 signs in residential districts. Applicant, City of
Monticello.
12. Continued Public Hearing-Consideration of a zoning map amendment from Agricultural
to R-PUD for Wild Wood Ridge Subdivi ion. Applicant Darrel Farr.
13. Public Hearing-Consideration of a side y rd variance for garage. Applicant, Shade Tree
Construction.
14.
Consideration of recommendations to Ci y Council regarding Park Dedication Fees.
15. Consideration of Pylon Monument sign r Cub Foods. Applicant, Cub Foods.
.
.
.
Agenda
Planning Commission
8/4/98
Page 2
16. Consideration of a resolution finding St. B nedicts Home congregate care housing
development is consistent with the Compre ensive Plan for the City.
17. Adjournment.
.
.
.
MINU ES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 7, 1998 - 7 p.m.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, R d Dragsten, Richard Carlson
Also Present:
Bill Fair.
Absent:
Council Liaison Clint Herb
2. Consideration of a roval of minutes of re ular meetin held June 2 1998.
AFTER DISCUSSION, MOTION WAS ADE BY RICHARD CARLSON AND
SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO PPROVE THE MINUTES WITH
CORRECTIONS TO NAME INFORMAT ON ON ITEMS TWO AND FOUR.
"ROGER CARLSON" SHOULD BE CH NGED TO "RICHARD CARLSON." Motion
carried unanimously.
3. Consideration of additional items to the a
Chief Building Official Fred Patch equested discussion regarding a 2' side yard
variance request relating to a garag that was constructed by mistake in the wrong
location.
A.
4. Citizens Comments
None forthcoming.
5. Continued Public Hearin -- Consideration of are uest for a conditional use ermit
allowin a tower in excess of the district b ildin hei ht limits and consideration of a
variance from the rear ard setback to allo a wireless communications tower. A licant
U. S. West Wireless LLC. Location: Bond us Tool Manufacturin Site.
Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill rep rted that additional research has been done
on the matter relating to the location of the site relative to the helipad. He noted that the
director of the air ambulance at North Me orial Hospital does not object to the tower.
Ken Neilson, representing the applicant, no ed that the company reviewed a large area
and found that this site is best suited due to present zoning and location for transmissions.
He also requested a temporary tower to op ate while constructing the permanent tower.
Commission Member Robbie Smith asked f they had looked at all locations.
Mr. Nielson stated that they have exhauste all other possibilities.
Jeff O'Neill asked ifthe transmissions will interfere with other electronic devices located
nearby. Mr. Nielson noted that the equip ent is licensed through the FCC and will meet
Page 1
J/I-I
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/07/98
.
all standards. They have never had a probl m but will work with the City in the event of
a problem with signal conflict.
Jeff O'Neill asked if the warning light at t e top of the tower will be a strobe light or a
slow pulsing light. Mr. Nielson noted that the light will be a light that will meet the
minimum requirements of the FAA.
City Planner Steve Grittman noted that gr ting the variance will allow the base of the
structure to be screened from the public ri ht-of-way and does not violate the intent of the
ordinance.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION W A MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED
BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND CARRIED ANIMOUSL Y TO RECOMMEND
APPROV AL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW, BASE UPON A FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED USE COMPLIES WITH TH REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH
FACILITIES IN THE ZONING ORDIN CEo
2.
THE EQUIPMENT AREA IS SC ENED FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY.
1. THE TOWER DOES NOT ENCR ACH INTO THE FRONT YARD AND IS
PLACED AS FAR FROM THE FONT LOT LINE AS POSSIBLE.
.
3. THE TOWER DOES NOT INTE ERE WITH THE FLIGHT PATH FOR THE
HOSPITAL'S HELICOPTER SE VICES.
4. THE TOWER MEETS ALL OTH R ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.
5. TEMPORARY TOWER IS ACCE TABLE BUT MUST BE REMOVED
WITHIN 90 DAYS AND REMO ED IMMEDIA TEL Y AT COMPLETION OF
PERMANENT TOWER.
6. FLASHING LIGHT MUST NOT E A STROBE LIGHT AND SHALL MEET
FCC REQUIREMENTS.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN, SECO DED BY DICK FRIE AND CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y TO RECOMMEND A PROV AL OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR A WIRELESS COMM ICATION TOWER BASED UPON A
FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY'S IQUE SHAPE AND BENEFIT OF
SCREENING BY A BUILDING ON SIT JUSTIFIES THE VARIANCE.
.
Pag 2
;; It -;;..
.
.
.
6.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/07/98
Continued Public Hearin - Review the fi surve and consideration of an amendment tot
the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance reI tin
purposes. Aoolicant. City of Monticello.
Chief Building Official Fred Patch gave a general overview of the survey data showing
comparative data on fees for services char ed by area cities. He noted that generally the
City of Monticello fees are middle of the oad or slightly lower. Commission members
agreed that additional time is needed to lyze the data. After discussion it was
determined to table the matter pending fu her analysis and recommendation by City staff
7.
endation on si ns for Cub Foods.
Chief Building Official Fred Patch noted t at the sign plan for the Cub Foods store was
reviewed and approved by the DA T on M y 13 based on the finding that the signs were
in conformance with the intent of the CC District and the Comprehensive Plan. The
sign area is approximately twice that allo able under the City's sign ordinance; however,
the DA T felt that the signs were appropria e to the scale of the building.
Dick Frie asked if we should change the 0 dinance. It was noted that the CCD district
provides flexibility for signage that allows the larger sign area. We may need to change
the ordinance as it applies to the B-4 and -3 districts. In these areas, the flexibility does
not exist to allow signs designed for large 'Big Box" stores.
AFTER DISCUSSION, MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON
RECOMMENDATION BY THE DESIG
SIGN. Motion carried unanimously.
8. Additional Items
ADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND
o APPROVE AND SUPPORT THE
ADVISORY TEAM ON THE CUB FOOD
A. Chief Building Official Fred Patch noted that due to an error by a land surveyor, a
garage was placed at the wrong loe tion and needs a 2' variance to the setback
requirement. It was noted that the ariance could include a requirement that the
garage be screened. There,is a pre edent in the city to allow variances where the
building was placed in the wrong I cation due to a simple mistake especially
where the variance will not impose a hardship on an adjoining property.
Page 3
;2Pr--3
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/07/98
B.
Planning Commission briefly discus ed the interview session with candidate Roy
Popelik.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTIO WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON
AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE S ITH TO RECOMMEND ROY POPELIK
FOR FILLING THE VACANT PO ITION ON THE PLANNING
COMMISSION. Motion carried un imously.
There being no further business the meeting was ad oumed.
Jeff O'Neill
Deputy City Administrator
Page
~A-~
.
MIND ES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 7, 1998 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Rod ragsten, Richard Carlson
Members Absent: None
1. Planning Commission Interview.
The Planning Commission interviewed Ro Popelik for the purpose of filling the vacancy
resulting from Dick Martie's resignation. r. Popelik was the single applicant.
Roy Popelik noted that he has been a reside t of the Klein Farms residential area for three
years. He is originally from the St. Cloud ea. He is willing and able to provide the
energy needed to serve on the Commission. He also went on to describe his background
in more detail.
A recommendation on filling the position as deferred to the July 1998 regular meeting.
. There being no further business the meeting was a .oumed.
.
Jeff O'Neill
Deputy City Administrator
~B
.
.
.
s.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
Public Hearin -Consideration of a side ard variance in the R-l Zonin District for
ara e. Location: Lot 8 Block 1 Balbo I Estates. A licant: Edward and Marla
Hu!!hes. (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
Mr. and Mrs. Hughes are seeking to add attached garage to their residence at 147
Hedman Lane. The proposed garage is 22 feet wide and 30 feet deep (660 square feet in
area). The residence was originally cons cted without a garage and is non-conforming
to current Zoning Code. The current zoni g ordinance requires that with each residence
constructed, a garage of at least 480 squar feet in floor area must also be constructed.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, a ce ified land survey must be provided to verify
lot dimensions and the locations of both e isting and proposed buildings and structures.
According to the site plan submitted, a thr e foot reduction in the ten foot side yard
setback is requested on the garage side.
If the dimensions of the site plan are corre t, it is possible to meet the side yard setback of
20 feet if the garage is only 20 feet in widt . A 20 foot wide garage is tight side to side
but will easily park two vehicles if there is 0 storage on the sides of the garage. If
additional storage is desired, it may be pro ided at the back of the garage and accessed by
a door into the back yard or through the fro t of the garage when vehicles are not in the
garage.
The Planning Commission may find that e 10 foot side yard setback unreasonably
restricts the use and enjoyment of the prope y by reducing the width of the garage to less
than practical. It may be argued that the re uced width may cause the residents to store
personal property outside and that the outsi e storage is a blight to the neighborhood;
however, some families never seem to have sufficient storage for the property they
choose to keep.
This request is not unique. Several neighbo ood residence exist where the City has
allowed attached garages to be built to with'n six feet of the side yard property line.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to allow a variance for a thre foot reduction to the 10 foot side yard
setback on the garage side, to const ct a garage 22 feet wide and 30 feet deep.
Making the findings that:
1.
The construction of a garage f less than 22 feet in width will cause undue
hardship upon the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property.
2.
The construction of a garage f sufficient size will provide for adequate
indoor storage for personal p perty, avoiding exterior storage.
1
.
3.
The construction of the pro osed garage will make the property more
conforming to the City 20 ing Code.
2. Motion to deny the variance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
Exhibit A - Copy of Applicable Ordinance Section: 3-3 [C].
Exhibit B - Location Map.
Exhibit C - Site Plan
.
.
2
.
.
.
[C] All setback distances s listed in the table below shall be measured
from the appropriate I t line and shall be required minimum
distances.
A-O
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
PZR
PZM
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
1-1
1-2
B-C
P-S
Side Yard Rear Yard
50 30 50
30 10 30
30 10 30
30 20 30
30 30 30
See Chapt r 10 for specific regulations.
See Chapt r 10 for specific regulations.
30 15 20
30 10 20
30 10 30
o 0 0
40 30 40
50 30 50
50 30 40
See Chapte 19B for specific regulations.
(#259, 10/10/94)
1. In R-1, R-2, B-1, d B-2 districts where adjacent structures,
excluding accesso y buildings within same block, have front
yard setbacks diffi rent from those required, the front yard
minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent
structures. If the e is only one (1) adjacent structure, the front
yard minimum se back shall be the average of the required
setback and the s tback of the adjacent structure. In no case
shall the minimu front yard setback exceed thirty (30) feet,
except as provide in subsection [F] below.
2. In R~1, R-2, B-1, a d B-2 districts, iflot is a corner lot, the side
yard setback shall be not less than twenty (20) feet from the lot
line abutting the treet right-of-way line.
[D] The following shall not e considered as encroachments on yard
setback requirements:
1. Chimneys, flues, elt courses, leaders, sill, pilaster, lintels,
ornamental featur s, cornices, eaves, gutters, and the like,
provided they do ot project more than two (2) feet into a yard.
2. Terraces, steps, or similar features, provided they do not extend
above the height 0 the ground floor level of the principal
structure or to ad' stance less than two (2) feet from any lot line.
EXHIBIT A - COPY OF APPLICA LE ORDINANCE SECTION: 3-3 [Cr.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
.5-1
3/19
~
~.
