Planning Commission Agenda 06-02-1998
.
.
.
AGEN A
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICEL 0 PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 2, 998.7 p.m.
Members:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Dick M tie, Rod Dragsten, Robbie Smith
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting eld May 5,1998.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens conunents.
5. Public Hearing--Consideration of a request fi r a rezoning of East Oaks Meadows from
A-O (agriculture - open space) to R-l (singl family residential) Applicant, Harold
Shermer.
6. Public Hearing--Consideration of a request r a conditional use permit to allow a beauty
and tanning salon in a PZM (performance z ne mixed) zone. Applicant, Tom and Susan
Grossnickle.
7.
Public Hearing--Consideration of a request r a conditional use permit and a variance
from the rear yard setback to allow a wire Ie s communications tower. Applicant, U.S.
West Wireless LLC.
8. Public Hearing--Consideration of a request or a concept stage approval for a planned unit
development to allow a senior residential co lex adjacent to the Church of St. Henry
site. Applicant, St. Benedicts Center.
9. Continued Public Hearing-Consideration of request for a rezoning, preliminary plat, and
development stage PUD for a 78-lot single amily plat to be known as Wildwood Ridge.
Applicant, Darrel A. Farr Development Co oration.
10. Public Hearing--Consideration of a request or a concept stage planned unit development
for a 220-acre residential subdivision. App cant, Gold Nugget Development, Inc.
11. Public Hearing--Consideration of an amend nt to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan by
adopting a Comprehensive Parks and Path ay Plan. Applicant, Monticello Parks
Commission.
12.
Continued Public Hearing--Consideration 0 an amendment to the zoning code providing
for seasonal open sales in the PZ (performa ce zone) and in the B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4
(business district) zones. Applicant, City 0 Monticello.
.
.
.
Agenda
Monticello Planning Commission
June 2, 1998
Page 2
13. Consideration of an amendment to the Mon icello Subdivision Ordinance relating to the
dedication of land for park purposes. App' ant, City of Monticello.
14. Consideration of a zoning text amendment' the 1-1 (light industrial) zoning district to
allow a go-cart track as a conditional use. pplicant, Russ and Paula Adamski dba
Monticello Roller Rink.
15. Updates.
A. MCP - Rod Dragsten.
16. Adjournment.
__I
.
.
.
MINUT S
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICEL 0 PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 5, 998.7 pm.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Council Liaison Absent:
Staff Present:
Also Present:
Dick Frie, Richard Cadso , Rod Dragsten, Robbie Smith
Dick Martie
Clint Herbst
Fred Patch, Jeff O'Neill, Seve Grittman
Mayor Bill Fair
1. Call to order.
Chairman Dick Frie called the meeting to or er at 7:02 p.m..
2.
r
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRA STEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AP 7, 1998. MOTION SECONDED BY
RICHARD CARLSON.
Motion passed unanimously.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the a~enda
One item was added to the agenda: Chairm Frie asked Mr. Fred Patch to provide an
interpretation of City Code section [8-3] reI ting to required screening required between
multiple family dwellings and single family ellings. The item was added as an update
under item 16 below.
5.
4. Citizen comments. Hearing none, Chairm Frie continued with the agenda.
This item was presented to the Commission by Fred Patch. Mr. Patch explained that this
item was previously before the Planning Co . ssion on April 7, 1998. At that time the
Planning Commission recommended appro al of the conditional use permit to allow open
sales of swimming pools at 101 West Broa way. On April 13, 1998, the City Council
reviewed the recommendation of the PIa . g Commission and moved that the application
should be returned to the Planning Commis ion for further consideration.
It was explained by Mr. Patch that the Cou cil determined that there appeared to be
additional information in the application rei ting to on-site parking and drive aisles that
C:\OFFICE\!P ATCH.97\PLANCOMM\OS-05-98.MIN Page
~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
.
required further consideration by the Commi sion. In addition to the drive aisle concerns,
the City Council mentioned the impact the 0 tdoor display may have on the intentions of
the Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan as adopted into the City of Monticello
Comprehensive Plan.
It was further explained by Mr. Patch that si ce the time this item was brought before the
Council, Mr. Rolfe had proposed an entirely ew plan for outside display and sale of his
swimming pool products on adjoining prope y currently owned by the City of Monticello
HRA. In cooperation with the Monticello C mmunity Partners [MCP]; Mr. Rolfe and
MCP would develop a public gathering spac on the front Yz of the lIRA property and a
fenced swimming pool display area on the b ck l/2 of the property.
Mr. Rolfe addressed the commission and st ted that the fence would fully enclose the
pool display area and that the pools would n t contain water.
Ms. Barb Esse spoke on behalf of the MCP d expressed that as designed, this proposal
represents a superb win-win solution for the City, MCP, and Skipper's Pools.
.
MOTION BY DICK FRIE TO RECO TO THE CITY COUNCn.. THAT THE
ISSUANCE OF THE CONDITIONAL US PERMIT BE APPROVED, FINDING
THAT THE PROPOSED OUTDOOR DIS LAY AND SALES USE AS PROPOSED
BY THE PLAN RECOMMENDED BY MCP AND PRESENTED TO THE
COMMISSION ON MAY 5, 1998 IS:
~ connected with the principal use and Iimi ed to no more than 30% ofthe gross floor area ofthe
principal use,
.. compatible in its relationship to the Com rehensive Plan,
.. compatible in its relationship to the geog phical area and the charader ofthe surrounding
area,
.. justified by a demonstration ofthe need f, r such use, and
.. does not substantially depreciate the are in which it is proposed; and,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIO S:
A. A satisfadory lease or arrangement with he City of Monticello H.R.A.;
B. Lighting must be direded away from the public right of way;
C. Parking stalls must be clearly striped an marked;
D. No permanent or temporary signs shall b erected on the outdoor display;
E. Any swimming pool or spa displayed out oors must be provided with a continuous
surrounding barrier to prevent entry;
F. Outdoor swimming pool or spa displays ust not contain any water; and,
G. This conditional use permit shall be issu for the term of one (1) year from the date of
approval by the City Council, and shall e subject to renewal by the same procedural
requirements as the initial conditional us permit.
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C
SON.
Motion passed unanimously.
.
C:\OFFICE\! P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05.05-98.MIN
Page
@
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
.
6.
Staff report was presented by Steve Grittm n. Mr. Grittman explained that Darrel Farr
Development Corporation has applied for aproval to develop single family plat of a 79
lot single family development to be known a 'Wildwood Ridge". This property has been
known as the "Anderson" property, and is c rrently unincorporated but within the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. The roperty consists of approximately 39 acres
straddling County Road 118. The develop ent portion of the plat would occur on the
southwest side of 118, with about three and one half acres northeast of 118 taken up by
wetlands and storm ponding.
Mr. Grittman explained the desire of both th
natural resources of the "Monte Club Hill".
special set of considerations for developme
City and the Developer to preserve the
. Grittman suggested the creation of a
of the Monte Club Hill area.
.
Mr. Carlson questioned the increased densit of residential development in the lower areas
ofthe proposed plat, asking if the increased density will provide a more tree preserving
development up the hill.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing, re ognizing Ms. Cathy O'Connel of McCombs
Frank Roos, Associates. Ms. O'Connel stat d that their design development goals were
to preserve trees and to maintain a reasonab e return on the development for the
developer. She presented a lengthy review fthe development process and indicated that
the process led the development to a PUD t in response to preservation of the slopes and
trees. The development is to establish 1.5 a res of park and trails within the plat. It is
intended by the developer that those parks nd trails will be dedicated to the City. She
noted that the house pad widths will be mai tained at a 50' minimum width with a
minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet, cre ting a total of78 lots.
Chairman Frie recognized Mr. Brent Nolbe, a resident of the Meadow Oaks Subdivision.
Mr. Nolbe expressed concerns relating to d ainage from the proposed development. He
was concerned that the drainage would hav adverse effects on the drainage way through
Meadow Oaks. Mr. Jeff O'Neill addressed's concerns, assuring him that the storm
water drainage system has been and will co tinue to be properly engineered to receive and
outflow drainage of the new development. . Nolbe also was concerned about the
proposed widening of Co. Rd. 118 and stat d that he is aware that the ROW will be
widened by 8', Mr. Nolbe also was conce ed that he understood that only one of his
neighbors had received notice of the public earing for this development.
.
Chairman Frie recognized Mr. Ralph Mack Mr. Mack was concerned with storm water
C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\OS-OS-98.MIN
Page
~
.
.
.
from the proposed development.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
Chairman Frie next recognized Mr. Scott So tek. Mr. Sontek was also concerned with
storm water from the proposed development
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Frie losed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carlson expressed concerns r lating to the size of lower lots in the
subdivision. He counted 30 lots that would e under 80' in width. He also questioned
how the trail ways would be tied in to the d elopment.
Commissioner Dragsten also questioned acc ss to park and trail systems and if the streets
internal to the PUD would be public or priv te streets. He had concerns about the
hammerhead/dead end street and maintenan e. Mr. Dragsten agreed with the need to
reduce the width of streets to preserve trees and generally spoke to the positive aspects of
the development. Jeff O'Neill stated that th engineering design details would be more
worked out prior to the next meeting. Mr. ragsten questioned whether or not the City
should consider modification of the Zoning ode to reflect the same development
standards that are intended for this PUD.
Chairman Frie questioned the value of the h mes to be built in the development.
Ms. Lucinda Carter ofFarr Development st ted that the value of he homes built in the
development would likely be between $140, 00 to $250,000. Chairman Frie also asked
Mr. Grittman about the annexation procedu e. Grittman stated that this annexation is well
defined by the procedures of the OM agre ment. Chairman Frie asked about the park
dedication requirements for this developme t. Farr Development has committed to the
dedication of park lands and trails to the Cit , not in lieu of park dedication fees that are to
be assessed against the development.
Ms. Lucinda Carter expressed the desire to reserve the natural resources of the area to be
developed. She said that the building pads or each lot would be pre-built and subject to
developer control in order to preserve the tees and slopes on the lots.
Chairman Frie asked if we can do more wit this application than concept plan approval.
Mr. Grittman stated that the application wa incomplete at the time of the last application
deadline and would be on the next agenda r preliminary plat, concept stage PUD, and
rezoning consideration.
Commissioner Smith expressed appreciatio for the efforts ofFarr Development to
preserve the natural resources of the devel pment site.
MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO TAB E ACTION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT,
CONCEPT STAGE PUD, AND REZO G, PENDING CONSIDERATION OF
C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMMl05-05-98.MIN
Page
@
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
.
ADDITIONAL CONCEPTS PROPOSED Y THE DEVELOPER.
Staff report was presented by Mr. Steve Gri tman. Mr. Grittman explained that Mr. Daryl
Tindle is requesting approval of a simple sub ivision of property located at 1707 West
Broadway. This parcel is adjacent to Hillcre t Park, and has a single family home facing
West Broadway, a county highway. Lot req irements include a minimum of 12,000
square feet and 80 feet of width, with setbac s of30 feet front yard, 30 feet rear yard, and
10 feet side yard.
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C
Motion passed unanimously.
7.
.