Considcl'ation of side yard ,'at'jan('l' for g:tmge.
Applicllnt: Edward ..~ Mnrla 1J11~hes
:1 ,.... 'I!; 85
..
II (j ~
~ t r
..~ !
~
,.
---
~
85 I"" 11'111
.,
\lO
4 '" 0
t 5 ~
'1....
-111
-,
'0' "
.0 ..
j
..
li
t
,
o !
cr
c.~ ,'"
!
t
., \II
. .,
1 CI~ I~" ~
Il\
3 .
..
"
Il\
-
'11
..
,.11.1
6 \II -0
..
110.1' l>
::0
?(
"
j ~
8 0
.n ..
.. 1f',~5S
..
. III
.. 2 "
~ ."-
If" ....... (,o'.l~
I 3 III
.,
Z II';."~
:; i 4 111
~ Q: . ..
12 1: oct 1!l11.
~
",
"" "
""-
''''"
"
-..,.
'.
"
'''"
-.......
".
""",
"..
'",,-
,.
....,
"
"
.~
~",
"'.
"
~
044100
..\......
'''... .
"
"'...
"
""
'..,
''''"
""
~-... -
'"
''''...
-. """
.~.~......
'",
~
\
"
,.,
",
"',
"
....'"
","
...
",
~,
EXHIBIT B - LOCATION MAP
""'..
" "!)9
...
.....
,j ,.4
~:,i
C(
..
-,.'
".J
0""'"
1..,..
I ..
r1'"
( )
1:1:.1
</;
...
.~
S:;2.
Wd ~t:ge 86-L~-,n~
te"d
9969 ~6:::: ~t9
S3H~nH a3
~, ~ -~f
.
s
NOlkc Is hNeby given Ihal Pllblic hearings will be h Id by 1I1l~ CilY of Monlicellv PlalJning COlnmission
on Auaust 4. 1998 at 7 Pl\.L II I the Monllcello City I rail to consider the follovvlllH moUNS;
PUBl.IC HEARJNG:
CUlIsidcralion of sid )'nTel variance for gilrage.
r .QCiltion: Lol 8, B1uc <; I. nal boul ESI<:Ilcs.
Applicant, Cdwarc.l a d Marla Hughes.
-., '-...., .---~....- . ....~._-.,~,--,.~--,-. '-~~~'-----"_~_...~_. ~..,---~
,
40
"
~
\J
I't)
. """'-
I
Cb
)d
f<:o P~f\ ~
it~A _ _~2_
'"1""---
....
J
j--\()V ~ rf
':d
I'
\J)
.......
-"r
:l:J
- "-~, ".._--",,_... . -""-"--'..
'4"::0-
-1..-::
<j.J
...
qo'
Wrlllen and ora/tesUmQny will be accepted 011 above 5 bjccIs, and all persons desitillg 10 be heard on
referenced subjects will b~ hCilTl.l ntthls meeting.
~ Decisions of the Planning Cornmisslon willl.Jc li lal unless appealclllJy an individlliJl by U:OO AM
on Wedl1esday..~u&!.!lil2.~ 1998. Appeals must J(" in writing, sign~d, and must stale rC(lsons
for appeal. If appeal is filed, 'lie Cily Coulldl sl all hear appe,,1 on Monday. f\ugUtil ~1. Ip98 ul 7
fM at the Monticello City Hall.
4ItEXHIBIT C - SITE PLAN
~ .
, .
S:-3
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
6.
Public Hearin : Consideration of a re uest for a Subdivision and Conditional Use
Permit 1-1 Zonin District to allow for a hared drivewa . A lieant: Blue Chi Inc.
(NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROU D:
Blue Chip, Inc., representing Kenneth L to, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a shared driveway between two pa eels to be subdivided from Lot 5, Block 3 of
Oakwood Industrial Park (206 Dundas R ad). The property currently houses the Vector
Tool building. The property would be spli to allow a second building to be constructed on
the vacant side. The subdivision would res It in lots of approximately 269 feet and 161 feet
in width, with areas of 4.02 and 2.42 ac es, respectively. Both lots would exceed the
minimums of 100 feet and 20,000 square eet in the I-I District. The Subdivision can be
approved administratively without Planni g Commission action.
The Conditional Use Permit would be to a commodate the sharing of driveways and access
between the two lots. The Zoning Ordin ce typically requires a minimum of a five foot
setback for parking and driveway areas. In this case, the sharing of driveways would
facilitate truck movements and automobil traffic on the site, and would likely reduce the
possible use of the public right-of-way for truck circulation.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the subdivisio and a Conditional Use Permit, based upon a
finding that the sharing of drivewa s and access points will reduce industrial traffic
impacts on the public right-of-way
2. Motion to table action on the Con itional Use Permit, subject to the submission of
additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditi nal Use Permit for shared parking. To the extent
that traffic between the two buildings will ot be forced onto the street, this proposal would
reduce conflicts in the public right-of-way, consistent with the objectives ofthe subdivision
and zoning ordinances.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan
3
.
uaoJ
ltij ,00
t' ''',r(
~
i
I
i
i
I
~ i
"I i
~
" I
P
I I
~ I
i
I
I
i' I
'~ '
, ~ ! I
I i I
\1
! 'I
I I, g
i ! I
! !,
I II
I I,
i ! I
i I,
I'
0 i It
I i~
I'
---- 1;'J i I
, i,
-~i:
, II
~._- ,
, I,
,
-:::--~ f: i I
H ,
,-, , I,
,
--.: I ! I
' '''1
I~ I
- ~- :~ I,
---- ,..,: 1\,
, i
,
, i
I
, I~
, i
~
J
~
r
~
.
~ 0
-I
(J1
.,,;
.
--"-!_, J---~.~--."1-' -"'- --'
~'T'I
I I
~
lr?
€V
-, ~
~
" [1l
"', ~
206 DUNDAS ROAD
.
rAT1~ ~l VECTOR TOOL 11 lonllo
, _ ~ r!J STORAGE ElUI..OINO tK;JtffiCEUO!.'lNl' SOTA ~ eon.,.ny,h>,
--"'-""'---'--< 0 n.... "'"'",-"-,-,'~-,,:'-~----,, m
~ Exhibit A - Site Plan
~
:::'l;!fir;ll':2*-~ s.:~~
'. ,_. "." Go ","m.f. E3.I \lRANS1llOU A!lSQC;I.<, TEa AAC>>TECTS I
~~1RM,.""'~YIII~
'-I
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -8/4/98
7.
Public Hearin : Consideration of are u
Variance for the ur ose of relocatin
A licants: Beverl Abrahamson and Lo
t for a Prelimina Final Plat and Setback
lot line between two existin
nie Worth Estate. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUN
The applicants are owners of two parcels at e intersection of Linn Street and Front Street,
along the Mississippi River. Over the year , the owners had negotiated certain exchanges
of property along their common boundary w ich were designed to allow additional land for
expansion of the southerly house. Howev r, these exchanges resulting in setback non-
conformities from the northerly house. In 0 der to clear up title to the land between the two
parcels, staff suggested that the subdivisio be prepared as a re-plat, with a grant of a
variance to memorialize the existing conditions on the property.
Since the subdivision does not create any n w buildable parcels, this proposal would have
normally been reviewed as simple subdivisi n with a metes and bounds survey description.
The title concerns resulted in the recomme dation for the plat to clear both issues up with
one action.
The purpose ofthe variance is to recognize t e existing condition on the northerly property.
It may be accompanied by a condition t at if the existing structure is removed, new
construction would require a new approval process. Because of the Shoreland setbacks,
buildable area on the northerly lot is extrem ly limited.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Preliminary and Final PIa
1. Motion to approve the Preliminary d Final Plats of Worth Estates, based upon a
finding that because no new buildab e parcels are created, there are no new impacts
on public services.
2. Motion to deny the Plat, based upo a finding that the subdivision would create a
non-conforming setback condition.
3. Motion to table action on the Plat p nding additional information.
Decision 2: Variance to Side Yard Set ack
Motion to approve the Variance or Lot 2, with the condition that any new
construction will be subject to a new approval process, based upon a finding that the
buildable area of the lot is severely r stricted due to shore land setbacks, and that the
development precedes the applicati n of contemporary setback regulations.
1.
2. Motion to deny the Variance, based pon a finding that the conditions were created
by the owners of the parcels in ques ion.
4
Planning Commission Agenda -8/4/98
.
3.
Motion to table action on the Varia ce, pending additional information.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Plat and the Variance, with the condition that any new
construction would be subject to a new appr val process. This condition is designed to avoid
further encroachment into the setback wit out a full hearing, and acknowledges that the
current encroachment is due to historical d velopment circumstances unique to these lots.
Although it would be possible to deny the v iance on sound findings, this would not relieve
the northerly lot of its non-conforming sta us (due to the Shoreland setback), and would
likely leave the southerly lot in a non-conti rming state as well. The grant of the variance
would appear to be the best attempt t conform to current standards, as well as
acknowledging the existing conditions on t e two properties.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Plat Drawing/Survey
.
.
5
r~iI 5~1
/ ~r-.., ~~q
J~! fi~ "-
I ~:, ~ "
"
/ ~~
/
O;'~
l!~
.' E
f
h~i
~
~
~
/
~,
~
~
"-
", lJl _.""._
OJ ~.~ -~':'~'-
Q) ".3..,.d;J "~'t/"...
~,
"'-"
. ~...,~
&
rff
.~
~l>
~
"'-"
"
o
..."...
~
~a ~
~~. ~
,
5l
l:l ~
, >:
f;1!:
:b '.
""
..............
0,
"
,.~
-'-'~
~-r ~I!., ~
lI._ ~~ .~_...
-~~ ~...=-"'E ..~
~;"'o::.:...-.:.::....-..;o-<:~:::':"'~
"='"""~ --~....-
-Iii -~...~~
..,
:c
'"
~ ~
'"
);! '"
""'( ~
,-
~
~?';
t\i
~~~
J'''''''-''(j)
4........ rl,l
"-
RJ
~
",
-<
li;
...",
~~
. to
.
~ ~
'>1
'.
" t'
"- h1
... ~ '-l
<.J ;\
"- -~ ~
19 ~~
~
19
'.
(~
'"
.t '~.::--:~::._~::~~_ __
~-=::-'~:k~S~Q ".-, "-
> ~-'o;;;F- o;!:e...... ,s. :-...
,~ ~.,- """,- <?>.
( -.t" - 00.
"""'~ 00.
-~ 'e. ..
(, 7'A~ ~ '""'!...' --'--.."
..c;V) ~;.-"!~ ',~-'!~_
--:':'''-........ .....~-,
~ -:.~
" ;l'~<="p.
...-}'
~"""
:.~
" ~ :.
" "
"',,~
~~"
~ "
~""
.. <:
" "
"''' "
... ~ ~
~~::
~. ~.~
::~"'
~~~
"IQH-
'-~
~
~
~~
:.'"
.. ~
....
h.. ~
.. ~
~ ~
~:<
~"
......
.... ~
&,,,
'e ~
.. ~
.."
~"
" ~
""
j"- .I(
~ ::
g>ll
~ "
;~
~~
<: "
~;
!~f
!~~ ~:.
~'1 .V~
,- fO ~i
. -~ ;l
~~ 'l
. ~ If
'Oij:
u.
. &
l
H"
" ~
" ~
...~
.." -
A '-l
" .
.......
..
I /
/ I I I
,
. I /
',J,~
...
7
I
I
~
~
'Y
r<
0]
lu
"---
/
.....
50'
~,~
',. a
~~.
Qt'
~I
t~f
~~,
.i~
~
It I
ft"
':~
I~
~
~
~
H~ ~~i I
fii f( :
~~ ~ ~ ij
, ~ I ~
/
/
/
"
'.,
r.
'"
L',
~~
'.
f':
,..... ",
I.}
.f! ..
i ~ ,-
,.
IN c::. '"
~
w "'0
-t I ~e;:
!J ~~
I~ .. ~
J> :::; -;
~~
/1 ~....
! ~
~n
---:: \ ';.~, 11 ~a
:.IR
~
, ~\,,- I ~
'\ \ "-
l\ ~ " r-
~ .. n
/! I " ~
t)
Q ~
-;
"<
; I ~
I ^J I'
r \ . ~
I \ I :::;
:0: , \ ~ ;j
~ I > I' , \). !fi
~.... .'\' a 1\
.\ . .
-.. t~ I " '~ ~-- . t;:
.-< If ... ' '~ to
. /' !1
} I,~ I tit , .. r ~ .'
If ~ . ) ~ :g
I~ I -;. 'i !Ii ~
. . ~ "-i
/f i II .~
~
· iJO) i II
M
IIf\J =ti
II
8~::
. '1. t:I
I rt I't.
,,,...
.. ::I 0
."..
I ~....,..
~;,.:
......
''<..8
~~ S
. (
ooo
I~~~
.. c: ~
...~
. ..,. ~ "<
"'OO
s:~
..".
..io
it
~.
.'"
...
"'..
u
,,-..
o
"f
0..
....
i2.
S
..
..
&'8
;i
..
"
3,
.
l
~
'"
'8-
...,
o.
"
0-
..:
l'
8 ;
" .
",
".
r
"
. --
"
:;
::
o
.
o
..
..
:,:.
'"
;;
Is I
i'l
~
'<
$ 9
.............
... ,-
t
EXHIBIT A - PL T DRAWING/SURVEY
-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -8/4/98
8.
(NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
First Minnesota Bank has acquired a parcel t 106 East 4th Street, at the comer of 4th Street
and Highway 25. The parcel is within th CCD zoning district, which allows banks as
permitted uses, but which applies a Conditi nal Use Permit to drive-through facilities. The
purpose of this clause is to ensure that the au omobile orientation of a drive-through does not
reduce the ability ofthe site to serve pedestr an traffic, a key component of the community's
downtown revitalization efforts.
Variances have been requested which wo d allow the site improvements to encroach to
within one foot for the parking lot on the so th side, and to within eight feet for the parking
lot and driveway on the east side. Respectiv setbacks for these areas would be five feet and
twenty feet, based upon the adjacent land u es.
Conditional Use Permit
The elements of the Conditional Use Pe it for drive-through facilities in the CCD area
include the following:
1. Service through drive-through facili ies is accessory to interior on-site, or sit-down,
service within the same building.
2. Drive-through lanes are designed t avoid disruption of pedestrian and vehicular
traffic flow, both on- and off-site.
3. Landscaping and other site improv ments are included which screen automobile
stacking space from the public stree .
4. The principal building occupies no less than forty (40) percent of the property,
exclusive of easements, devoted to public pedestrian use or other outdoor public
spaces.
5. The building, site, and signage, m ets the standards for the "CCD" district, and
design review approval is granted b the designated Design Advisory Team.
6. The proposed use demonstrates c mpatibility and consistency with the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the Downt wn Revitalization Plan.
6
Planning Commission Agenda -8/4/98
The first two points do not present a pro lem as designed, although variances have been
requested for setbacks. The variance reg ests will be reviewed below. With regard to
landscaping, no landscaping plan has bee submitted with the proposal. A plan should be
prepared which illustrates an intensively andscaped screening of the parking and drive-
through area from the east property line. e would recommend shrubs, ornamental trees,
and garden areas, without lawn in this are , both for aesthetic reasons, and to intensify the
screening effect of the landscaped area.
The fourth point raises an issue over the a ount of the site devoted to vehicular use. The
building is proposed to be 5,024 square fe t in area. The total site area from sidewalk to
property line includes approximately 18,7 8 square feet. Including the non-parking area
open space adjacent to the building (which could be construed to be "other outdoor public
spaces" if properly designed), site coverag would be approximately 33 percent. To meet
the 40% standard, building or "public" op n space would need to be increased by about
1,000 square feet.
The Design Advisory Team has suggested eliminating two parking spaces adjacent to the
Highway 25 entrance to increase landscap ng area. This suggestion would also increase
visibility for traffic at this location. To accomplish the 1,000 square feet, however,
approximately six spaces (the whole row 0 spaces adjacent to the building) would have to
be eliminated. This would leave the ite short of the required off-street parking
requirements. The CCD District has an opt on for this situation, which would be to require
the bank to pay into a public parking fund b sed on the number of spaces it would be short.
With regard to the DA T review, and Compre ensive Plan objectives, the proj ecthas received
design review approval, and would appear t be within the objectives of the Plan, subject to
the comments above, and the variance disc ssion to follow.
Variances
The bank has requested two variances. Th first is to the east property line. This area is
required to be 20 feet in width to accom. odate a landscape buffer. The applicant is
requesting a reduction to 8 feet. As noted . n the text above, no landscape plan has been
submitted. It would appear that there is ad quate room to provide an attractive, effective
buffer in the eight feet. A landscape plan s ould be prepared and presented prior to final
approval verifying this criterion. It should Iso be noted that the DA T has made a similar
finding, suggesting that a fence and landsca ing on this boundary would be sufficient.
With regard to the south boundary, the appli ant has proposed a reduction from the five foot
parking setback to a one foot setback. The D T has noted that overhang by vehicles parked
against the curb in this location would encoach on neighboring property. The five foot
standard is imposed to reduce the impact of avement and parking areas by allowing some
room for a landscaped border. Pending the ecision on the open space and elimination of
~
7
Planning Commission Agenda -8/4/98
.
the tier of parking adjacent to the building, i may be possible to move the row of parking
adjacent to the border to meet the five foot s tback and provide the landscaping required by
the Zoning Ordinance.
Additional Issue: Temporary Quarters
The Bank requests the ability to occupy ate porary structure during the construction of the
permanent facility. The applicant has subm tted a site plan illustrating this proposal. We
would recommend a time limit for this oc upancy, such as six months as a part of this
proposal. If necessary, the limit could be e ended by City Council action.
1. Motion to approve the Conditional U e Permit for a Drive Through Facility, subject
to conditions listed in Exhibit Z, base upon a finding that the project would meet the
intent of the Central Community Di trict and the Comprehensive Plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for rive-Through Facilities.
2.
Motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that the site cannot
accommodate the additional drivewa space necessary for the drive-through facilities
in accordance with Zoning Ordinan e requirements.
.
3. Motion to table action on the CUP, pe ding the submission of additional information.
Decision 2: Variance to the 20 foot open space requirement on the east property line.
1. Motion to approve the Variance fro 20 feet to eight feet, subject to the submission
of a landscape plan as noted in Ex ibit Z, based on a finding that the screening
requirements may be met by a lesse setback, and that the project would meet the
intent of the Downtown Revitalizati n Plan.
2. Motion to deny the Variance, based n a finding that landscaping and fencing in the
eight foot area would not be adequae to meet the buffer yard intent.
3. Motion to table action on the Viance, pending the submission of additional
information.
Decision 3: Variance to the five foot etback for parking facilities on the south
property line.
.
1.
Motion to approve the Variance fro five feet to one foot, based on a finding that the
screening requirements are not appli able in this context, and that the project would
8
.
Planning Commission Agenda -8/4/98
meet the intent of the Downtown R vitalization Plan without the setback
2.
Motion to approve a Variance fr m five feet to two feet, consistent with the
recommendation of the Design Ad isory Team to accommodate the overhang of
parked vehicles.
3.
Motion to deny the Variance, based n a finding that it would be possible to meet the
five foot setback without variance i the site plan is designed to meet lot coverage
standards and some of the parkin is replaced by a contribution toward public
parking areas.
3.
Motion to table action on the V iance, pending the submission of additional
information.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staff recommends approval ofthe Conditio al Use Permit, based upon conditions listed in
Exhibit Z. The bank and the site plan which as been submitted are generally consistent with
the intent of the Downtown Revitalizati n Plan and the CCD zoning district. This
recommendation is coupled with the sugges ion that the site plan be revised to replace some
of the parking on the site with open space such as a "plaza" type of area, and that the
removed parking be substituted with a con ribution to a fund for the provision of public
parking in the downtown area. The varia ce to the east side of the property should be
acceptable, based on an interest in putting t e property to reasonable use, and the ability to
meet the screening intent with a well-design dlandscape plan. The variance on the west side
is questionable since it is possible to meet t e five foot setback without a variance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B - Staff-Suggested Site Plan Amen ments
Exhibit C - Temporary Site Plan
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
.
9
07/13/1998 15:45 5124742175
JUL-ll)-19S8 16::i26 U~I'lA:'l CONST CO
-~. /
~-- -
II :=---
I
I
rr--1
I
FRCP05ED
eUILDING
Se'24 $I'"
I
L:_,
10 01-
L__-.J
.
ill
~
~
~
I (
1
~
,.
... ...... ..... v=-
I
I
'SITE FLAN
.
SCALEl 1'.. "ltD'
CLEOD BANCSHARESINC PAGE 02
,....~':I/11
A l
-+---
3tZ"
I
I
L----~I
t I I ~
I
r----~U
I $C~ENINCs
I I
P!!:NC=
I:
I 1
!g
32'.6'
6'
L
,.
N
I
-
~
NOFrrH
51
18'
e'
.'
II
, J
[
__JJ
NEW r10JfY fOR:
MONTICEllO BANK
Monticello. Minnesota
7/9/1898 AaB10
VANMAN COMPANIES
T .tl Pt.nlWT'lt A~
~. VI' ~
~.... ,.. .~-
~ ~ - '~F"fW'"
,U.oo1IuKl$ . COll'nto&Cl'QJl2i' ~
Exhibit A · Site Pial}
, 8--,
I
I
I
L____---;-,
\1
I__--~U
\
I
I
I
I
JUL-13-1998 09:3:
vH'lr'lH"1 Cm-:ST CO
r-- -~
r:---
! I
I
rr.-J
------
;,'
!?1Z'24 SF
PROPOSED
6UIL..DING
.
I
IlL
I L'::-io
I
i
&
Or-
L__-.J ~
. ...)
I <
I
- 4- -1-
~lZ)'
1 l' 1
$C~E1'iINc;
FENce
i i
3:1'-6'
;,.
M
A~INGJ &TALL&
>
,
,
.
-l-~
IE.' ~et
SITE PLAN
.
&CAL.E: I' · 2~'
,
.
;;, . 02/0'::,
I
~
NORTH
....... .. .,
~
.... ., ...
,.
till
-\
t:
13
C!.-...