The parcel is encumbered by a power line e ement which restricts the ability to create
buildable area. With an existing home and d tached garage on the parcel, any new side lot
line is required to be located no closer than 0 feet to the current structures. The
applicant estimated the locations of the exist ng structures on the Site Plan. Based on this
drawing there should be adequate room to c nstruct a new home on the newly subdivided
parcel without requiring setback variances. owever, this will need to be verified by
certified land survey prior to recording of th subdivision or approval of any building
permit.
With regard to lot sizes, both lots will be si nificantly oversized compared to the R-1
requirements. Mr. Tindle illustrated a numb r of alternative land trades which involve
remnants of parcels under the power line ea ement. He also indicated that the County has
given verbal approval of driveway access 0 ofCSAH 75. Mr. Grittman suggested that
the City Engineer should comment on the n ed for additional utility and drainage
easements in this area. Since the lots were reviously platted in an alternative layout,
easements were provided which would no 1 nger conform to the lot lines. A)1y additional
drainage or utility issues should be reviewe to ensure that the revised subdivision plan
will not affect, or be adversely affected by, t e existing patterns in the neighborhood.
After much discussion regarding possible 0 tions, Fred Patch suggested to Mr. Tindle that
he might consider dedicating the triangle of and immediately adjacent to the city park land
to the City of Monticello. Mr. Tindle could take advantage oftax consequence and be
credited for the value of the land to offset a sessment costs that would otherwise be
attributable to the newly created lot Mr. T ndle agreed that option would be an
acceptable solution in order to meet his nee s and those of the City.
.
MOTION BY CARLSON TO APPROVE HE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION CREATING
C:\OFFICE\! P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN
Page 5
(i)
.
.
.
PLANNING COMlvIISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
THREE PARCELS TO INCLUDE TWO S GLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE LOT TO
BE DEDICATED AND GIFTED TO THE ITY TO BECOME PARKLAND,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTE IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS:
1. Written approval of access permit is recei ed by the City from Wright County.
2. A certified land survey is completed whic verifies lot dimensions and illustrates the ability to
provide adequate setbacks and buildable reas per Zoning Ordinance requirements, without
variance.
3. City Engineer approval of drainage and u ility patterns and easements in the area.
4. Area 3, as noted on the concept subdivisio plan, would be dedicated to the City of Monticello
for park use.
8.
MOTION SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMI
Motion passed unanimously.
13
Staff report was presented by Steve Grittma . Mr. Grittman explained that United
Methodist Church is requesting a rezoning 0 their parcel south of County Road 118 and
north of the City water tower site from A-O Agriculture to P-S, Public and Semi-Public
District. The subject site is currently outsid the City limits within the Orderly Annexation
Area (OAA). As such, all action taken by t e City with regards to this application is
conditioned upon annexation of the parcel i to the City, which may be processed at an
administrative level.
Unfortunately at the time of the Planning C mmission meeting, a site plan was
unavailable. Mr. Grittman explained the sit development as best possible. Issues
discussed were as follows:
A. AI:mexation -- The subject site is wit' the established OAA. As a result,
annexation of the parcel into the Cit should be a matter of administrative
processing. All actions by the City ith regard to the rezoning and CUP
applications will be conditioned upo approval of the annexation.
B.
Rezoning -- The purpose of the P-S istrict is to provide for the unique location
and development characteristics of p blic or semi-public uses, including churches.
The District recognizes that the thes uses may occupy only single parcels
surrounded by different uses and est blishes performance standards intended to
address compatibility and impact iss es of the institutional use. Therefore, the
issue of spot zoning should not be c nsidered an issue. The 6.35 acre size of the
subject site is sufficient to provide a equate site design that minimizes off-site
impacts of the proposed use.
C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.9i\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MJN
Page 6
@
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES~ 05105/98
c.
Conditional Use Permit -- Religious i stitutions, including churches are allowed as
a conditional use within the P-S Dist ct, subject to the following:
1. Religious institutions on parc Is exceeding 20,000 square feet in area shall
be located with direct frontag on, and access to, a collector or arterial
street.
2. The buildings are setback fro adjoining residential districts a distance no
less than double the adjoining residential setback.
3. Parking areas are developed t accommodate the most intense concurrent
uses of the facility so as to mi 'mize overflow parking onto the public
street.
4. Compliance with requirement of Section 22 of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance.
Site Plan Review --
Building Elevations. Structures wit 'n the P-S District are limited to a maximum
building height of 50 feet however, c urch spires or belfries are exempt. The
applicant will be required to provide uilding elevations, which are subject to
review and approval of the City Cou cil.
Landscaping. The applicant has no provided a landscaping plan for the subject
site as required by Section 3-2[G] of the Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping is an
important consideration for this proj ct to prevent erosion of the significant slopes
of the subject site. In developing a 1 ndscape plan, the applicant should consider
the opportunity for a unique landsca e treatment to the slopes adjacent to the
parking areas including retaining wal s/terraced gardens. Staff has also discussed
the potential joint use of the sloped ea between the Church and City park system
as a sledding hill. This concept shou d be considered by the Parks and Recreation
Commission. The landscape plan wi I be subject to review and approval of the
City Council.
Parking. As noted above, the numb r of required parking stalls has been
exceeded for the proposed use. Sec 'on 3-5[D]9 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines
parking area design requirements. P rking stalls must be 9 feet wide and 20 feet
deep. The proposed parking stalls c nforro to this requirement. Drive aisles must
be 24 feet wide. The drive aisles on he site plan are approximately 22 feet wide.
The applicant should verifY that the rive aisles are 24 feet wide or revise the site
plan accordingly. Based upon the nu ber of proposed parking stalls, five stalls
must be designated for disability acc ssible use, including at least one van
accessible stall. Disabled accessible talls must be 9 feet wide with and adjacent 4
foot access strip and van accessible alls must be 8 feet wide with an adjacent 5
foot access aisle strip. The disability stalls may be so located to share an access
strip. The site plan should be revise to indicate the location of required disability
accessible stalls.
D.
C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMMlOS-OS-98.MIN
Page 7
@
.
Section 3-5[D]9.k of the Zoning Or inance requires that all parking areas be
surfaced bituminous or other materi to control dust. Also, Section 3-5[D]9.0
requires concrete curb around the pe . meter of all parking areas and islands. These
improvements will be required to be nstalled.
Grading, Drainage and Utility Pia s. The applicant has submitted a site grading
plan. However, the plans do not inc de proposed erosion control measures.
Given the significant slopes of the su ~ect site, an erosion control plan is critical.
All grading, drainage and utility plan must be subject to review and approval of
the City Engineer. Chairman Frie co ented that this is not a "spot zoning issue"
as the parcel is adjacent to the PS - ublic/Serni-Public District across Co. Rd. 118
to the south. Chairman Frie opened he public hearing and recognized Mr. John
Bogaart. Mr. Bogart stated that he as representing the church and made no
further comment. Commissioner Dr gsten asked why the property was not zoned
R-l. Mr. Grittman explained that th PS district is consistent with the use
intended and that the parcel just to t e north is similarly zoned.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APP OVE THE REZONING BASED UPON A
FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE I IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSI PLAN, AND IS COMP ATffiLE WITH
SURROUNDING LAND USES.
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C
SON.
.
Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO APP OVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR UNITED METHODIST CHURCH B SED UPON A FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED USE WILL MEET, WITH PROPRIATE CHANGES, THE
CONDITIONS AS DEFINED IN THE 20 G ORDINANCE AND AS DEFINED
BELOW, INCLUDING ADEQUATE FIC ACCESS, ADEQUATE SETBACKS
TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIE , ADEQUATE PARKING TO
ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED US AND COMPATffiILITY WITH THE
AREA AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BJECTIVES:
1. The applicant and the City, as the prope y owner, detennine the improvements to be
constructed and responsibility for the cos s associated with the installation of a shared
driveway, which satisfies the minimum d sign standards ofthe Zoning Ordinance, to be
located on the City property along the Ie gth ofthe east property line ofthe subject site.
2. The applicant provide building elevation lans subject to review and approval of the City
Council.
3. The applicant provide a landscape plan t at demonstrates unique treatments to the sloped
areas adjacent to the parking areas, inc1 ding retaining walls/terraced gardens, as a means of
controlling stonn water runoff and erosi
.
4.
All drive aisles be designed to a minimu width of 24 feet.
C:\OFFICE\!P ATCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN
Page 8
(?)
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
5.
The site plan be revised to designate five ( ) disability accessible stalls, one of which must be
van accessible.
6. All grading, drainage and utility plans be ubject to review and approval ofthe City Engineer.
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C SON.
Motion passed unanimously.
9.
Staff report was presented by Steve Grittm Star City Builders, Inc., submitted a plan
requesting Concept Stage PUD approval for a 60 unit townhouse project between Elm
and Minnesota Streets, along the 7th Street ignment. The property is zoned PZM,
which allows residential PUDs by Condition Use Permit. This developer had submitted
a first draft plan which the Planning Comrnis ion reviewed as a sketch plan at its April
meeting.
The developers have addressed the general I yout issues suggested by the staff report on
the sketch plan. As a concept plan, the proj ct still lacks detail required for more complex
review. There are, however, a few out stand ng issues which should be higWighted prior to
Development Stage PUD review.
The project will have to provide a buffer yar along the north boundary adjacent to the
Ruff Auto property. From the aerial photo, t appears that just under half of the common
boundary is utilized by Ruff Auto for its sal ge operation. The remainder is vacant land.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, where developing parcel abuts another parcel which
is less than 50% developed, based on linear ootage of common boundary, the new
development is required to provide half oft e buffer yard on its side of the boundary. The
other half will be required of the other prop y owner at the time of expansion or
significant alteration.
F or Residential to Industrial buffer yards, th requirements are as follows:
Building Setback: 50 feet
Landscaped Yard: 40 feet
Plant units/100 ft.: 160
These latter two standards would be halved or this project, subject to a survey which
establishes the length of the common bound , and the limits of use on the Ruff Auto side
of the property line. A five foot high benn r opaque fence may be credited toward half of
C:\OFFICE\lP A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN
Page 9
o
.
.
.
the number of plants required of this project
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES~ 05/05/98
Given the severe aesthetic issues which may impact the residential neighborhood, Mr.
Grittman recommended a requirement for a 11 berm with plantings to help screen the
view ofthe industrial use.
The second issue raised by this project is th proposal for a private road, rather than a
public street, serving the 60 units. The dev loper has altered the design from the sketch
plan to provide a more grid-like street patte . The City should identify issues
surrounding the consideration of a private s reet serving this number of units. Long term
maintenance may be one concern, due to th cost of reconstruction of such an extensive
private street plan. One method of addressi g this issue would be to require the
homeowner's association to capitalize a rec nstruction fund to be available at the time that
the useful life of the street would be expend d.
Separate from the design issues of the plat a proposed will be the consideration for Park
Dedication requirements for this area. The ark Commission has been working on a
Comprehensive Park Plan which identifies t 's general area west of the downtown as a
neighborhood park search area. For some t me, the City has been envisioning that such a
neighborhood park might be made a part of he city-owned property at Outlot A of
Country Club Manor. This area is directly est of this site along 7th Street. In addition,
the Civic Center project will be located a fe blocks east of this site, although those
recreational uses would be different in natur from traditional park and open space areas.