11
N~ fA.Cllm' F'()Iit;
MONTICEllO BANK
Monticello, Minnesota
1/9/19'8 A981Q
VANMAN COMPANIES
T gUt tLYWwnt A'VtmIl
MINNEAJ'(lUS. tc( 5MZ'i'
'1J-1U~tIN r6:t t1t-W---'
...... ~
ARCIll'ftCt3 . C:Ollt'RlCTOJlS . MANAGlJIS
Exhibit B · Staff Site PI,an
g i.;).
07/13/1998 15:45 5124742175
JUl-13-199a 16:36 URNMAN CQNST CO
MCLEOD EANCSHARESINC
P~GE 82
P.02/02
(-....- \ /....
I
- - ~ - j'.. .: .....,.....:
'" I;..'", '-{
'"
I
11)1
.f&41
?3
:r
rr=;~---~
I
I
rr:-.J
I
.....-, ...-.- - ~
~
I
I
L_____j
Inn ~ I
EXISTING
DFi!IVEWA .,...
.
FROPOSED
BUILDIN~
lJ
~'4 6P'
ExISTI~ t:>fliilYEUJA..,..
~ovE UA-lEN NEW
CUIIi!e CUT 1$
COMPl.ETEO
TEM~~
GAAVEL
PAYING
TENP"OfUR\'"
GRAVEL..
PAVING
.
EMPORARY FACI
SITE FLAN ~E, ". UD'
NORT~
NEW fACILITY FOR:
MONllCELLO BANK
Monticello, Minnesoto
7/13/"" *10
vANMAN COMPANIES
T $Ill PLnf(lC!II AYDIIlJ
IIQIIXlW'OUI. _ $$ioZ'T
-,- ----
.... I I ~ -
AJI"I'lia.'T5 · COJnY,AC'NIS · ~
iOTAL P. 02
Exhi it C · Temporary Site Plan
<:Jd
.
.
.
Conditions of Approval - First Minneso a Bank
1. The applicant submits a landscape and scre ning plan consistent with the details in this report
and the requirements of the DAT.
2. The applicant submits lighting and signag plans subject to the approval of the DA T.
3. The applicant includes amendments to the site plan as required by the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
4. Ifrequired, the applicant submits the appro riate contribution to the City's fund for public
parking, in lieu of the provision of full par ing requirements on the subject site.
5. Occupancy of a temporary structure is limi ed to six months during the construction of the
permanent facility. This time limit is subje t to review and extension by the City Council.
Ex ibit Z - Conditions of Approval
31
.
.
.
9.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
Consideration of a re uest for a Prelim na Plat and Variance for The Forest.
A c. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Site Description
The site is zoned Single Family Residential (R-l). The 26 acre site is fairly flat in topography
and overlooks the Mississippi River to the orth. The site was previously used as a tree farm
and is entirely wooded with coniferous tre s. No wetlands are present. Soil conditions are
thought to be sandy, but soil borings have ot been conducted due to the heavy tree cover.
The developer has proposed that the borin s be performed when the roadways are cleared.
If significant changes need to be made to the preliminary plat based on soil borings, the
revised preliminary plat will need to be re iewed by the Planning Commission.
Proposed Features
The project, called The Forest, consists 0 55 single family lots. The minimum lot size
requirement of 12,000 square feet has been et in the proposed development plan. Setback
requirements have been met, except for the ront yard setback, for which a variance has been
requested. Lots that are located on a curv must have the width of the lot at the building
setback line clearly denoted (Section 11-4-1 (C) #5 of the Subdivision Ordinance). Proposed
streets must be named (Section 11-4-1 (C) 1 of the Subdivision Ordinance).
Access
This proposed subdivision would add traffi to Gillard A venue, a shared city and township
road. One roadway connection is proposed ith Gillard A venue to the east and two roadway
connections are proposed to the River Mi 1 additions to the west. Four cul-de-sacs are
proposed off the central spine road of the su division. A trail connection to Gillard A venue
is proposed from the southeasterly cul-de-s c.
The two roadway connections to the Rive Mill additions are connections to residential
streets that were not designed to be direct thr ughway routes. Driving through the River Mill
additions requires multiple turns and puts ex ra traffic in a residential neighborhood. Gillard
A venue, in contrast, was designed as a dire t throughway route; therefore, the access point
of choice for leaving and entering the subdiv sion will most likely be at Gillard A venue. The
site design could be easily adapted to provid two instead of one access onto Gillard A venue
by changing the trail connection to a roadw y connection.
Road Intersection
An offset intersection is proposed between t 0 of the cul-de-sac streets and the central spine
road. The offset appears to be thirty-five fe t. The Subdivision Ordinance states that street
intersection jogs with an offset of less than one hundred twenty-five feet shall be avoided
(Section 11-5-3 (E)). A sketch of an align d intersection is shown in Exhibit D. In the
sketch, the leg of the eastern cul-de-sac and t e southern property lines oflot 14 and lot 1 are
all shifted slightly south. The leg of the we tern cul-de-sac is shifted north. Aligning the
intersection does not appear to cause any 10 s to be eliminated.
10
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
Street Design
The horizontal radii of curves are not giv n, but the streets appear functional. Curb radii
are also not given but appear acceptable. A street width of thirty-two feet is proposed
throughout the development. Cul-de-sac r dii are not specified and shall be designed to City
standards. Roadway details shall be revie d by the city engineer and public works director.
Because the three shortest cul-de-sac road only serve five to seven lots, a street width of
thirty feet is sufficient for these streets.
Park Connection
Providing a trail along the side property lin oflot 6 would provide an important connection
to the park in the River Mill additions and ould provide a continuous route from the park
to Gillard A venue. Lot 6 abuts the Rive Mill Park. Providing this trail connection is
especially important because no parks are roposed within The Forest and this trail would
provide the only non-street access point.
VARIANCE
The applicant is requesting a variance to all wa front yard setback of25 feet, rather than the
required 30 foot setback.
As stated in the Subdivision Ordinance (Sec 11-9-1), a variance shall only be recommended
when the Planning Commission finds the D llowing:
1. That special circumstances are pres nt such that strict application of the provisions
of this ordinance would deprive the pplicant of the reasonable use of his land.
2. That granting of the variance will not e detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property in the territory in hich the property is situated.
3. That the variance is to correct inequit es resulting from an extreme physical hardship
such as topography, etc.
The applicant believes that allowing a 25 foot etback will provide an opportunity to preserve
more existing trees in the back yard. The app icant makes the point that preservation offront
yard trees is more difficult given building e cavation and driveway construction.
Using a thirty foot setback, front yard trees ar easier to preserve in this project than in most
others because the land is flat and grading of the lot beyond the area of the house and
driveway is not needed. Preserving trees in t e front yard will give the subdivision a unique,
forested character.
Regarding the criteria for allowing a varianc , in this case the applicant is not deprived of
reasonable use of his land neither is the v iance to correct inequities resulting from an
extreme physical hardship. While pre servin trees is a favorable goal, staff believes that
preserving trees in the front yard provides a igher public value.
11
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
.
Decision 1: Preliminary Plat
PlaJUling Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
1. Motion to approve preliminary plat based on the finding that the proposed plat, with
conditions, is in compliance with e City Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the
City's Zoning and Subdivision Or inances. The conditions to this preliminaryplat
are illustrated in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny preliminary plat b sed on the finding that approval is premature
pending improvement of Gillard A enue to urban standards.
3. Motion to table the preliminary pIa based on the finding that the conditions be met
and re-submitted for preliminary pI t review.
Decision 2: Variance
1. Motion to approve the variance base on the finding that allowing a twenty-five foot
front yard setback provides an oppo unity to preserve trees.
2. Motion to deny the variance based 0 the findings that the situation does not meet the
criteria listed in the Subdivision Or inance for allowing a variance.
.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the preliminary plat e approved with the conditions listed in
Exhibit Z.
Staff recommends that the variance be enied because the conditions listed in the
Subdivision Ordinance allowing a variance ave not been met. Also, we believe trees can
be preserved in the front yard with a thirty fo t setback, and these trees have a higher public
value than trees in the back yard.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C - Grading and Drainage Plan
Exhibit D - Intersection Design
Exhibit Z - Conditions to Approval
.
12
.
<:'>
..,
Z
t'1
s:
r:-
'='
t'1
-<
..,
S
"'<:l
lC
..,
Z
-l
"'<:l
5:
z
. . .
-0
:::0
fTl
r
~
Z
)>
;0
-<
-0
r
)>
-4
~
~~
0:[:
~fTl
(")
~..,
r .0
?:::o
~~
Z-;
-0
r
)>
Z
",....~,.-~ z
HiU t:J
trl
. !!!il X
1II;1~III... 0
.5.5~:~ '"'l
~~;O$~ <::l
;;;~....-
:: If ::0
... or ;>
.~ '"
; c Z
~ !
.. G"l
.. &' Ul
;- f
z N
S 0 z -<
" z 0_
~n
E z OZ
l'1-
G"l ~::!
>- lC
Z :>0-
t:J "tl
~
Z
:::I
C I
Ul !
r;<J
::::: 1-
;>
'"d 1
I
n
c
~
-t
q~
. [~l I-j-_ ~-- , !' ~. ~ q I~:i ....... i' !'~ :r I !- t: I ~
.1 o ~
i nO .. ~,., a ,., ;.
J I !!l~ ...... E
<:'.'" f IL"'T1 i i
" i f !f~J ~~ 1>0 -I
!1 "'" jI " ~== .
-- tlt~ ","0 "'''' l! n ~l
C~ Nil! <'> g
~ ~ I hI' g." ... '" ~. ~~ .".-"
r ," i s';;; :E ..r
i~!~ ~2':. ~~ t;. ~ tf :xl
I :? rl Q.:J;1
.... ';; ~~ :t-
.m ....
n >.
1 g! -~
. fI~
l ~~Io.~'''iIIU'''t:I''I.j'!loioQ\lh..r.~.."lll.. '11.,oj 1"~4:...~ uft r~t
Exhibit A - Site Location
--
------
o:-<{.
/" \ ;/,t'"
" to ~
'.
"-
l':
8
8
8 &
~
.
.
.
" .~
,;
~ ~..,"1:
I:,~,';,
.."""~')'
~~~T ~~
!
!
\
~ ~; i
- ,
:: ~ 1:-:
to
~ ,
~
--- '~"
...
-,
f. ~~.
~
;
~.~~ ~ ~J
, ,
i I,
I
[.,e_ n_j~
. - " - ~ - :;;:
~ q ~ ~ .. ~H i" " l ~ """
, b . ~ I ,~a ~ ,..,
i ~ ~ ~~ gF '" ~
! n i a Ii T 1 . ~
i ~ ~ h . " ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
. : a ~o ~~ ! ~ z
i ~ ~ ~ E ~
i ;; i~ · 2
~ ;; i ' 0 c~ ~ !-?
) , ~ <; n'
I ~ ~ i ~,,; HI ~
- ~ . , F~~o
~ ' .
~ , - ~ ,: ~i. I';;
~ s. ~.
" ~ ., ~~ "' ;
- Ai ."
s (~
.~
r
~. ;;
00 t
,;l
j:;;
~
<:>
:;;
n
'"
~
<5
z
~, ~
, ,
,j'
~: 1
~
~
1
;.
fY ; nr ,-, ~ ...... "
W '" ." ; ~ :t ~ '\ ~ ::l: !