The Park Commission should make a speci c recommendation as to the appropriateness
of a land or cash dedication requirement fro this parcel. Land could serve the area,
however, the dedication requirement for thi parcel would be just over one acre, whereas
two acres is generally the lower threshold si e. Cash donation from this development
could be applied to the City's reservation 0 land at the Country Club Manor site to either
increase its proposed size, or fund some ne -term improvements.
Finally, a pathway connection should be pI ed through this property. Options include a
pathway along the boundary line with Ruff uto, a sidewalk through the internal street
system, or a sidewalk/pathway along 7th St eet. For purposes oflinkage, the 7th Street
option may be the most appropriate. Again the Park Commission should review this issue
at its upcoming meeting.
There remain a few design issues which sho ld be addressed at the Development Stage
submission request. These involve the amo' nt of pavement shown for driveway access,
particularly on the west side of the project. At point A on the site plan, the street is
widened to provide additional frontage for 0 four-unit townhouse clusters. This results
in a width of over 120 feet of uninterrupted pavement at one point, and creates a very
short turning movement for the units which are not perpendicular to the street. It may be
C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05.05-98.MIN
@
.
1.
2.
3.
. 4.
5.
6.
7.
10.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. 05/05/98
possible to narrow the street width in the pr ~ect from the 40+ feet shown to 30 feet, or
possibly even less. In addition, a landscape island in the triangular pavement area would
break up the expanse. In the circular area, pint B on the site plan, the street is so wide as
to allow unchannelled traffic around the circ e. Again, narrowing the pavement area
would better channel traffic, and provide ne ded turning radius at the intersection.
Chairman Fire opened the public hearing. R ceiving no public comments, Chairman Frie
closed the public hearing.
Jeff O'Neill clarified issues relating to on-sit ponding, park dedication and engineering
review.
Commissioner Carlson asked about timing i the development of the 7th Street project.
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN DICK FRIE T APPROVE THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING COND nONS:.
Provision of a bufferyard along the north boundary per Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Submission of a survey documenting the ngth ofthe common boundary with Ruft' Auto and
the limits of development on the Ruff Aut side of the line.
Submission of proposed homeowner's ass ciation language which would ensure the proper
maintenance and future reconstruction 0 the private street.
Compliance with the recommendation of he Parks Commission regarding Park dedication
land or cash.
Alteration of the design to resolve drivew y and paving expanse issues raised in the staft'
report.
Alteration of the design to resolve street .dth and turning radius concerns as noted in the
staff report.
Other conditions recommended by City S aft'.
MOTION SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMI H.
Motion passed unanimously.
R-
Staff report was presented by Steve Grittm Mr. Michael Cyr of Front Porch Associates
has requested PUD and Preliminary Plat ap roval for a seven unit townhouse project to be
known as ''Elm Street Crossing". The proj ct is located at the intersection ofEIm and 5th
Streets in a PZM Zoning District. This dist 'ct allows residential projects, including
PUDs, by Conditional Use Permit. This pr 'ect was originally designed as now proposed,
but was brought to the Planning Commissio as a larger project at the encouragement of
City staff That larger project included som required land acquisition and City financial
(i)
C:\OFFICE\! P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN
.
PLANNING COM11ISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
participation. Just prior to the Planning Co 'ssion's review in April, the lIRA decided
not to provide the financial assistance. As a result, the developer is requesting both
Concept Stage and Development Stage P approvals concurrently.
However, it has now been discovered that a portion of the land which the developer
intended to purchase was previously sold to an adjacent owner to supply needed minimum
land area for other housing. That portion c nsists of a small rectangle of property behind
unit 3 (see site plan). Therefore, the develo ment will not be able to provide access to
most of the units, since the exception area i needed as a driveway. We have provided a
revision to the plan which would accommo ate the seven units on the smaller amount of
land.
This plan squeezes the buildings together to create an additional driveway, both driveways
to 5th Street being shown at 12 feet in widt as opposed to 20 feet. Units 4 and 5 would
be 9 feet apart (6 feet at the eave line), inste d of the proposed 11 feet, and Unit 7 would
be placed at the 10 foot setback instead of 11.3 feet as proposed. Finally, Units 1,2,3
and 7 would all be "side entry" garages, w . e units 4, 5 and 6 would be back entry
garages. The arrows on the revised plan in icate garage door locations.
One other option has been discussed. That ould be to acquire a driveway easement
across the lot adjacent to Vine Street (Lot 6 of the original plat). The owner of this lot is
the seller of the land to the developer and c uld possibly provide the easement as a part of
the sale. One concern related to the easem t, however, would be that it would
effectively limit the lot size applicable to the existing single family home. Moreover, it
would have to be included in the PUD. T s would require renotification, since that
parcel was not originally contemplated with this project.
.
With regard to density in the plat, the loss 0 the exception area puts the project right at
eight units per acre. This is the maximum d nsity for mid-density development. While
there is no stated density maximum for the ZM District (this district would accommodate
R-3 type development), the density does in icate an intense use ofland in relation to the
unit type. Of note in this project would be at there is very little green space to the rear
of the units, relying instead on the "front po ch" and front yard spaces for open space.
Many developments of this density compen ate for the lack of private green or open space
by attaching more units together. Byelimi ting side yards, more open space can be
combined in usable sizes. Due to the unit s Ie and the need to provide side windows, this
is not possible for this project. To accomm date this unit design on the land as proposed,
we would encourage an intensively landsca ed project, particularly in the rear yards which
will be used primarily for automobile acces and parking. No landscape plan has been
provided with this proposal, as commonly r quired for Development Stage PUDs.
.
A final issue involves park dedication requi ements. The City should decide on a park
C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN
Q
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
dedication policy for development such as t "s which replat existing land to accommodate
more dwelling units than originally planned. In this case, three additional units are shown
beyond the original four lot plat area. On t e assumption that park planning was based on
the four lot development, the three new unit would increase park demand, justifying an
additional dedication requirement. It is likel that a fee in lieu of land would be
appropriate. The Park Commission should eview this issue.
Chairman Fire opened the public hearing an recognized Mr. Mike Cyr ofMLC Builders
who discussed the development of his proje t. Chairman Frie asked staff about park
dedications related to the project and ifther was a landscape plan. Commissioner Smith
asked if there would be a cash payment in li u of park dedication. Jeff O'Neill stated that
the project would be before the Parks Co "ssion on May 21, 1998 and that the final plat
would be before the City Council on May 2 , 1998.
Chairman Frie asked ifthere was a restricti n on the use of grills on the porches, and
wondered where such outdoor activities co Id occur on the site. Fred Patch stated that
there is no restriction to single family use 0 grills on decks, but that restriction pertains to
apartment buildings.
Mike Cyr clarified issues relating to the los of project area in a land ownership dispute
with Mr. Ruff and the previous owners.
Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APP
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ELM S
MOTION SECONDED BY ROD DRAGS EN.
VE THE CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED
T CROSSING.
MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APP OVE THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD
FOR ELM STREET CROSSING, CONT GENT UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Y:
1. Revised Site Plan illustrating proper acc ss to all garages.
2. Submission of Landscape Plan illustrat" g intensified landscape treatments as detailed in the
staff report to Planning Commission.
3. Final approval ofthe Preliminary and F al Plats.
MOTION SECONDED BY ROD DRAG TEN.
Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION BY DICK FRIE TO APPRO
STREET CROSSING, CONTINGENT
CONTIITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z:
C:\OFFICE\! P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELM
ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE
(i)
Motion passed unanimously.
Submission of Final Utility Plan for revie and approval by City Staff.
Submission of Final Grading Plan for rev ew and approval by City Staff.
Submission of revised Preliminary Plat' strating lot dimensions and common space.
Submission of lot covenants and homeo ers' association bylaws demonstrating adequate
provisions for common area maintenanc
Final approval of the Planned Unit Deve
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C
11.
Rink.
.
Staff report was presented by Steve Grittm n. Russ and Paula Adamski have requested a
Zoning Ordinance text amendment to allo outdoor go-cart tracks as a conditional use
within the I-I, Light Industrial District. T s use is currently only allowed by CUP in the
B-3, Highway Business District. The purp se of the request is to accommodate an
expansion of the applicant's existing roller 'nk amusement area, located at the southeast
comer of County Road 117 and Thomas P rk Drive (zoned I-I District), to include an
outdoor go-cart track. As such, the applic ts are also requesting approval of a CUP for
an outdoor go-cart track. However, any a tion on this request is contingent upon the City
taking one of three alternative actions to al ow this use on the subject property.
1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment -- T e applicants are requesting an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance so that an ou door go-cart track can be developed on their
property, which is currently zoned -1 District. The applicants have requested that
outdoor go-cart tracks be made a c nditional use in the I-I District, subject to the
same conditions as provided for thi use in the B-3 District. Amending the
Ordinance to allow outdoor go-c s in the I-I District increases the opportunity to
establish uses within the I-I Distric that are more commercial in nature than
industrial. Therefore, the propose amendment may be considered inconsistent
with the purpose of the I-I District and Comprehensive Plan.
A second option to accommodate e applicant's request is to amend Section 15B-
4[D] of the Zoning Ordinance" usement places (such as roller rinks and dance
halls) and bowling alleys" as a con itional use within the I-I District to include
outdoor go-cart tracks. This optio however is problematic in that "amusement
places" as currently defined relates to indoor type uses. Outdoor uses, including
go-cart tracks, raise different com atibility issues such as screening, noise, lighting,
etc. Combining indoor and outdo r recreational uses under the same conditional
use may result in problems ensurin that compatibility issues of potential uses is
adequately addressed.
.
C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05.05-98.MIN
~
.
Finally, a third option to consider is rezoning of the applicant's property to B-3,
Highway Business District. The Ian s to the west of County Road 117 are zoned
B-3, therefore spot zoning would no be an issue with this action. While the B-3
District allows outdoor go-cart trac s as a conditional use, the applicant's existing
roller rink is not a conditional or pe "tted use in the B-3 District. As such, an
amendment to allow amusement are s as a separate conditional use in the B-3
District would be required. From at chnical standpoint this option is more
appropriate given the commercial c aracter of the indoor/outdoor recreational
uses. This option does, however, re ult in a loss of industrial zoned land.
If the Planning Commission reco ends and the City Council acts favorably on
the rezoning issue, consideration of he proposed development of a go-cart track
on the applicant's property may occ r. Assuming that the Zoning Ordinance is
amended to allow outdoor go-cart tacks as a conditional use in the I-I District or
the subject site is rezoned to B-3 Di trict, approval of a CUP for an outdoor go
cart track is subject to the followin conditions, as outlined in Section 13-4[N] of
the Zoning Ordinance.
2.
Conditional Use Permit - Outdoor o-Cart Track.
c.
The proposed use must mee all conditions of Chapter 3, Section 4[A].
The Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed yearly to determine whether
or not it is compatible with eighboring properties and in conformance with
conditions of the condition use.
A solid six-foot high fence ust be part of the screening required when the
adjacent properties are resi entia!.
A.
B.
.
The subject site is surrounded only y commercial and industrial zoned properties.
However, to minimize the impacts fnoise from the go-cart track to any adjacent
properties, and to screen the use fr m the public right of way a wood fence and
landscaping should be provided. T e types and quantities of planting materials
should be such that a dense plantin wall ultimately develops to further buffer the
noise impacts of the go-cart track.
D. For dust and noise (70dB a residential property line) must be controlled at
all times to the satisfaction f the City.
E. The provisions of Chapter 2 of this Ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
.
Parking. The existing parking lot is bitu 'nous surfaced and striped. However,
submitted plans do not indicate the numbe of stalls within the parking lot. Staffhas
estimated the capacity of the parking lot t be at least 70 stalls, based upon the minimum
design standards within the Zoning Ordin ceo With the number of stalls to be provided,
at least two must be designated disability ccessible with a 7 foot access strip in between
C:\OFFICE\!P ATCH.97\PLANCOMMl05.05.98.MIN
@)
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES~ 05/05/98
.
for van accessability.
.
The Zoning Ordinance requires one space p r 40 square feet of building area for roller
rink uses. Based upon this requirements an a building size of 11,700 square feet, a total
of 294 parking stalls would be required for t e roller rink use alone. However, ITE data
suggests that the actual parking demand for he roller rink, based upon building size is
actually 46 stalls. As such, 24 stalls would emain for the go-cart track use. At least on
an initial basis, this number appears approp ate. There is additional site area indicated on
the site plan as a proposed mini-golf area th t could be developed as parking, if demand is
found to exceed supply. A condition of app oval will be that the applicant must improve
the existing parking lot to provide at least 7 parking stalls, two of which must be
disability accessible.
Mini-Golf Area. As noted above, the sub 'tted site plan indicates a proposed miniature
golf area. Development of this use on the s bject site would require the applicant to
request an CUP amendment. Whether the 'niature golf use would be allowed would be
dependent upon conformance with Zoning rdinance provisions, particularly parking.
Lighting. The submitted site plan does not indicate if any exterior lighting is proposed to
be utilized to illuminate the go-cart track. he applicant should revise the site plan to
specify the location of any and all exterior s te lighting. Additionally, the applicant must
provide details regarding any proposed ligh fixtures, including photometric plans. All site
lighting must be subject to review and appr val of the City Council.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing an recognized Mr. Mark Petty of Benchmark
Properties. Mr. Petty expressed concerns r garding possible noise levels from the go cart
activities proposed. He felt that the go cart activities would interfere with the industrial
activities local to the go cart track.
Mr. Steve Conroy, attorney for the prope y owners indicated that the owners are
concerned with cost control and did not w t to install curb and gutter around the parking
lot. He stated that striping of the parking c ld certainly be accommodated.
Vince, the partner of Mr. Petty, benchmark properties reiterated the noise concerns.
Chairman Fire asked about hours of operat on and about the seasonal nature of go cart
operations. Mr. Conroy affirmed the seaso al aspect of the go cart business. He also
stated that the fence intended to surround t e go cart track would be a 4' high chain link.
Chairman Frie indicated that a solid fence ould be included as a condition of use.
Commissioner Dragsten mentioned his con ems regarding loudspeakers, safety and
compatibility with neighboring businesses.
Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
.
C:\OFFICE\! P A TCH.97\PLANCOMMlOS-OS-98.MIN
@
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. 05/05/98
Commissioner Dragsten felt that a 6 foot hi h privacy fence would be mandatory and felt
that the I districts may not be best suited to 0 cart tracks.
Chairman Frie expressed his concern for the nuisance aspects of a go cart track and felt
that the issue of compatibility must be furth r researched.
Fred Patch mentioned the unclear language elating to amusement uses in the Industrial
District.
MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BASED
UPON A FINDING THAT NONE OF PROPOSED ACTIONS ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
THE 1-1 DISTRICT AND IT APPEARS T THE USE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH
ADJACENT USES.
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C
Motion passed unanimously.
SON.
MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW FOR A OUTDOOR GO-CART T CK ON THE SUBJECT SITE BASED
UPON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOS D USE CAN NOT MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING 0 INANCE OR OBJECTIVES OF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MOTION SECONDED BY ROD DRAGS EN.
Motion passed unanimously.
12.
r
Staff report was presented by Fred Patch. . Patch provided an overview of the intents
of the Ordinance and requested that the pub ic hearing be continued until the June meeting
ofthe Planning Commission as it is necess to compare the proposed ordinance with the
itinerant sales ordinances of the City.
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN DICK FRIE T
FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN AMEND
PROVIDING FOR SEASONAL OPEN S
AND IN THE Bl, B2, B3, B4 (BUSINES
MEETING.
C:\OFFICE\! P ATCH.97\PLANCOMM\05.Q5-98.MIN
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING
NT TO THE CITY ZONING CODE
ES IN THE PZ (PERFORMANCE ZONE)
DISTRICT ZONE) UNTIL THE JUNE 1998
(f)
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
.
Motion passed unanimously.
'11
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C
13.
Staff report was presented by Steve Grittma . River Mill 4th Addition is proposed for
Preliminary Plat approval. This plat was tabl d by the Planning Commission at the April
meeting due to concern over the neighboring landowner's objection to the plat of a street
along the common boundary. The City's att rney has reviewed the request and
determined that the City can approve the pIa as presented, with a caution to the developer
of River Mill that there is no guarantee that t e remainder of the street would be available
in the future, or that the interior lots requirin access from that street could be platted and
constructed.
Mr Grittman referred the Planning Commiss' on to our report for the April 7 Planning
Commission agenda, with the following cha ge to condition 2:
2.
Proposed Preliminary Plat Lots 13-1 ,Block 2 shall be designated as Outlot B,
River Mill 4th Addition, subject to fi al platting only at such time as the adjacent
property to the east is platted to pro . de the remainder of any street right-of-way.
The City does not guarantee any sue platting, nor does the City guarantee the
development of any of Outlot B.
.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing an recognized Bob Murphy, representing the
developer. Mr. Murphy discussed concerns of the neighboring property owner regarding
this subdivision as setting the course for fut re roads that may be developed onto his
property. Mr. Murphy felt that the same co cern could be expressed by either property
owner depending upon who is first to devel p. Mr. Murphy stated that he would prefer to
not have conditions placed upon the develo ment that could preclude any possible
development of Outlot "B". Mr. Murphy a .ked the Commission to remove the word
"only" from the above stated paragraph nu ber 2, to have that paragraph read as follows:
2. Proposed Preliminary Plat Lots 13-17, Block 2 shall be designated as Outlot B,
River Mill 4th Addition, subject to nal platting at such time as the adjacent
property to the east is platted to pro 'de the remainder of any street right-of-way.
The City does not guarantee any su h platting, nor does the City guarantee the
development of any of Outlot B.
.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN, TO AP ROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
RlVERMILL 4TH ADDITION, BASED N A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS
C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\OS-OS-98.MIN
@
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
.
CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE SUB IVISION ORDINANCE AND ZONING
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, SUBJE T TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN
EXI-llBIT G:
1. The design of Mill Trail LanelMill Trail D 've as platted by River Mill 3rd Addition be
maintained. The extension of Mill Trail L ne as platted by River Mill 4th Addition shall
intersect the existing street design at a 90 egree angle, subject to review and approval of the
City Engineer.
2. Proposed Preliminary Plat Lots 13-17, BI k 2 shaD be designated as Outlot B, River Mill 4th
Addition, subject to rmal platting at such ime as the adjacent property to the east is platted to
provide the remainder of any street right f-way. The City does not guarantee any such
platting, nor does the City guarantee the evelopment of any of Outlot B.
3. The City Council accept Outlot A, River ill 4th Addition as adding to previous park
dedication.
4. The preliminary grading, drainage, erosi n and utility plans are subject to review and
approval ofthe city Engineer.
5. The City engineer recommend and appro e the need and location of easements to be included
on the rmal plat.
6. The applicant enter into a development c ntract with the City.
Motion passed unanimously.
Staff report was presented by Steve Grittm n. The City's Comprehensive Plan includes
land use planning for areas south and west fthe current City boundaries. As you may
recall, a significant concept of the Compre ensive Plan is to direct future growth to the
south and west of the City by investing in i frastructure improvements which would serve
growth in that direction rather than to the ast. Over the past several months, staffhas
conducted a more detailed study of the iss es which would affect land use patterns in that
area, including transportation, utility com ors, physical lay of the land, existing land uses,
and goals and policies from the current pI . A concept land use plan was developed with
these issues in mind and has been discusse at staff level, with other City organizations,
and at a public open house.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C
14.
.
The purpose of the plan amendment is to low the City to plan for both long- and short-
term infrastructure improvements which w uld be needed to serve the area. Although the
plan would have no legal effect as things n w stand, a component of the proposed Orderly
Annexation Area agreement with Montice 0 Township would include the adoption of the
C:\OFFICE\! P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN
~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
.
City's land use plan in the revised OAA. As a result, the City's Comprehensive Plan and
its component "SouthlWest Area Plan" wo ld form the basis for any land use decision in
the OAA, preserving the various properties r the City's long-term intended use. This
OAA agreement has been approved by both arties and adopted by the Municipal Board.
The Land Use Plan for the area is important or the City. It could serve as the basis for
the City's request ofthe OAA Board for an mendment to its land use plan. Even as
information for that Board, and the Board's dministrator (County Planner Tom
Salkowski), the Land Use Plan will provide mportant guidance for land use decisions in
the extra-territorial areas adjacent to the Cit . Finally, it can provide direction for future
development of land in those areas when Ian owners are seeking annexation.
.
This proposed amendment has been modifie slightly from its original draft to reflect two
changes. First, following input from a new andowner near the intersection of County
Road 39 and the proposed extension ofChe sea Road, and area of "future study" is shown
which contemplates the expansion of the pr posed industrial area to the south of the utility
easement. The text has also been modified 0 emphasize that this is a guide plan, not a
zoning ordinance. As such, it is intended to illustrate a pattern ofland use and the
necessary transportation routes, not specific district lines. It is expected that, as specific
conditions are encountered by particular de elopers, the exact location of the lines will
need to be flexible to accommodate conditi ns at the time.
Chairman Frie questioned if the proposed i dustrial use areas are mostly wetlands. Mr.
Grittman stated that there are wetlands in t e area, however the industrial areas are at this
point only identified in a broad brush mann r.
Mayor Bill Fair expressed a desire to maint in the language of the south and west area
plan to be very general, not to be a "Zonin Code" for the area but rather expressing the
city's preconceptions of uses in the area.
Discussions ensued regarding the coordina . on of the South and West Development Area
plan with the Orderly Annexation Agreeme t [OAA)..
Commissioner wanted to insure that the ve biage of the plan was less specific.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing r cognizing Mr. Richard Long and Mr. Jim
Bowers who were seeking for additional ea to be designated as open to possible
industrial development south of the area c rrently so designated. Mr. long provided a
handout to the Commission and thoroughl described his ideas for additional industrial
land designation.
Mr. Dan Gohman supported the proposals of Mr. Long.
.
C:\OFTICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN
~
.
.
.
15.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
Mr. John Chadwick also supported the prop sals of Mr. Long.
Mr. Jim Bauer owner of areas marked in the handout with a cross hatched pattern felt that
the plan as presented would pre-empt indust . al use with residential use and supported the
expansion of additional industrial use to the outh and slightly east of the currently
designated industrial area.
Much additional discussion ensued.
MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECO ND APPRO V AL OF THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHEN lYE PLAN AS PROPOSED IN THE
"SOUTHlWEST AREA PLAN", WITH T EXCEPTION OF FURTHER STUDY
NECESSARY FOR POSSffiLE EXP ANSI N OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATED
AREAS ON THE GOHMAN PARCEL.
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C
Motion passed with Richard Carlson, Rod ragsten and Robbie Smith voting in favor of
the motion and Dick Frie voting against.
The Planning Commission was requested t adopt the enclosed resolution. The resolution
states the Commission finds the proposed t 0 plans are consistent with the general plans
for development and redevelopment of the ity as described in the Comprehensive Plan.
Redevelopment Plan for Central Montie 110 Redevelopment Project No.1
Each time, the city establishes a new TIF istrict, Project No.1 must be modified to
include the changes.
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-23
TIF District No. 1-23 is an economic distri t created for the purpose of increasing the
local and state tax base and creating jobs a the wage level objective. An economic district
is intended for manufacturing use and for ffice, warehousing, and distribution as it relates
to the production. The legal description 0 the proposed district is Lot 1, Block 1,
Monticello Commerce Center Third Additi n. The property is zoned I-I Light Industrial.
It's location is the southeast comer of Fall n Avenue and Dundas Road.
C:\OFFICE\! P A TCH.97\PLANCOMM\05-05-98.MIN
(Z)
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 05/05/98
Allied Companies, LLC plans to construct a 60,000 sq ft prestress concrete manufacturing
facility for lease to Midwest Graphics. Mid est Graphics designs, pre-presses, prints, and
finishes graphics. The project is projected t increase the tax base annually by
approximately $70,000 and create 37 new j bs at a wage level between $8.24 to $12.00
per hour. Grady Kinghorn of Christian & nghorn, Inc. is the general contractor.
Construction to commence July 1, 1998 an completion December 31, 1998.
Building and site plans are scheduled to be ubmitted to the Building Department this
week. The City Council will hold a public earing and approve the plan for establishment
of the TIF District on May 26, 1998.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO AD PT THE RESOLUTION FINDING THE
MODIFICATION OF THE REDEVELOP NT PLAN FOR CENTRAL
MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PR JECT NO. 1 AND THE TIP PLAN FOR TIF
DISTRICT NO. 1-23 CONFORM TO GENERAL PLANS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOP NT OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO.
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C
SON.
Motion passed unanimously.
16.
Updates:
A. Commissioner Rod Dragsten provi ed an update on MCP activities and made
specific mention to liquor license re erendum concerns.
B. Chairman Frie asked staff for an int rpretation of ordinances concerning required
screening of single family residenti property from multiple family. Specific
concerns were relating to the 8-ple apartment buildings on 3rd Street near the
High School. Fred Patch stated th t the buildings are existing non-conforming
uses in the single family district an as such are not subject to the same screening
laws pertaining to new multiple t ily residential development.
17. MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADJ URN THE MEETING AT 11:30 P.M.
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C SON.
Motion passed unanimously.
C:\OFFICE\!P A TCH.97\PLANCOM~fI05-05-98.MIN
(i)
. s.
.
.
Planning Connnission Agenda - 6/02/98
E BA
Upon the annexation of the East Oaks Mead ws plat, the property must be rezoned to
permit filing of the fmal plat. Upon annexati n, the City's ordinance requires that the
property comes into the city with an agricult ral zoning designation. The Comprehensive
Plan has anticipated that the properties in th' area, including East Oaks Meadows, would
be zoned R -1, single family residential. Tha was the review standard used in evaluation
of the plat prior to annexation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the rezoning to -1, single family residential, based upon a
finding that the City's land use plan alls for low density residential on this
property.
2. Motion to table action on the rezo . g subject to additional information.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. As noted above, the Comprehensive Plan
calls for low density residential in this area, nd it is consistent with the surrounding land
uses in the area.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
. 6.
Tom & Lisa Grossnickle have applied for a onditional use permit to allow the operation
of a beauty and tanning salon in the PZM Di trict. This use is a permitted use in the B-1
and B-2 Districts. Those commercial uses e allowed in the PZM District by conditional
use permit. The proposed use would occup an existing residential structure at the
northeast corner of Broadway and Washingt n, across Broadway from the current High
SchooV Administration building.
.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that such us s meet the performance standards for
commercial uses and an additional require nt that the sale of any merchandise is retail
only. With regard to performance standards, the primary impacts will be with relation to
parking, building code improvements, and 1 ndscaping/screening from adjoining residential
uses. While the bufferyard ordinance would require a substantial bufferyard, the PZM
District states that there will no specific sta dards. Instead, the development of PZM sites
are to be evaluated against the City's plan . g intent for the area, using zoning district
standards as a guideline.
The Zoning Ordinance would typically requ e approximately six parking spaces for a
commercial building of this size. The appli ants have proposed seven, including one
handicapped accessible space. The lot mus be paved, and curbing is required to surround
the entire parking and driveway area. The pplicants have shown some curb on the plan.
The project should be developed in confor nee with all paving, striping, and curbing
requirements.
The normal bufferyard requirements would require a relatively wide bufferyard between a
commercial use and adjoining low density r sidential. However, this would not seem to
be practical in the original plat area of sma lots and mixed uses. Instead, we would
recommend a substantial fence and landsca ed screen along the boundaries of the site with
adjoining residential property. This would elp to mitigate the conflicts of activity and
lights associated with a commercial use w ch would be incompatible with most residential
neighborhoods.
.
Finally, parking areas are required to be se back at least five feet from all property lines.
The site plan which was submitted is not a survey. Verification of lot line locations should
be provided to the Building Official prior t installation of the parking lot improvements.
This inspection could be made a part of th building code compliance inspections which
would typically be necessary for new co rcial development.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the conditional us permit for a beauty and tanning salon in a
PZM District, subject to the conditio s listed in Exhibit Z, based upon a finding
that the proposed use would be com atible with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan and the PZM Zoning District.
2. Motion to deny the conditional use p rmit, based upon a finding that the proposed
use could not be made to be compati Ie with existing neighborhood land uses.
3. Motion to table action on the condit" nal use permit, subject to the submission of
additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staff recommends approval of the CUP. W th the substantial traffic along Broadway, a
lower intensity commercial service use wou be a reasonable use, particularly given the
fact that the existing residential structure w uld be maintained. The entry into the
community via Broadway has an important isual impact, and maintenance of the existing
residential look is encouraged by the Comp ehensive Plan. In addition, the
Comprehensive Plan encouraged retention f residential uses in this area. By avoiding
conversion of the building stock to more co rcial character structures, it is more likely
that existing residential uses will be comfor able remaining in place. With the
improvement of Broadway as discussed in t e Comprehensive Plan and the MCP
Downtown Revitalization Plan, keeping the existing residential building character will be
an important key.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Location Map
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
.
3
IS A COMPILATION OF RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR IN
WRIGHT COUNTY OFFICES AND OTHER SOURCES.
-. DRAWING IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR REFERENCE PURPO ES
. THE COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INACCUR CIES
;EI N CONTAI N ED. THIS IS NOT A LEGALLY RECORDED PL T.
.
"
~
Site location
1/1---
IS
SfS
Sfj::}
AI
"
"
.
f., ., I
Exhibit A - Site Location
.
td
/0
D
J>
tj
~
J>
.
.
.... \vi ASHING TON I ..
1 '\
O.
r
~
Ul ru
Ct.l
c:.! I' c
W t!!
n
c:
AI
a1
W ~
f
I S DE \,{ALK :I:
t ..... "J 'J l>
....... sUl Q\ ~
0
n
<:r: l>
J>el "U
~ VJC
IVJ ......----
......./Tl
Z
C'l c:
-I AI
D ~
Z
c.>
~
~
'~
~
1\[
r r
0 0
~ ---4
l-" f\)
I
I
ru
c:.!
(,.,
Exhibit B - Site Plan
-- -....--.. .-
-- ...-- -- - '.n._ - . - -
J-.....
.
.
.
CONDITIONS 0 APPROV AL
BEAUTY AND TA NING SALON
Tom & Lisa G ssnickle
1.
The parking lot and driveway are paved, str ped and curbed in accordance with Zoning
Ordinance requirements.
2. Setbacks of new parking/driveway improve nts are maintained in accordance with the
ordinance standards, and verified by survey.
3. An intensive screening and landscaping bor er, including both planting and fencing, is
provided between this use and adjoining res dential properties.
4. The structure is certified for commercial us by the City Building Official.
5. A residential building character is maintaine to provide the appropriate streetscape and
compatibility with the residential neighborh od.
E hibit Z .. Conditions of Approval
(,.,~
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
. 7.
A
r
U.S. West Communications is requesting ap roval of a conditional use permit and
variance which would allow them to place a 163-foot tall wireless communications tower
within the required setback area of the Bon hus property along Broadway. The site is
zoned industrial, and communications tower are permitted as accessory uses in this
district subject to an administrative permit. owever, they must meet the zoning setbacks,
which are 40 feet for both front and rear yar s. In this case, the rear yard would be
adjacent to the Burlington Northern railroad line.
The conditional use permit is required to co sider tower heights more than 10 feet above
the maximum building height limits in the di trict. This proposed tower is significantly
higher than the I-I building heights. U.S. est indicates that the tower, a monopole
design, is needed in this area to provide ade uate coverage for its services. Except for the
setback issue discussed below, the proposal omplies with the ordinance requirements.
.
Variances are to be considered only where conditions unique to the site in question cause
a hardship in putting the property to reason ble use. In this case, the property in question
is extremely shallow. In fact, the existing b ilding in the location of the proposed tower is
just 22 feet from the road right-of-way line, and approximately 30 feet from the rear
property line. It would possible to locate t tower on another portion of the site to meet
setbacks; however, it would appear that this would interfere with some of the existing
activity on the site. Moreover, this would r suIt in locating the tower closer to Broadway,
an undesirable result. The proposed locatio may be the best site given the alternatives in
the area.
One issue which staff is still investigating is he flight path for the Hospital's helicopter.
During the Hospital expansion planning, it as noted that the Broadway corridor was the
preferred flight path for the helicopter. Sta will have information relating to this issue
available to the Planning Commission at its pcoming meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Conditional use permit for a tower in excess of the district building
height limits.
1.
Motion to recommend approval of e conditional use permit, subject to the
conditions listed in the Exhibit Z, b sed upon a finding that the proposed use
complies with the requirements for uch facilities in the Zoning Ordinance.
.
2.
Motion to deny the conditional use errnit based on a finding that the tower is
incompatible with the surrounding d uses.
4
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
3.
Motion to table action of the condit onal use permit subject to additional
information.
Decision 2: Variance from rear yard tback.
1. Motion to recommend approval of he rear yard setback variance for a wireless
communication tower based upon a fmding that the property's unique shape
justifies the variance.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the variance based upon a finding that the variance
is not necessary to put the property to reasonable use.
3. Motion to table action on the varia ce subject to additional information.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that relocating the tower to a other portion of the property to meet the
setbacks would have a negative impact by oving the tower closer to the public right-of-
way. We would recommend that the towe is placed as close to the rear lot line as
possible since the rear line adjoins the railr ad and will have less impact in that location.
Staff's recommendation for approval ofbo h the conditional use permit and the variance is
contingent on the conditions listed in Exhib't Z.
.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan/Survey
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
.