()~~ I I" ." 1;' !: '"
-t" a 3~ ~ -n
1 I~ 0
i -7"". ;::::
!' Ii ~~~,: '"
i 3! -I
g !' I', .\ . ,,; '~
,
I "~" ~ Exhibit B
~ ;-
.: ~
1\
l :,
t i:
I.... \ !."
i~ I~ i~
\~ \~ i~
1'1'
i i:
, I I <"
'-~jl '.'
...:.' I~ \ to',
1< \ ----io-
1_ \...
1-':' \'
I~t'"
~. 1,' \~!'.lL:\" ..
I Ii' ....,...
,; ! i! i
~~ ~~ ~~ ~'~!
~~ ~! - ~
~ ~ ~ ~
q;;l.
,l
~~
o'
.'
~ ~~~~
~ ( ;I: ;:::;.
_5~ ...~....'
Preliminary Plat
- - <-
IlL,.,
. ~ ~
l! 3"
i:~ ~
z ~
.
I I
I J '
I , \ ' , ,- -, , I ..' - .... ,-. -.,., ...,,- Iii
~ - r-;:::--; ,... "V'1..._,.....:.......--t"'r'I'....;..;.~-~ -.' _"
>,,/ :. ,\.1-"-- -~,...+--~- -_:_, ~'~ ~" :,' I
lm{fEJ [ZJ "--,_..__~_.._____. 1: I
.
:-;-
" I
: i
I " I
If'l
, ': 'I
- I ;: t'
. -. I " 1
"
- --I : I
"
.. ,.~ 1 :: I
I j': 1
, I ;', ~ 1
, ':,', 'I ' : 1
::: 1 '; ~ 1
,,:, I; 1
" I ' , 1
1
~
!'
.-
" '~
l':
g
A
fr
~
::c
~.' - -~ -- -~ ~ - ~
", ~aJO- 0
../
unu!i\~
H~~~~i~ 0
l~~~~a.~
.~ ,~ ~
~ ~~
1 -
K
!I\~ IW ,j II !; I"; ~
"'il ,hi U .;h l!t I ~
11\" "I,!II./lI" i ....
,~:: ,.\il_: II'n h j ~
,'" 'I! ,. i 1-' , .
:,' ~ _0 Il'l"! I ',', g
1 '" h~ II Itt.~ III a:.. iI. ~
. a-I "I." g 1"1' ..,
Ii i~<l ii,'!" I I ~
- i! ii~!il,H!it'. s
I !!,'IIII!!!lil;;:;
i ii,ll! II' , '1/ 0
, 1\." i Iii' ,; to, a
II"!" II II';'
"'I el'~'h ! ,;
l!;~ ~HHn! H
,\I' ll!,!d !~
&; , I i'\: l ~ 'I
"I., " 11
i jH: i l ,i
I fll....' ..~
i ,liP h
Il," I'
i '1" I
I R
E"
~
, g
; ~
I '"
E ;:;
~
'= r:i
. Ie.
. <"
11 \ \
~ll~~\
1 \
.
~: I !' n - r . rr ..".." III
j . 1 ! ~~ -~ ;.
i "'''
~ i y!,~ ~= "i
3
" , . i 11!-<- ;;;'
~ .. . - '"
. ;i~: .::!
i _ i ~ ! m~ ~
;;;'
If oQ
,. :1
(...... S ~~~ I'lID j\,( l""'ll~~' D\lt.. \I'UI ",lit: '-11'111 lIi;o";U,," l;I
'" --I 1
I ~ I
"''''
z,.,.,
en
-l
,/'
I"~
i!:
"
. j . II
l" . : ill
S Ill'
~ >: ii
~. ::"
. ( ::
...
\
I' !II
~: '. '4;
" ",..-'\
I! ~ \~.:
.... ,i! I ~ '.....r ~,I
"~I ill~" I ,Ii c::: '
:!II ;~ \, ! r-:~'i
Uil ~..; IS I ' ~.
If f :"5 ' 'i
lh ~ ~gl ! ~,r: IY
"01;1. <I:~ 1 :~.I I!
1'- In, 'I' ti
1 I r! -~
I ,,!
1;1 I
,-,
Ii
n~
is :i
ji is S'
I~ ~
Q,
:E
n'
1"
,....
,....
(")
,3
i i r+,...............
l~ ~-==
~! \'
0\ 3'
"~i ~~-n
If' .........
\~l H""..,
~~ ~ JIll'"
Hi ~~:B:P
Exhibit C - Grading/Drainage Plan
" '-,
Q) ;:c
:=r
12,800 sq. It. ,,"n 3
"%.00 1 3 - co \
I :S1-'~" I 12,500 sq. II.
I ':'
1.' \'t-:.. -\
,,:)-..1 , ',_ ,~
, 5' 49'
5' :1 4. 1
.,
d\ 12,.300 Sq.I~.,
"I C_~
: -:r
I . ....
0', 12., "Z. 'S'b
,OS";:'" '~" ~.f=4.
~ ...... ,(
50"29'09"E:
212'
1 1
98' 61'
"
"...... "~I
21,8 Sq. fl. N ': "
12..--rr--
,I.!I
y......
54'
....
~ 812,200 ;q,ll\
0'
4
6
125'
12.100 sQ.Il.
109'
.--:, \
':J
126'
,
,
\
,
:,.' ,
/2.q.- ,-
100'
130'
" I "0
.- 12.900 sQ. ft.
0 en
2
144'
1"3'" '
155'
--
"I
D,900 ~ Il.
I"%. 06>0
3 ' ~.#"
140'
.q-
Ul
12,000 sq. Il.
I .,' -"
141'
14" 03
NO'36' 32"W
?;
I
co
f'lo
"'I!)
01_
e,.,
ro
VI
1 ".q-
.....'9
~ 4
74'
71 '
"40.14
123' !
\
13,000 Sq.Il'j.
~
f')
1%.,/00 1.-
-Sf..' ftJ
91'
78'~
o
CD
85'
9;:
t
15,000 sq. It.,
co
'<t
"r
150'
6
19.000 s,\,lt.
/
y 14,loosq.1l
60'
-
-
12 500--:JU..
. <.0
O"J
11 \
90'
9
...-. ." .' ~e.'" ,"
;....'....-,.
4
....... 10"
95 18
NO'36'32"W
'.".'
,
o
jO
~ "'<t
::t
-
i'ii
~ l;"
~
I
co
01
n
~/ 24,500 sq.ft. "N ~
7- 7 co co
..-- III
';J- .'
';J-
17, 00 sq.ll.
22,000 sq. II.
-2
4
1759
5
145'
NO'36'32"W
319.99
.
.'l ~ i ".,
\ .. ,.,"
~, " '
~ ~ : .-
~~ ~ ~ ~
2
.....
N
N
co
-
~
s s~ 1">'36'
J's '.., . 96'
<0' 551
_-~~:jy;. ~(i~,~:~2"W
,,\ .. , 1 i ',~j ;'~
~,~
Exhibit 0 - Intersection Design
CONDITIONS OF PRELIMINARY PL T APPROVAL
.
1. Lots that are located on a curve ha e the width of the lot labeled at the building
setback line and the width is at least ighty feet.
2. Proposed streets are named.
3. A second street access is provided connecting the spine road to Gillard Avenue
instead of providing a trail.
4. The offset intersection is eliminated
5. A trail is provided along the side pro erty line oflot 6 connecting the spine road with
the River Mill Park.
6. The front yard setback is thirty feet.
.
.
E hibit Z - Conditions to Approval
'15
.
.
.
10.
Planning Commission Agenda -8/4/98
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUN
The Monticello-Big Lake Community Hospi al District has applied for an amendment to its
Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Deve1 pment (PUD) which was approved earlier this
spring. The existing PUD includes improve ents to surface parking and an expansion of the
hospital building in Phase 1, with additional ture parking in a 3-level ramp as Phase 2, and
other building expansions in other future pha es. Phase 2 also includes the vacation of Hart
Boulevard, the City Street which is the prim y public street access for the complex. The
vacation of this street is intended to allow th maximization of the surface parking area in
front of hospital facilities.
Because the Hospital District does not contr 1 all of the property within the entire scope of
the PUD, in particular the Dental Clinic wes of the current Hospital building, the vacation
of Hart Boulevard could not be completed wi hout affecting access to the Dental Clinic. The
City and the Hospital agreed, as a part ofthe UD Phase 1 approval, that the vacation ofthe
public street would be accompanied by an e sement for access to the Dental Clinic.
This was an issue for two reasons: first, the County is insisting that the relocation of the
Hospital's main entrance is accompanied b a closing of the existing access from Hart
Boulevard to County Highway 75; and seco d, the Dental Clinic was contesting the loss of
direct public street frontage as a result of he vacation. In order to protect the City in
granting the vacation, the City required t at the Hospital District grant the City an
indemnification from the costs of lawsuits brought by the Dental Clinic, and a "hold
harmless" agreement for changes to the acces resulting from the conversion of public street
to private driveway.
The Hospital District has since acquired addi ional properties west ofthe Dental Clinic and
the boundaries of its current PUD approval The District is requesting that these newly
acquired properties be developed as a surface parking lot to help absorb the parking demand
during the construction of the other Phase 1 . mprovements. The new parking lot would be
connected to the rest of the PUD via a drivew y along the vacated Hart Boulevard alignment.
The extension of parking farther into the resi ential areas to the west will require additional
screening and landscaping to protect the inte rity of that neighborhood area. A landscaped
buffer yard of 20 feet is required on the wes and north sides to provide both distance and
screening between the institutional parking d the residential uses.
Since the new parking lot will be developed mmediately as a part of Phase 1, the vacation
of Hart Boulevard and the attendant inde nification and hold harmless agreements are
necessary immediately as well. Approval f the PUD and issuance of permits for this
construction should be withheld until this detail is finalized. The alternative to these
13
Planning Commission Agenda -8/4/98
.
agreements would continue to be a written agr ement to the access easement from the Dental
Clinic property owners.
Finally, since the time that the PUD was origi ally approved this spring, a pathway location
along the River and Hart Boulevard has bee me an issue. The City has for some time
reserved a right-of-way for pathway use betw en the Hospital campus and the River along
the alignnlent of River Street. That street righ -of-way ends at the east limits ofthe Hospital
property. Previous plans were developed whi h routed the pathway through the east portion
of the Mississippi Shores property from "Ri er Street" to Hart Boulevard. There is now
concern from Mississippi Shores that this ocation would be unacceptable. With the
proposed amendment to the PUD, the Hospit I campus plans should illustrate and provide
an alternative alignment for the pathway con ection if Mississippi Shores is unwilling to
grant the pathway easement in the area origin lly planned.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Motion to approve the Amendment 0 the Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit
Development incorporating additiona property into the PUD for a surface parking
lot, with the conditions listed in Ex ibit Z, and based upon the finding that the
amendment is generally consistent ith the original PUD approval, and that the
additional parking will reduce negat ve impacts on adjoining public streets and
private property resulting from heavy traffic.
1.
.
2. Motion to deny the Amendment to he CUP/PUD, based on a finding that the
expansion of the parking is detriment I to the existing residential neighborhood.
3. Motion to table action on the Amend ent pending additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the CUP/PUD mendment, subject to the conditions listed in
Exhibit Z. The additional parking would redu e congestion, particularly during construction
of the other improvements. With appropriat buffering and screening, the imposition on
existing residential areas should be minimize . We would recommend a screening fence on
the property line, with shrub plantings betwe n the parking lot curb line and the fence both
to increase the aesthetics of the parking area a d to muffle sound and light impacts from the
parking area activity.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
.
14
.
.
.
Conditions of Approval - Hospital istrict cuP/pun Amendment
1.
Revision of the site plans to include a tw nty foot landscaped buffer yard between the
parking lot and the residential areas to the est and north.
2. Revision of the landscape plans to include fe cing and shrub plantings in the buffer yard area
to fully screen the parking area.
3. Submission of the indemnification and hol harmless agreements for the vacation of Hart
Boulevard prior to final PUD approval and rior to issuance of any permits.
4. Provision of a pathway easement connectio between the "River Street" pathway casement
area and the Hart Boulevard connection n ar Mississippi Shores. The location of the
easement should be coordinated with City Staff.
Ex ibit Z - Conditions of Approval
10-/
.
.
.
11.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
rovide standards for the
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUN :
Planning Commission is asked to consider n amendment to the Zoning ordinance which
would allow erection of a general identific ion sign and an electronic reader board at the
new High School. Under the proposed or inance amendment, "public sign" size and
height would be regulated based on the spe d of the adjacent highway in the same
manner that commercial signs are regulate in commercial districts.
Public signs would be limited to use by Ci y, County, School, State facilities therefore
under the proposed ordinance, there would ot be a proliferation of such signs in
residential areas. The ordinance would ena Ie relatively large reader boards to be
installed at the Future Middle School.
Below in italics is the proposed language fi r the ordinance amendment.
[E] DISTRICT REGULATIONS: The ollowing sections concern signs which
require application and permit.
1.
Within the A-D, R-l R-2, R-3, R-4, and PZR districts, signs are
subject to the folIo . g size and type regulations:
(a) Institutional r area identification signs, provided that the
gross square ootage of sign area does not exceed eighteen
(18) square fiet, and if the sign is freestanding, the height
does not exce d eight (8) feet.
(b) Public signs i eluding public signs that display information
electronicall provided that the gross square footage of
sign area doe not exceed sign height and size requirements
identified in s ction 3-9 E4(f;) of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve the ordinance a endment based on the finding that it is
consistent with the comprehensive lan, consistent with the character of the
residential neighborhood etc.
1.
Under this alternative the sign size llowed at the new high school would be as
height as 26' with a sign area of 150 square feet. This is based on the design
15
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
speed for School Boulevard at 45 PH. If Planning Commission feels that these
dimensions are inappropriate for a ublic sign in a residential district, then
perhaps a cap can be placed on the public sign size in residential districts based on
40 MPH. Dropping to 40 reduced ign height to 24'and reduces sign area to 150
square feet.
2.
Motion to deny approval of the pro osed ordinance amendment based on the
finding that it is not consistent wit the comprehensive plan, consistent with the
character of the residential neighbo hood etc.
3.
Motion to table the matter pending development of additional data.
Perhaps public signs should be han led via conditional use permit. Conditional
use permitting would allow the Cit to regulate public sign size, height and
placement on a case by case basis. If this is the case, the item will need to be
continued to the next meeting ofth Planning Commission.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
City staff recommends alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of Ordinance Amendme
.
16
.
.
.
12.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
Farr Development is anticipating appro v its annexation at the August 5 meeting of the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Board, I order to facilitate the administrative processing
of the plat and to prepare for constructi n, the developer has requested approval of its
rezoning during the August cycle ofPlann'ng Commission and City Council meetings.
The plat was reviewed against R -1 standar s, and together with the changes approved as part
of the Planned Unit Development proces , was in compliance with the R-l regulations.
Continued review of the project at staff lev 1 has been primarily for engineering issues and
final details. As such, the first phase of ildwood Ridge should be ready for rezoning
concurrent with the adoption of the Final lat by the City Council.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to recommend approve the oning district amendment for Wildwood Ridge,
contingent on the approval of the annexation, and based on the Final Plat to be
approved by the City Council. This motion should be based on a finding that the
project is located within the Montice 10 Orderly Annexation Area, is capable of being
served by municipal utilities, and is consistent with the Monticello Comprehensive
Plan recommendation for low densi y residential development in the area.
2. Motion to deny the proposed rezoni g, based on a finding that the annexation of the
property has not yet been finalized.
3. Motion to table action on the rezo ing, pending action of the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Board on the annexatio and action of the City Council on the Final Plat.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the rezoni g to R-1. This project has been subject to
significant scrutiny from a planning and zoni g standpoint, and is ready for zoning approval.
As noted in the proposed Alternative 1, the 1 d use is consistent with Comprehensive Plan,
and is within the City's proposed service ar a.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Zoning Ordinance Amendment
17
.
.
.
City of M nticello
Wright Co un , Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MONTI ELLO ZONING MAP BY REZONING THE
PLAT OF WILDWOOD RIDGE FROM A-I, A RIeUL TURAL TO R-I, SINGLE F AMIL Y
RESIDENTIAL.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MON. ICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The Official Zoning Map of the City of Monticell is hereby amended by rezoning the following
parcel(s) from A-I, Agricultural to R-l, Single F ily Residential.
(insert legal description)
Section 2.
The Zoning Administrator is ordered to make the ppropriate amendments to the Official Zoning
Map, and to have said Map republished.
Section 3.
This ordinance shall become effective from and a er its passage and publication.
//s//
Exhibit A - Zoning Ordinance Amendment
I~-I
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
13. Public Hearin -Consideration of a side ard setback variance in the R-l Zonin
District for ara e. Location: Lot 6 lock 6 Klein Farms 4th Addition.
A Iicant: Shade Tree Construction I c. (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
During original construction of the dwelli g and attached garage located at 4753
Pebblebrook Drive, an error was made on he proposed land survey. That error resulted in
the garage being built eight feet from the s de yard property line and two feet into the
required side yard setback. The error was iscovered by City staff upon review of the
"As-Built" land survey submitted late in e construction.
This dwelling and the neighboring dwellin abut garage side to garage side. It is arguable
that the loss of two feet out of the total of wenty feet between neighboring garages will
have a negligible effect on the use and enj yment of either property. However,
establishing a precedent in this new single amily development is very undesirable.
Unless the City takes action to make this si e yard setback violation lawful by variance,
or unless the contractor modifies the buildi g to provide for the required ten foot setback,
a zoning code violation and non-conformin structure will remain on the property.
In a situation such as this, the making of fi dings to justify a variance is difficult. A
reasonable option may be to require the pet tioner to provide buffer yard screening not
otherwise required by ordinance (landscapi g, shrubbery, trees, fencing, etc). The builder
and land surveyor were encouraged by staf to provide a plan showing such screening and
buffering. The land surveyor has submitted a plan showing several trees to be planted in
the affected side yard setback area.
The trees proposed by the land surveyor are a good start in development of buffer yard
screening; however, the following items ma also be considered:
1. The trees to be planted on the garag side of the property must be considered in
addition to the two trees required to e planted in the boulevard of the property;
2. The additional plantings should be a mix of coniferous and deciduous vegetation
to serve as a buffer year round;
3. A decorative fence may be considere in conjunction to the plantings to provide a
perception of additional separation.
18
_ i
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
1. Motion to allow a variance for a tw foot reduction to the required 10 foot side
yard setback on the garage side, pro ided that buffer yard p1antings are installed
in an amount equivalent to at least 0 "Plant Units" (as provided by Section 3-3
[G] of the Zoning Code). No more an 85% ofthe required plantings may be
qualified trees. The p1antings must e 50% deciduous and 50% coniferous, and
planted along the affected the side ard.
Making the findings that:
1. The installation of buffer y d plantings on the garage side will reasonably
reduce the impact of the sid yard setback;
2. This dwelling and the dwelrng immediately adjacent are both constructed
with the garage adjacent to ommon property line; and,
3. The reduction of the side y d setback was not a willful act.
2. Motion to deny the variance and re ommend some action to achieve compliance.
.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Application for Variance as Su mitted.
Exhibit B - Location Map.
Exhibit C - Copy of Land Survey for 4753 ebblebrook Drive.
.
19
CITY OFMON CELLO
COMMUNITY DE.VELOP NTDEPARTMENT
250 E. Broadway. P Box 1147
Monticello. MN 55362
(612) 295.2 11
Plannin
Case # 1K{)~ 1
.
Check Requested Action:
_ CONDmON AI. USE. S 125 .00 all necessary consulting expenses'"
_ ZONING MAP/TEXT AMEND T. $150.00 'I" necessaryconsuldng expenses'"
_ SIMPLE SUBDIVISION. $SO
_ SPECIAL PlANNING COMMI SION MEETING - $250
_ SUBDIVISION PLAT - S300... lOO/acre up to 10 acres: S25/acre
after 10 acres + expenses. City wil refund excess of per-acre deposit.
~ VARIANCE REQUEST - $50 fo setbacklS125 for others + nee. consult. expenses.
_ OTHER - 'fee S
. NOTE; Necessary consulting fees include cost to have City Planner nalyze variance. rezoning, & conditional use permit requests
at ,.be rate ofS7Slbr. The need for City Planner assistance is determin solely by City staff'.
Applicant Name:
Address:
Phone; Home;
Shade Tree Construction
18530 ul sses Street NE
Bus' ess: 434-7962
Property Address: 4753 Pebbl ebrook Dr i ve
Legal Description of Propeny:
Lot: 6 ; Block:; 6
. Other:
Monticello
Current Zoning;
R-l
; Subdivis on: Klein Farms Fourth Addition
Describe Request:
Variance from 10
att
8 foot side yard as shown on the
y;.?/? I
(' 0~v>.7
?/'I.A-~ r~H- c:.t'.v-Fr:
$...e
Information provided by the applicant OIl this form is true and correcL
Date
Date
Appli Signature (if applicable)
~IBIT A - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE AS SUBMITT D
VCUSSAM.APP: 2106//95
Date Receivt:d/Paid:
Receipt Number;
Public Hearing Date:
J3 --I
FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONL v: Proposed Zoning:
FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION ONLY: Size of parcel 10 be divided:
. SUBl>XVlS10N PLAT ONLY: Size of Parcel 10 be Plalled:
Name of Firm Preplll'ing Subdivision Plat:
Street Address:
City:
Stale:
Zip:
Phone:
Acres
FOR V ARlANCE ONLY: Please identify the Wlique ,property conditions 0 hsrdship that exist thaL justifies granting a yarisnce. A hardship
exists when by reason of property narrowness, shallowness, shape, or excep cnal topographic or water conditions, combines with strict
application of the tcons of the ordinance result in exceptional difficulties whe utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and legally
permissible within the district in which the lot is located.
A licant is re uestin side ~d to 8 foot
side ard. Bou e was as RllbmittRd
for the buildin ermit. is construction and
will be completed by Jul 1, 1998-. Sur e ors did not dicover the
error until Ma 22, 1998 and notified t e eit 26, 1998.
(For City Use y)
.******...............****......**...................*.... ...................................................
COMMENTS:
.