5
t.
'J
, M
:.",
, " t'" \
'.3
€' ~
'It
:,
...
" /'
.J.. \
.
"
::~, :~ 1:a \.
/' .J '.
...
. "
.. .. "
.-.)
. .. \,
,'. ~ ". "-....
, , ... '\. =.'\
- I - .- ....
:J , ' ,
'.'
. . . -,..,
1; . :~
,\
..~ :.~
~ " 'j -.
. "".
I"" 9ia'
... ..... ~ I
'II'" eO I
-
to' -
(
,0$ C-s
Exhibit A - Si~e ~~~_~
". ."
. .~. '0.
.. .. ~,
~ ;Tf,
)l a
.!
.
Proposed Tower Location
-
.;.-'
,:if'"
~ .
/
, , .
~
.
" .
,,' :.. ~ : I
.-'
...
, .
, .
, "
~t/I~ -,
, ,-
'- -
.'
~.
:/
'/
/
/
.. .:('
.'
!.~..
..y I
/ ..:.
-"-~
.......
.,.'
/
)'A 1
, i
'A .,,~ / , I
'N I ,
?
.. .
,/
f
I
~
.
ai"" I 0
~
:.'~i I ;':.
o . ~'. " ...
" :~ .... I
" '. 0-
.... 10
.= /}.: p/p'd
... J \II . I ..
" ,
'i
"I
'./
, I
-. ,
.,...
0( !
~;
.;.l
i "
rt::1 I
-1 .
$-=
~'-I) ;
e~
12,
~ :
-'2'
~."" '..
\
/
I
I
r
!
I
1~1
~
NOl~H
\
.
.
.
.
CONDITIONS 0 APPROV AL
CONDITIONAL SE PERMIT
U.S. West Com unications
1.
The tower does not encroach into the front ard and is placed as far from the front lot line
as possible.
2.
The equipment area is screened from the pu lic right-of-way.
3.
The tower does not interfere with the flight ath for the Hospital's helicopter services.
4.
The tower meets all other ordinance require nts.
E hibit Z - Conditions of Approval
1~;)..J
.
.
,
8.
p
A
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
St. Benedicts Center, a provider of housing or seniors, is proposing to develop a 120-unit
senior residential facility on a portion of the property being developed by the Church of St.
Henry. The project will also require a zon' g amendment, as well as a plat to divide the
property from the Church site. Since the St Henry's project is being reviewed and
possibly amended to best accommodate the street system in the area, a precise legal
description is not available at this time. Th refore, the zoning amendment and plat will
need to be considered at a future meeting. his report will discuss the zoning, however,
as it relates to the development of this proje t.
Land Use
The site plan shows two 60-unit buildings, ne for "assisted living" and the other for
"independent living." Subject to final site panning adjustments, the site consists of
approximately 8.4 acres, a density of appro irnately 14.3 units per acre. This density will
require an R-3 zoning district or an amend nt to the current zoning (P-S, Public, Semi-
Public) to allow residential uses. The R-3 istrict would allow apartment style buildings
with few restrictions. This option would the simplest process. Since the project will
require a PUD, the City should have adequ te site development control to avoid any
unintended consequences of a rezoning.
Site Concept Plan
The proposed project will be developed on a lot which will have no direct public street
access. Therefore, the PUD will be require to accommodate the plat. Access to the
project will occur over an access easement om the new 7th Street. The plan shows
underground parking for the independent li ing building, 40 visitor spaces for the two
buildings, and 16 staff spaces adjacent to t e assisted living structure. Due to the lack of
surface parking planned, overflow will occ r adjacent to the driveways serving the project.
We would recommend that a "proof of par ing" design be shown on the site plan to
provide the ability to add parking if deman shows it is needed.
With the PUD, internal setbacks are not cr' ical, however perimeter setbacks must still be
adhered to. This project exceeds the R-3 s tback standards. Also at issue would be the
bufferyard requirements. An institutional se and a high density residential use are
required to provide a bufferyard with 40 p nt units per 100 feet. Under the PUD, this
planting requirement could be modified, b the planting requirement should be
incorporated somewhere in the project. T is will need to be shown on the landscape plan.
On the east side of the site, the project adj ins an industrial area. The Zoning Ordinance
6
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
assigns this a rating of "Significant" in ter of bufferyard requirements. A 30-foot wide
landscaped buffer with 120 plant units per 1 0 feet is required. Since the property to the
east is undeveloped, this project will only b required to install half of the bufferyard, with
the remainder being required of the adjacent property at the time of its development.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Rewning of the site to R-3, ultiple Family Residential
1. Motion to approve the rezoning bas d upon a fmding that the use would comply
with the intent of the Land Use Plan
2. Motion to deny the rezoning based pon a fmding that the rezoning could be
construed as a "spot zone", unrelate to adjoining land uses.
3. Motion to table action on the rezon' g subject to additional information.
Decision 2: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development
Motion to approve the concept stag PUD, subject to the conditions listed in
Exhibit Z, based on a finding that th project is appropriately integrated with the
Church of St. Henry project.
1.
.
2. Motion to deny the concept stage P D based on a finding that the PUD is not
necessary to develop the site as pro osed.
3. Motion of table action on the PUD ubject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends tabling of the rezoning u til such time as the St. Henry's project is
finalized and a legal description for the rez ning can be published. The concept PUD is
acceptable subject to certain conditions. T. ose are listed in Exhibit Z. As noted above,
the finalization of the Church of St. Henry roject will affect the location of lot lines, as
well as actual density and driveway locatio s. If those changes are significant and
negatively affect this project, the Develop nt Stage PUD may require additional or new
conditions not apparent at the time of this view.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Concept Site Plan
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
.
7
.
'"
:l
u
u
~ u;
.41 U! :;
H~t;,
1~~ ~H
(!l
~
.
'"
o
in
'"
'"
0-
"
'"
'"
a;
~
:>
...
..
O~
'lie
.W:D
..
~""""'"""-----.
I
I \
: J)
L~/!_.I~/
/' II
,I'
I /
'1
I
~)~;
~I
ZI-
<(0..
...JUl
0..0
wZ
1-0
Uio
/
0
~
>--l
,
~
, u
'" r--
z
0
2
t-
<C
~
W-1
t-
Z
LLl
U
CI)
f-
U
..........
0
W-1
Z
w..J
(:Q
g,1 t-
(/)
.
'1(1,
~ ;" "." ,
xhibit A - Concept Site Plan
.
.
.
CONDITIONS 0 APPROV AL
CONCEPT S AGE pun
St. Benedict Center
1.
Platting of the property creating separate 10 s for the St. Henry's and St. Benedicts sites,
with appropriate access easements.
2.
A conceptual site illustrating an additional 2 parking spaces which could be built under a
''proof of parking" agreement with St. Bene icts. This total would accommodate one
space per unit for the assisted living project, splitting the proposed visitor's parking
between the two buildings.
3.
Preparation of a landscape plan which inclu es bufferyard plantings as required between
institutional and high-density residential pro ects.
4.
Preparation of a landscape plan which inclu es one-half of the bufferyard requirements
between the high-density residential and ind stria! property on the east.
5.
Appropriate site grading and utility plans ap roved by the City Engineer.
E hibit Z - Conditions of Approval
Z"~
Planning Connrussion Agenda - 6/02/98
. 9.
A
Farr Development Company has applied for preliminary plat and a PUD to allow a 78-
lot single family plat along County Road 118, southeast of the City's water tower site on
Monte Club hill. The project includes steepl -sloped woods on one-third of the subject
property. A single access from County Roa 118 would serve the site. The existing home
on the property would remain adjacent to th access road, and future roadway extensions
are provided to the west and to the south.
Zoning and PUD
.
The use of PUD is permitted by the Zoning dinance to allow flexibility in zoning
standards, subject to a requirement that the exibility results in a superior project not
likely or possible under the standard zoning egulations. PUD is being proposed in this
project to allow flexibility in lot sizes in retu n for a greater amount of tree preservation on
the upland portions of the project. Over 75 feet of street frontage is consumed by
outlots, which will remain in their natural co dition. This distance would typically provide
street frontage for as many as 9 additional 1 ts. Instead, the developer is requesting
flexibility on a number of lots.
The typical R -1 standards require 80 feet of width and 12,000 square feet of area. Of the
78 lots, 43 fail to meet one or both of the R 1 standards:
Complies
wi all stds.
Complies
wi width only
Complies
wi area only
Complies
wi neither
35 lots
6 lots
19 lots*
18 lots
* Four lots at the top of the hill are "flag 10 s" - narrow driveway access to a larger lot
area.
.
This table illustrates that the developer has rirnarily attempted to make up for the lost
street frontage by narrowing a number of t e other lots. Thirty-seven of the
"substandard" lots are less than 80 feet in idth. To accommodate this width, the
developer has suggested reducing the gara e-side setbacks from 10 feet to 5 feet. The
lots proposed for this deviation are Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 2; and Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and
13 of Block 4. One of the difficulties with arying standards in the same block is
administration by City staff; another is late requests by neighbors to construct additions
to standards in the neighborhood. Keeping these details straight can be difficult for staff
specialists, let alone for other staff fielding uestions from the public. A consistent set of
regulations should apply, or a method of nitoring varying setbacks should be
established.
8
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
.
The project includes a series of outlots whic would be preserved in their natural state.
Outlot A (3.62 acres) is a wetland and stor ater control area. Outlot B (3.30 acres)
includes much of the wooded hillside. Staff ecommends a natural trail through this area -
it would be unpaved and meander along the lope to the upper hill area. Outlots C and D
(.43 and .39 acres, respectively) provide spe ial tree preservation sites on the upper hill.
The developer proposes to dedicate these 10 s to the City, over and above the normal park
land dedication requirements. From Outlot ,an easement across the rear lot line of
Lots 1 and 2 of Block 6 would provide acce s from this development to the water tower
site and City park land.
The plat has been designed with 52-foot wid rights-of-way with 32-foot wide streets.
Staff has suggested that the hillside street," ildwood Way," be platted at 60 feet but with
reduced front setbacks. The purpose in this roposal is to retain public right-of-way in the
area where the street curves back and forth p the hill. Allowing the lesser front setback
will accommodate the interest in reducing g ading in the rear yards, saving more of the
trees and the native slopes. The developer as indicated that these lots will be graded by
the developer to avoid builders overgrading he site and costing additional trees.
.
In the lower area of the project, staff has in icated that the 52-foot right-of-way would be
acceptable, subject to a requirement that the intersections be platted with a radius to
accommodate street signs and other necess y improvements. The Public Works Director
can provide direction on the size of the radi s necessary.
The developer has also proposed four "flag ots" at the end of the upper cul-de-sac. These
lots would have full-sized buildable areas a meet all setbacks. However, the driveways
would be located in narrow necks, increasin the number of curb cuts on the cul-de-sac.
This issue has led to staff's recommendatio that a homeowner's association be
responsible for snow removal in this area. he seven driveways on the end of the cul-de-
sac eliminate any area for snow storage, an there will likely need to be regular removal of
plowed snow from the cul-de-sac area. T s would also be the case for the modified turn-
around space at the north end of Marquette Drive. The hillside prevents the construction
of a full cul-de-sac without a large retaining wall and significant grading. The City's snow
removal equipment is not suited for clearin areas of this design.
Decision 1: Consideration of Rewnin of Wildwood Ridge to R-l, Single Family
Residential.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the rezoning to -1, Single Family Residential, based upon a
finding that the rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan.
.
2.
Motion to deny the rezoning based n a concern that development in the area will
not comply fully with the R-l stand ds.
9
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
.
3.
Motion to table action on the rezo ' g, subject to additional information.
Decision Two: Consideration of a Devel pment Stage Planned Unit Development.
1. Motion to approve the development stage PUD, subject to the conditions listed in
the attached Exhibit Z, based upon fmding that the project would meet the intent
of the City's PUD zoning requireme ts.
2. Motion to deny the development sta e PUD, based on a finding that the R-l
standards should apply, and that the ordinance intent for PUD is not met with this
project.
3. Motion to table the PUD, subject to additional information.
Decision Three: Consideration of a Preli inary Plat for Wildwood Ridge.
1. Motion to approve the preliminary lat, subject to the conditions listed in the
attached Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the preliminary plat.
.
3.
Motion to table the preliminary plat ubject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes the intent of the Planned Unit Development ordinance is met with this
proposal, subject to some conditions. The eveloper's initial concept plan illustrated a
standard subdivision plan which would hav cost a significantly increased number of trees
and required much more grading to accomp . sh. The Monte Club hill area is a unique
resource which can provide significant pub c benefit if properly developed and preserved.
It would be necessary to eliminate eight or ine lots from the plat as now designed to both
save the same number of trees and meet all -1 standards. Since this design includes
several hundred feet of "unproductive" stre t construction, staff believes that the PUD is
appropriate. The variation in side setbacks s the greater cause for concern. It would
seem to be difficult to manage the differenc s, either at the time of original building or in
subsequent years once the neighborhood tures. Except for this issue, staff recommends
approval of the rezoning, PUD, and pre' . ary plat, subject to the conditions found in
Exhibit Z.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit B - Lot Conformance Map
Exhibit C - Tree Preservation Plan
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
10
/.\
lil
"
2
I':,
'-
R-l
! ....'tit rt:m..~", iY ':.f':. It. '. ':1. "1;
, ~--------
r"~p.~. 'I( (J ;C-: ''1, 1 '11. ~;iI
Iti7
,
,
,
.,....T'i"'),v I
::-./ -- 20'.~
20,000 ~141t.
.27,69'
..-
I.
1I~ 1/1
lOt'
OUTLOT A
'~7,5QJ sq. II.
J.IJ~ (I~f~:Ii
1\
t,
I :
I
/
I
I
\
1
~I
5 'I
PHASE I I, PILISE II
.
I"
;::','"
6 "'I OUTLOT B
\ 14J,600 Iq.11.
7
",I
-,I
1
3.JO O("rlC:!I
,
'"
'"
OJ
Z
Ll
N
I
I
10
I
I ~
/
/
/
/
/
/
--
,.,
:':1
"
/_<
. -
- 3
"
~
'"
\, :;
/
/, / /
/ ;/ I
/ I
'/ .I
'\.
"
'-.
"
-:3-
-~-
\ "" '
\.---~ / - ~
, 0 - --------~ . '-..
- ec ~o
~ ~\\..Q\NOoo ,,>
,131)........-","""""-
~ "-
r;O,JOO $1;1 rt "~
5
I
I~o '", I
.,....,...... 14,700 -'Q,ll.
~ I ~ I
- -. - ::J~ I 14,700 .q.lt.
60' 9i }6 25 ~ I 3 1 g
-~ 184'
I
./
'-..
'-..
'"
18S'
'-AC('iSS
JJ JJ t4srl,rp.T
. ~, !'
Ill' ", .
25'
2 " "
~ -
, ~ . S: :t ~ :t
,
, 5 ~. ~
,
, 3
,
j, 4 5 6 7
~ "'1';' 1 ">~. 7" 75' 7~'
'--
2:
>j
4
'il
1;1;-1'
80'
57'--
WILDWOOD
/0 70 70
..
~ ;;
- :;;:
2
:!
WAY
70 75 7fO' 72
--J~ ,~~ _~
--r " qj;" ?< ~
J ~ i_tTY E ~M(~
~IO~8 ~ O~
rl~ ~ ~4:;J
I I - 5!
11 I I 12 13 14
1~' 7', 7C,' 72'
8d
I@
14,700 sq./!.
I. ""'" ' ~ :;,~ ~-
~ . ~ :t ~
~ ~
2 2
9 10
70' m
1299.89'
~-I
i I~
..; I
1,~.
2
'il
18'"
16,JCO IQ.fl.
8
70'
~
~
18J'
'-~,':''''''' "',~ "i' ,.,.~ 'JII .;". f'r ....~..... ',',
I-'.O);'.j.:'-'I.,'::>';''-=.!l rr:~'
I H[~[Bl' ([iOI'Tlry THAT THIS PlMI 1,.Itr.:;: PR[P.l;;EO Bf M( ()~
U~j~(~ I-IY OI~(~!_Sli~'~"Q!I:;JC~.~!~D_ TH~_T_] ~~~~I'. ~'It__y __ .
.
Cf----I
Exhibit A
- Preliminary Plat
I''''I;"~~ /
~.- , \ \'.... ...
\ \"_ _Z8"ED R-l -__--
_ \\ \,/-;7
,"" T' " , '", ". \ \ ",
-~ ~~;fj/ /~ /7 / ~ ,/,,;10)\ III "\.6' ," '-" (\ ",
;:':,+~#~r~~~~~"~YM ~~;",,;,~\\ \
: lCO' 0,.:0 ~~ / /?f1r\ PHASE II ~ ~'l .~' \ '\ \
~ I 1 / r & / ; 10' ',>' , , \
D I 15,300 ,q, It, " , ,,// ~ ~ '," \
I ~.. -'Q . '\ l,.l '-", 10 .......... ,
S . ~ / / " OUTLOT B ~ 3~r"00 '. , \ '\
OUTLOT C '") :- of. I /1 14',600 ,q It I:l:, \ ", ~ \ , \
~'~:: < /t/d ~@: '""'0. ' "tY,,~\\\~ \
r~~>to"""h.!~~' ;;"""'~ A.oO;/~ /,~I .; \~'o., ~j / / ll; 0\,'\ \
7~/ // /,;-1/ "J, /,1 t (, 01/'
'J /, """,-'" ~ ... 5 '6,<00 'O\~ I~ '" ~~ ,,0'\ \
Q 'I' 150..... :);:>., -s. oJ.J. i / \
I ~'>' 6". 1)170'ltV \
~~5 '<:,~>
~.): 7 '. ';,600 ,q It 11 q:\ "'4 ",.:;0 '. It /~ '~ ' {u;{ff~ ,"\4\,0.
. ''''' , ., \ 1"_-- 1 k / I",BOC oq)\ ?-\~ -1.;t;; lit. '4\ '\
, ;; _-- '1 BCO oq It """ '::1 TI '\ - '\
",.00 '0 It "'. \ . ~" ~~"" ^ 1\ \11/ 1 -.l./~ \ '
. : 28 \ I OUTLOT B ' 3 \cO~~' -' I'> ...y~, \ '<; 'i" , \ '\ \ ,,/F;/
; IOc ) I '0 5 "'00'01t/, ~.,./ '1:0".qlt ,./O)q \ ~.obhft '0"" "'" ",,'~ ",)1
::"3 Il,ooo.j,~ J" 1 58 "-~/ ,,{ ~ 10,,' ,,/" ~').Q 0.., f f'i/ '" '" ,;; / 'y/ /
I &:::: ~ "<t. {t. -CZI.."'........./' 'l: / \.." / /
I-"':J' 12200sQIl 2:3 .., ,l"lllC/Oqtt,; '\.... / /
I;~ ;.::--< 9 1= 1.:...' ,;t~co q II ./ /. _. /' 1f.' /' ..'; " / /
!r P 12,!OO., fl. ~ 9 . "5, 0' '; ,,~ 0:" 1 J >,,"
~BU5~;~:" D~." '-:,; '-._ ~ ~ I I l4, ~ .~ / ,,",
o <4-J (]I;:ron; .?d"' /;~ ! 'l'~ >"1; ~ I I ~ 6l So "--_ ~ ,,"-
/ 4: 0'" <'s <<~- ',.! ~ I 8 I' , , -< \ ~ 0, ~ / I', " "
~ '\,~c ~>0, / BIT ~ 58' 1",000.,,, \ t ,- ,,"C~_u'\.,\:-' '" ~ 1/
, I Q . -I r"'" '" ./ /~ E;A__ S" /\ o~al...."U,-;: ........
'~.... 1 ,;' \ ".0 '9 16 I'-D AI uTi oP",-"OO $Q lt~~~ S'" \5 - \..O'llOOO - /' "
. I " BCO "" / I I I EA E 1 5 /:x~" \ 'Ill \.. ---'<--- ""
.... U,600 ~~ It '" ~~"'Kiooo~ft I "2 7 I ',/, \~ci I;. w "'--', .
\ I '\"9 2Js 9 <o~;; 10 I ,.,500",~ \ ,..." ",~.q" ji; 00'00'0" ~" "
~,600 .." ':;:s .':' '\.~ ~;. 5: I' , \ / "1- 1;7-- ~ \__ 1 6 2,0 1 I I" ~ I 5 '~."'''
" '^ ",,'0 l~,9 '\. ~\,;l\ E II 7@I;J 6 f'~'4 - - 3" - o.~~~: 1.'~;= II: '65 "'0 :""""
"'" 's" \ OJ,'oo .,ft~' ~ -'.'~.lii;:t'E ~~' I" I'JJOO ,,, ! 1:'20 _; ~"'\. "" b,~.u~1 :5 I ,.700 ,,It ~
:~ 1 "'" \ ~4<<~ ~ ~~'~i:/G I OJ~ 5 ~':~Attu,,~ ,,~~E'" ~ I~ I~ 'l I 'B" 4 ,
. "'000 ,qll ~ f; ~o "",~ _~~ ~~~l I :; 1",500 .ft flll~ _ f-::i_ ::'\, _ ::'J~ 1 ",700 .,ft
,.l.q ::!-~ L - - I ~ ~6 2!), 1
__I 'I B' 8u ",g' 92 \l I 3 ~
____.~~~~_ 184'
WAY I -r 14,700 lIq.'!. ;
vv., ,/ "'7~ J7<}: / 80 ~ I 2 ! 'fil
!;!~!ojt(~. NI1 )~~ ~'X 7fc1'ViY~ f f;f~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~b \@,'B"
7 /IY 1/ 1 ,9 ~'~ ~ ~ Kt: f - ~ I ~ ~~! - ~ 1 I ~ II '~I 'B"
'" . / '" I 7 7 . 70 ~ 7 7 ~M';(, 7, ~ I
~~-~__~_~ 129:).89'
-:,'i~~V
/_.~
.
.
.
SE'ClICW
I~"
j r,"i1 ,-.":,,,;,:~ ,Y ~.!": !~ t, I:', ":'
,-
- 'I
427.6Ii1'
-
----
OUTLOT A
i
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
157.B5.3 :t.~.H.
.l62 O(H:!
,
'"
'"
~
.....