VCUSSAM.APP; 21061195
/3 --~
~...~~1'1
---
"
_--1
--:1 ::~~;~~:"!!l:~;:i~~:'~:"
.".
".
,
---1
I
I
I
I
.:: I
'". I
I
I
r
.
/, "
. -lflii e-oa; "-'..
i
<-I
;1
_-1 -.
-r-';;\ r,;/".
--;':)
I
... \
...
:: I
.d l
:',: ;;: \
.. "I
. :.: I
--
,.. ,
.. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"
--'
'"
.,
'"
"
., 1\ I
. .
;1:
...
'"
;;; ~~\ \
J \ ...,'"
~ :;'.\;; \
--' \ "-,,'
\'.:::; \
4753 {'e-6t>l.1:- ~- \?tu;
3
,. -
...
I
.
'-'
,. ,
..,
. .
1\/1
. ,
R D
EXHIBIT B - LOCATION MAP
KLEiN FARMS 4TH ADDITION
J55"- 105
'.'
I I
. ,.
..m....
...J _.
II
yJjl..-y
NO'"
...."".,lIIWIIIIIIIIruw..CIIII_ff.&,
Ja61fIIIfMIIII"'JlMlIIIIIII..~
'" lilliii' .. ...... . . w."." ,.
...... :z: _
GRAPlllC sc.uz
~~ -r
..... . -
q =-g~:r..::
"'''''-'''IIIIIiIIIID:.'~
_~'III"'_""""~
~."..........~.....
....41,..,."'___...... .... ....~I~
...,YIIL....I:JII......~~ ~''''''l
""'l.ftll"JiII'-"~~
. I!IIl'lJI'IDi ...,. ....... . .,.,If(t!.IT 1M ,.,
..........,..""., 111'.... AJl.J 1dIlMDff~
.' ~ <0'];
II ~ ~> \ 'II'
't6'/.;
- - ..ocTo""-1 t,J1.to .. - -
_ _ _ _ _ ._~ ~ ~ ~ ~,_ ~ ~.~ ~ _ _ ~ _1- -J.-.-~...,,;..~,::;
-._u..,,; ti...,_tlr/6rlH'r"'"~.~. ....' '-" \
ICO. no 1111 lar--
--~..~:~,~..---;;:..:.,:;.::.;;--I3T~ I
, ,.... . .....~..... .. .
..... . Q4 ......... .....
EXHIBIT C - COPY OF LAND SURVEY FOR 4753 PEBBLEBROOK DRIVE
for
Denotes Wood Stake Set
Far Excavation Only SHADE TREE CO STRUCTION
Denotes Surfoce Drainage
SCHOOL BOULEVARD
N8g0 13' 47"[ 80.00
CERTIFICATE
o
Denotes Proposed Elevation
Denotes Existing Elevotion
960.4 Top of Block Elevotion
360.0 Garoge Floor Elevation
957.2 Lowest Floor Elevation
(
)
956 9 Top of Footing Elevation
Type of Building: A Wood Frome House
Benchmark: Lot 9. Block 6.
B L 0
r-
.., 0
....... 0
r0
f'-..
.-
Elevotion =
959.8J
,
..--
.
Scale: 1" - 30'
:~:
0 Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron pipe
monument set. morked with a plastic ~,..,
cap inscribed "RLS 25343" ...~ W
Denotes iron pipe monument found .. '- l"')
. ".' .-
marked "RLS 10947" IJ)
The orientation of this Bearing System .,..,- ~.
...~ 0
is based upon the recorded plat of 0
KLEIN FARMS 4TH ADDITION. '. 0
~- U1
BUILDING ELEVATIONS &: SITE GRADES ARE
IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE GRADING
PLAN PREPARED BY MIDWEST LAND SURVEYORS
& CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC. DATED JLUY 31, 1997.
TELE
LOCATION &: ELEVATION OF
SEWER & WATER SERVICES
ARE FROM CITY ENGINEER.
Lot 6, Block 6,
KLEIN FARMS 4TH ADDITION,
Wright County, Minnesota.
....
l~
o~
en.......
I:<:
x
-.,
I
I
I
I
\
\
'-
'- - - UNITED POWER ASSOCIA 1100
EASEMENT AS PER DOC. NO. 569616~,
I
I
I
S/
I
I
I
I
18
House
o
o
l"')
f'-..
..-
:~:
W
l:
l"')
.-
~,..,
...~
o
'"
~
.. '-
'-.'
~...
...~
~.
~-
I hefeby certify that this survey. plan or report was prepared by me or under my
direct s pervislon and that I am 0 duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws
of the tote of Minnesota.
and
No certl cation whatsoever Is e.tended to subsequent owners. mortgagees or title
Insurers unless this survey ho. been redoted far this purpo.e by the surveyor.
II MIDWEST
Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers, Inc.
'99 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Coon Rapids, Mn. 55433
Ph. 612-786-6909 Fox: 612~786~9208
Doted t is
By
Job No.l~ Book-Page QfL- Acod File 149-168
@ 1998-AlId_sl Ltmd Sur",,)OfS It Civil Engineers. Inc. - All RIghls Reserved
A.bunt
o~
"'I:<:
om
March
,..
Re91strotlon No.
L Napier - Mlnne to LIcensed Land Surveyor
Doted thl. 27th day of MoV
. 19 ..J!L
25343
.19~
13-'1
.
.
.
14.
Planning Commission Agenda-8/4/98
Consideration of a Stud of Fees and Ch r es for Develo ment in the Ci of
Monticello. (FP/NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
At the last Planning Commission Meeting, ity staff and the Commission began
discussions regarding fees and charges rela ed to new residential and commercial
development. The information presented a the last meeting has again been updated. The
study was distributed to participating cities and each has provided feedback enabling the
information to be as accurate as possible.
Subtotals have been provided and ranked 0 the case studies. A low ranking equates to
low fees and a high ranking equates to hig fees. The ranking is based only upon the fees
and charges applicable to the particular cas study.
Certain trunk utility credits as well as expe dable development escrows and cash bonds
are not included. Those development cred ts and costs are very difficult to compare from
development to development, much less ci y to city. While they do not appear to
significantly change the conclusions that ay be drawn from the results of this study,
they must be considered when comparing evelopment related fees.
Staff is recommending an update to Buildi g Permit Fees, Park Dedication Fees, Sewer
and Water Connection Permit Fees, and a hange in how we collect Trunk Fees.
Again, note that SAC charges have alread been scheduled by City Council for a $500
increase effective January 1 for the next t 0 years. That will make the SAC charge
$2,500/unit effective January 1, 1999, and $3,000 effective January 1,2000.
The Planning Commission is requested to review the information attached. N.A.C. and
City staff will again review the results of e survey and examples attached.
Recommendation made by the Planning ommission will be incorporated into an action
item by staff to be considered by the City Council.
If changes are made to fees or charges, it . s highly suggested that those changes be
effective in 4 to 6 months time in order to provide sufficient notice time to the developers
and builders.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend to the City Council that fees and charges be modified as
follows:
1.
Adopt the 1995 Uniform uilding Code Fee Schedule into ordinance,
(option) and maintaining t e plan review fee at 50 %).
20
Planning Commission Agenda-8/4/98
.
2.
Increase the Park Dedication Fee on residential development to $750 per
lot and make Park Dedicatio Fees applicable only to residential
development.
3. Increase the Utility Connection Permit to $50 for Sewer Connection, $50
for Water Connection, and $ 0 for Combination Sewer and Water
Connection.
4. Trunk Fees for Water, Sanit Sewer and Storm Sewer are normally to be
assessed unless the develope chooses to pay the fee up front.
2. Motion to recommend to the City C unci! that fees and charges be modified [in
some manner deemed necessary by lanning Commission].
3. Motion to recommend to the City C uncil that no change be made to fees and
charges.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1.
.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
Exhibit C -
Exhibit D -
Survey of Fees for 12 Corn unities.
Residential Fee Estimate Ex pIe.
Industrial Fee Estimate Exa pIe.
Copy of 1994 UBC Fee Sch dule
.
21
.
.
.
TABLE 1-A-BUllDI ~G PERMIT FEES
TOTAL VALUATION
$1.00 to $500.00
$501.00 to $2,000.00
FEE
$21.00
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00
$21.00 'or the first $500.00 plus $2.75 for each additional
$IOO.Ol , or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00
$62.25 or the first $2,000.00 plus $12.50 for each additional
$1,000. )0, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00
$349.7~ for the first $25,000.00 plus $9.00 for each
additior al $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including
$50,OOC .00
$574.7~ for the first $50,000.00 plus $6.25 for each
additior al $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including
$IOO,Ol 0.00
$887.2. for the first $100,000.00 plus $5.00 for each
additior al $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including
$500,0( 0.00
$2,887.15 for the first $500,000.00 plus $4.25 for each
additio al $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including
$1,000, :>00.00
$5,012. 5 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $2.75 for each
additiOl al $1,000.00, or fraction thereof
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00
$50,001.00 to $100,000.00
$100,00 1.00 to $500,000.00
$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00
$1,000,001.00 and up
Other Inspections and Fees:
I. Inspections outside of nonnal business hours ................................... $42.00 per hour*
(minimum charge-two hours)
2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of
Section 108.8 ............................................................ $42.00 per hour*
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated ............................. $42.00 per hour*
(minimum charge--one-half hour)
4. Addjti.o~al plan review required by changes, addition.
or reVISions to plans ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $42.00 per hour*
(minimum charge--one-half hour)
5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and
inspectiolls, or both ......................................................... Actual costs**
*Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is th greatest. This cost shall include supervisioll, overhead,
equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the emp oyees involved.
**Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs.
EXHIBIT D - COPY OF 1994 UBC FEE SCHEDULE
..
1'1
...
w
w
:c
III
lri:
0::
~
>-
c
~
III
W
W
u.
I-
'"
'"
....
c
~
~
I;j
11 I
fi
1I
11/
1 ~
Il ~
iii
..
i !
~
I
i :;l
I ~
~
. i
i
i ~
~
~
:E
~ 2
If
O! ~
ill
3
0 i
i ~
"
~
,
.Ii
~
h
. Ii:
!H
.. ..
~J
~ n
!
~
.
~
~
i
d ! a
111 ;(l .n'
~.; tt a ~-
;(l ; - ~
=gi~i ~ ~.o
Ii: 3" s; ~ .., !::
~lI~~E ~ H
i~911b .. n
. ;888 11 a ~
ii:.nS!~ g :E~
~;
"'D.
go;
ioli
.8
..~
~..
.~ +
~~
.. '"
~a_~
~i:,:
. = . ~
~ lit "'..
;;;~-lil'
.'. 'Ii
~ '" :
<- -
;;a
:e .
~~
0_
~~
~ .
.0
~~
.. ..
~
:
..
.
.
.
~
.
~
Ii
i
r.
<
;
f
iil
I
15
::;
~
~
1
i
b
~
~ ~
~~
....
ii
ii
~ iU
t
.
~ ~
I
~
.
~ ~
i
~ ~ Ii
~ ii
~
~ I
~l'
! ~.i
lH
?5~
i~~
~ ~ ,.
~ ~d
~ ~ ~ ~
~ a ~
ti
z
:ll~
....
i"
il ~ 0 '"
~ i a ::
~ ~ ~
I I
~ ~
. .
~ ~ ~
.
e; ~
1:\ t t
~ .. +
~ ~ ;tl
. ~
~ ~
.
i ~
a g
. .
~ ~ ~ ~ l!l
"'"'_III"tM
a
t
~.. ~ -; :J ~ .
: ~ ~ b'2 .
. ~HiH
. 1I3~'~~-
'~~Ul~~-Ii
! 8~~HI
iil..", .!I B<!:il~h
tiJ g......n~ EO
iil
~
~
::l
tiS ~r.:
i c-1'n 5'-~-I-'i.l ·
~1J!~"p.B~
iiI !.. CJ" ~ I,/'J ~ tI
_ni'g uq.
i8i~;;~E; g
.!i~~~n~~i:=
&ji o:.'R q"'g n ..0
ti5 J III /I ~ r;:III tr III .! 0.
'"
...
..
.-. >;'-.
~ H
~ ."
D- ~i
~ i:q
5 2, ~
~ d~
~
~ ~ 'E
ill g ~ ~
~8 iL ,
ii:u1lHt
t:ii " a... "
8~i~H
~.. ~~~~H
~.( ..... a::. M M
<>
~1~$Eii
~ H !j~-it 11
! hlil:~~!
~q ~~[1~~
. 1~ ~ ~~ ~ Pi j
~ ~!~~H~~s
a
~ ~
h ~~-
" 1;;~
11 i~
iJ: a!!; 0 ~
: ,0:; J!
~,g .~ V1
f~"e~'
, lQ !"IO ..
S!_~S!'P
..,"' .",'" ~
.. J! g ~ 'Ii ~ J! J! b
Z~-6~::~wt~~ i
~"~"'8J!J:", ~ e
~~l!~~o}5~-i;; i
~h~~:;~8q ~
U~il~~jii! ., ~
0.. ':'~t'I:g !:g~u-ij N i
Mo Mil!!,. 'IIZ jIII S fi Z '" is
i
b 3
f~
. ~
j ~
H
;~
~ if
~~
o-,/,
" .
~ -;;,
~ ~
:.
.. '" ~
::~.
~ r"I. ~
IC_ "
~
~
! !! !
~ ~i~i~!
~ L~i ~! ~
~ iil ~ ~
J-.}5 1; ~ 8
f. .: ~ "''Ii ~~;1
~ i.l!;!!.~z-
"3 ~ u ~ Q,
~ l"~i!~
..Ii';~f~.~ii'
b~~_. ~"
~!1 Iii 'll ~~
~"aE.:l~~",,Q.ea
~
.
'"
I
:i
-;~
l~
9 lr~
&~e
ij~
Iii.. ~i
~ ~!i
.~ 'I~.
'il ~ N
~ ~ E
..!:! ; H
~ IC 0
~
~
.
!!; ~ ~ .,
U ttio M "..
i! 8 ...
~ ~::;5 ~ Ii :!Jl
'" ~. ~ 3 8 ~l,
! !! 8 j 1 Hi
! ~i:; .j+j~~~
J -51 L ~+ ~--
;!!H:!'/=~]~;(l:~~
WIt ... A.li~tz::t:...M ..~"..z
.,
..
j
~
JJl
Ii I
I
c:(
!::
Ol
J:
><
w
~
!l
.~
n.
~
~
011
~
:;l
"
Ii:
...
0
1;:
0
0
0
"
..
..
~
~
n.
.~ .
j
.:.i~ ..
Ii . 8' 1
1111
r.s.. ]-
. lit 11 a'
p.. ~
t~1 il
H ,c
....i. t i
t
8
~i5
~ ~ '
i'<~Cl
" ..
rda=g
o~n.
ffiu.~
",0
~.!
~:~ iji
~~::
Ej ~ ~1j
it~ j!i~
ill.
..Ii .. o~
~
~
Ol
i
~
s.
i:
o
CII
E
:!
"0
.l2
"&
t
:i:
i
.5;
~
~
~
OIl
~
.a
CII
~
~
o
:z:
>-
o .!!!
::l en
I- >-
cne;
w c
cn<
< >-
0-0
..J :::s
<en
I- Q)
Z Q)
WLL
Or--..
cnm
W......
0::
J ~
! ~
,~
'" ~
oJ
..
-
... ii
j ~
u
oJ ~
..
..
i ~
.. ~
:;
c
I
I I
:IS
~ g
e ~
CI
J!
<l. ~
:2
I ~
;!
~ ::
II
Ill!
.f i
.. eo
Iii ~t
..
i ;i;
~
.= :;
~ ~
III
~
l'I
8
o
~
8 . .8
;i~~,;
....
....
~
...
'"
....
....
8
~
80
dq
o
<>
o
..
al
....
iD
;;;
1i'i
00
(I)
N
~
~
...
'" ~ '" ~
.... f
"
i!
:;;
'"
...
'"
'ot
8
~
,.j
l'I
~
'"
;:!
..
l;II
I!
S
... ... .. ::
..
:l:I
III
C
0
...
...
'"
...
'ot
'"
...
'"
~
b
"
o
~
"'
~
J
J:.
0>
'i'
J:.
0>
;;:
"'
"0
:l
~
..
"'
Q.
E
..
"
"'
~
.a
..
"'
.,
CO
o
Iii
b
z
Q)
III
::s
;>.:,g
C (l) III
:J = 'lIl-
t- 'W
(I)~~
W ~ c
ooe<
<(0)-
0...."0
..J 0 ::s
<.Em
OQ)Q)
0:: ... Q)
w~u.
:!: 0"""
:Boom
OOT""
og
o
o
T""
j ~
~ ij
~
] ~
<J
ill a
i I
f
s ~
j ~
i !
"
i ~
J ~
$
~ h
.t e,;
..
ill :ri
~
i !
~
..
o
f-
iii
X
tlj
...
...
...
...
'"
~
....
...
...
'"
...
'" ...
...
...
"
:a
I
~ ~ ... ~
..
...
...
...
eo
..
...
...
..
~
.,
...
...
~.. ~
.,;
~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98
15.
Review of Cub Foods Si n Plan as A
Team (DA T). (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
The CCD District provisions of the Zonin Code require that the Planning Commission
review the signs proposed for the Cub Foo s store as approved by the Design Advisory
Team. A sign plan for the new Cub Foods Store was reviewed and approved by the
Design Advisory Team and reviewed by th Planning Commission at its last meeting.
That sign plan included only wall signs. C b Foods is now proposing a monument type
sign to be located adjacent to Highway 25, n the entrance median, generally the same
location as where the original Monticello all sign was located.
The proposal is as described in Exhibit A a ached hereto. The monument sign proposal
was reviewed and approved by the DA T. he Planning Commission acts as the Board of
Appeals for the DA T and is asked to simpl review and confirm the recommendations of
the DA T as related to this sign proposed fo Cub Foods.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
Review and accept Monument Sign Plan fo Cub Foods Store as approved by the
Monticello Design Advisory Team.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the Monument Sign for the Cu Foods Store as Approved by DAT.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
Copy of Monument Sign PI for Cub Foods.
Minutes of the DAT meeting of July 22, 1998.
22
\,1.,.....&...,""'...,. ..L'-J..... ....""."v .~......" VI_ ""..~.. &..11_\"
8~O
I
4-D
I
e~o
L'
('\ <)
c: .----'
(Jl -is
."
0 ;5
0
0
IJI .~
1..0-0
"
a
(\
.:
..' ._-.....-.
\\
t.
"\ ~
- %
0
I- t ~
~ :r::
; H
l:d
D H
H
::>>
~
~ (')
0
'"d
J f', . t-<l :z::
i t 0 @
I t'%j
6 tJ
C Z
~
. I z
H
d IZl
\.II H
... ~
Q,
. l\ . '"d
. t-<
. ~ ~
; <
l\ t'%j
.. t. 0
:;d
(")
.. c::
[3J l:d
t'%j
0
0
,.- .... ... t:;:j
._n_ ,.':;;:;;-:;::;;:;;'::;-_ ~=_n IZl
._..~~...:
.---.- ------ ...
"J ,- -.... I
--,
'] r" 01 I'".f
! 'I t f I~ I
t ~~i ii t~
I 1~ ;J ~w
b~ t · i
C:36882 M\IIIlON ~ ..... MtI I I IIUI!; t !,il Ii ~ =1
l - . ~. !-- .
,... - .. . +_ L..- S-...- I . 1'1111 ~ III "
~.~
-11.1111I. 0...: --- . 11.~I'1 . .
-- . . - .0...- ".;,1 .. 0
t...: - =-- . I:
--- --- :1 "11'
. .. ........... ~ U; ...,--- ,". II
.. - ......& . .- _ a...- a.-..
I~I
Ie
'~n~~ O~ .J~~Jt~ IJC'.l.
u." lUll I'. 'IS ~I
.
.
.
EXHIBIT' B - MINUTES OF DAT MEETING OF JULY 22. 1998
4. Consideration of a roval of monument si n for
Fred Patch handed out a revised drawing of the reposed Cub Foods sign. The revision
includes space at the bottom of the sign for addit anal tenants of the new building. Given
the need for visibility of the sign, the fact that it w II be placed on an island and at an angle
to Highway 25 because that entrance sits at an a gle, and the fact that two other higher
pylon signs are in the same vicinity, members fel that the height, size, and position of the
sign are are justified and appropriate.
SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED, AND RON HOGLUND SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE
SIGN AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED U I NIMOUSL Y.
At this time, Ron Hoglund left the meeting.
._-~~.....
-,;-''-
- .--
-. - .
15'--.j.
.
.
.
16.
Planning Commission Agenda-8/4/98
Consideration of a resolution findin St Benedicts Home con re ate care housin
develo ment is consistent with the Com
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO D:
Consideration of this item is at the reques of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. As a requirement of utilization f Tax Increment Financing in conjunction
with the development of the St Benedicts orne, the Planning Commission must formally
make a finding that the project is consiste t with the comprehensive plan for the City. As
you recall, a few months ago, the Planned Unit Development proposal was approved by
the Planning Commission. A finding was made that the project is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan; therefore, it is pres med that the Planning Commission will make
a similar finding via the attached resolutio
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion adopting the attached resol tion.
2. Motion denying adoption of the at ached resolution
C:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution.
23
.
.
.
-
JUL 28 '98 03:23PM EHLERS & RSSOCIRTES
P.2/7
PLANNING CO
CITY OF MONTICEL
,~ jI"'l'"!-
.fi':y
/:A~j>
..'> Rl~O~~t:ION OF TIlE MONTICELLO
'~i<k;~:I:,..fHE MODIFICATION TO THE
.;,,1-;~,,::,,~kAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOP
.../' IN€R.EMENT FINANCING PLAN FO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
j\". ,..,,;;DISTRICT NO. 1-14 CONFORM TO HE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE
"';,::'.~~::'~'v' DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMEN OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Monti ello, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to adopt
a Modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 'J and a Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax. Increment Financing District N . 1-24 (collectively, the "Plans") and has submitted
the Plans to the Monticello Planning Commission (th "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the PI 11$ to determine their conformity with the geoeral
plans for the development and redevelopmentofthc City s described in the comprehlnsive plan forth. City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the C mmission that the Plans conform with the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the Ci as a whole.
Adopted this _ day of
,1998.1
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
ltc-I