I
I
10
I :;
/ :s
1
I
I
/
"
/'
I."; ',.',~~r
i ,
1~.JOO IQ,II. ! . 1
liD I
; (J) ;
-~ -- ~--
.... . \,C ,,~ .....': 'I'" . ,j ;'C ""1..'. "" ';~
.,' .~ .. f:. ": I
'. "J"" .;.~~r;:- ::,~ r, ,-,
I [)ESlGN~D ~a'r I C~l[CK[~~~.,Y 111.'~~~~~[~1\1 CO~~~r/.S~~~~;t~~~~!.~~~D_~~,~_r.p,~[;:~~O~I~<Y [~~_I
w ~~ Meets Lot Area Only
~ M'ets Lot Width Only
~ Meets Neither Width
nor Area
q.,~
Exhibit B .. Lot Conformance
)
/
\
OUTLOT A
r PRIVACY
\ FENCE
(
l.x. WATCR LE'V!L . '59.1
c1M1C,AL ~1I.ANO tLtv .loR!
BeiNe Rf~ARC"'€D 8'"
Iil'SB .t As50c ,INe
~/'
/",-
,./ ,...<\
/ '-
/ ,
I
i
/
/
"
.
1IMI s OF~/
G RA ING
q,,~
--.
, ":::::_--~-:::::=I:::'::'~"~;'
r T l'i LAN 'W'~$ PR(p,Il.RED B'( "'( OR
I.Cl-<E:KED 131 I HEREBy CERTlr'l THA tslO AND tHAT ( AM A OL;L.Y.
RL. S ~~~f~T~;l8!~~~bs~~~~R:RCItI (CT tJNDO~ 'HE LA',.IS Of U![
"'"'fi;,;::;:"'V'.~~. '9"i- STATE cr '.1l"~,~(')r,IT,\
... McCOl.l8S FRMIK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
I,W:H'-l-- .,
xhibit C .. Tree Preservation
.
.
.
CONDITIONS 0 APPROV AL
WILDWOO RIDGE
DEVELOPMENT STAGE P D/PRELIMINARY PLAT
Farr Developme t Company
1. Standardization of side yard setback require nts in the plat.
2. Identification of a natural trail through the ills ide of Outlot B, with a connection to
County Road 118 across the northernmost 1 t - Lot 11 of Block 2.
3. Sidewalk along Wildwood Blvd. and Wild ood Way to Outlot C, connecting via pathway
through Outlot C to the City's water tower 'ite.
4. Redesign ofthe plat to show Wildwood W to a 60-foot right-of-way width, with an
allowance for 25-foot front yard setbacks.
5. Creation of a homeowner's association for he purpose of removing plowed snow from
the upper cul-de-sac and the turn-around 0 of Marquette Drive.
6. Modification of the plat to include radiuses t the intersections of right-of-way, per public
works recommendation.
7.
Provision of 60-foot radius on the cul-de-sa off of the west side of Marquette Drive.
8.
Recommendations of the City Engineer on rading, stormwater control, and utilities.
Q,4
E hibit Z - Conditions of Approval
.
10.
.
.
Planning Conurussion Agenda - 6/02/98
in
Ii
Development. (NAC)
A
R
Gold Nugget has applied for consideration f a residential Planned Unit Development on
land it owns south of the Kjellberg East Mo ile Home park. The site consists of
approximately 220 acres between the Mob' Home park and 85th Street NE, east of
Trunk Highway 25 and west of County Ro 117. The northeast corner of the site
adjoins the southwest corner of the Klein F ms single family subdivision. 85th St NE is
the south boundary of the Orderly AnnexatiJ n Area.
The project would consist of a combination of approximately 339 single family homes,
176 townhomes, 20 twin homes and 40 "de ached townhomes", a total of 577 units. The
developer has reserved 5.5 acres in the sout west corner ofthe project for commercial
use--a separate zoning action would be nee ssary to approve any commercial land. The
project would be developed in phases along a minor collector street extending from
County Road 117 on the east to the south st corner of the project at 85th Street NE.
Procedurally, the City should consider the UD concept, making comments and
requirements for the developer's further pI . g. Following the concept plan, the
developer will need to apply for a prelimin y plat, a rezoning of the fIrst phase, and a
development stage PUD. Although the ent e project will be covered by the PUD, it is
expected that the City will zone specifIcally by land use. Therefore, the single family areas
will likely be zoned R-I, the townhome an twin home areas will be R-2, and a
commercial zoning designation will be give to the two commercial lots if approved. The
annexation of the first phase would occur ith the approval of the fInal plat and fInal
PUD.
The review of the concept stage PUD is fo the purpose of identifying issues in the design
which would raise concern for the City. A PUD project is assumed to be a departure from
the zoning standards, but with a superior d sign and development not likely through the
strict application of those standards. Ther fore, the ultimate fInding which the City must
make is that the project design meets the i tent of the PUD ordinance. This report
discusses the variation from strict zoning s andards which the developer proposes and how
those variations may be viewed in a PUD context. In summary, the City's action should
be a general comment on the acceptability f PUD and, if positive, direction on each of the
individual variations proposed.
Land Use and Density
The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be developed as low density residential. The
overall project density is approximately 2. units per gross acre, about 3.8 units per net
acre (exclusive ofroads and parks). This ensity would qualify for the City's application
of low density residential. The net density of the single family area is 3.05 units per acre,
1
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
.
corresponding to an average lot size of app oximately 14,263 square feet. As an average,
this would meet the minimum R-l standard ot size of 12,000 square feet. The developer
is asking for the PUD in order to vary the . dividuallot sizes to include a series of about
43 scattered lots which would be both narr wer in width and smaller in area than the R-l
standards, whereas others would be signific ntly larger.
The majority of the "substandard" lots are rogrammed for the periphery of the project,
particularly adjacent to TH 25 and the mob' e home park boundary. Some of these lots
would be deeper to allow greater buffering om the adjacent use. Scattering these lots
throughout the neighborhood is designed t avoid a concentration of small lots and homes
(and presumably lesser valued homes) in on area. The developer proposes a standard for
the smaller lots of 10,000 square feet and 6 feet in width.
In conjunction with the lot size adjustments the developer is proposing to use a smaller
side setback standard in that area. A reduc ion in the side yard setback to 5 feet on the
garage side of the home is proposed to allo greater buildable area. Throughout the
project, the developer is proposing a varyin front setback to create additional interest
along the street. Instead of the standard 30 feet, a range of 20- to 40- foot setbacks has
been proposed. At the preliminary plat sta e, the developer proposes to illustrate how this
standard would be applied to the individual lots.
.
With regard to the townhomes and other u it types, they range in density from just under
4 units per acre to around 6.5 units per acr . This density would be considered medium
density as a free-standing development. T e developer's proposal is to average the
density throughout the project to maintain density of less than four units per acre.
The commercial areas at the southwest cor er of the project represent a departure from
the residential pattern for the area. The de eloper has discussed a neighborhood oriented
commercial use, such as a convenience stoe/gas station or other similar land use. As a
"support" land use, the proposal could be onstrued to be acceptable under the concepts
discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. Too much commercial at this corner, however, or
commercial uses which are more regional' scope, would appear to compromise the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The PI ning Commission should discuss the benefits
of commercial use at this corner and give s me reaction to the developer and to staff.
Project Design and Parks/Pathways
.
The project concept utilizes a "linear park' design concept throughout the subdivision.
The park would connect to the trail corrid r at the northeast corner of the plat and wind
through the project as shown on the attac d exhibit. The park dedication equals ten
percent of the land area and is proposed to meet the full requirement of the Subdivision
Ordinance. The park area varies from a 10 -foot wide corridor along the north boundary
to more than 300 feet in width at Street A the collector street) back to around 100 feet in
width at the termination near the westerly ownhome area.
12
.
Planning Conunission Agenda - 6/02/98
There are three comments regarding the p k and pathway design which the Parks
Conunission and staff have made in review f the project. The Parks Commission was
concerned about the "remoteness" of the b lk of the park area. They encouraged a
greater exposure of the park land to the str et, particularly at the crossing of Street A.
They did note that the width of the park he e mitigated this concern somewhat. However,
they preferred to have broad park exposure on at least two streets, in addition to the
pathway connections as shown.
The second comment relates to the western terminus of the park. Since this area "dead
ends" at the townhorne project, we would e courage a larger focus for park use on this
end. Converting the four to six lots adjace t to the end of the linear park as shown on the
park exhibit would create a small "green" hich could serve as the primary active open
space for the western portion of the plat. T is area would comprise around two acres
which could be used both for neighborhood park use and an important focus for the linear
park system as a whole.
The third comment regards pathway conne tion to the north. Staff debated the concept of
providing street access to the north along 25 as a frontage road connection past
Kjellberg East. This concept is not shown n the proposed plan, but it should be replaced
with a pathway connection to the northwes as shown on the parks exhibit.
The park system as proposed would includ a pathway, potentially lighted, throughout the
development. The wider area near the cros ing of Street A would accommodate an
informal playfield, and several locations in t e system could accommodate smaller play
structures. The townhome projects should onsider inclusion of private recreational
amenities to mitigate impacts on the public acilities in the project. At a build-out
population of around 1,300 persons, the pr ject will place significant demands on public
recreation facilities in the area. For the sou hem townhorne project, a public pathway
connection through to the cul-de-sac from t e main park should also be included.
.
Streets, Utilities, Sidewalks
The majority of the streets in the project w uld be local streets, with 60-foot rights-of-way
and either 30- or 32-foot street widths. Th specifics would be identified at preliminary
plat stage; however, we have included a str et exhibit with planning staff's understanding
of the application of the City's policy on str et widths to this project. The minor collector
would require 70 feet of right-of-way and ould be constructed at least 36 feet in width.
The City Engineer should comment on the treet widths as well.
The developer is proposing the pathway co nections in the park in lieu of sidewalks which
would otherwise be required on most street . The exception would be a reconunendation
for a sidewalk along the minor collector to ccommodate pedestrian or bicycle traffic
along the busier route. This should be Ioca ed on the north/west side of Street A to give
easiest access to the townhomes along the est boundary and connection to the pathway
leading to the School complex.
.
13
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
.
A series of small ponds are scattered throug out the development. Engineering staff will
have to review the drainage plan to ensure p oper stormwater control. At this time, it is
the City's understanding that there are no w tlands on the site. The linear park follows a
drainage swale for much of the east half of t e project.
Staff has also discussed the requirement for ntrance monumentation to the project to add
identity to this large neighborhood. There e three main entrances to the project: One
from TH 25 (to be confirmed by MnDOT), ne from 85th Street NE, and one from
County Road 117. Three other minor entra ce roads also serve the project. As an
additional note, the City will need to work ith the Township on improvements and
maintenance of 85th Street.
With regard to utilities, the City Engineer sh uld review the utility planning and advise the
developer as to infrastructure improvements necessary for the project. Staff has discussed
a phasing plan which would encourage deve opment from the northeast corner to the
northwest corner first in order to provide w ter main looping as quickly as possible. The
next priority would be to provide additional ccess to the project from the external street
system
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
.
Decision 1: Concept Stage Planned Un t Development
I. Motion to approve the concept stag Planned Unit Development for Gold Nugget
Development subject to the conditio s listed in Exhibit Z. This motion should be
supported by a finding that with the onditions, the project would meet the intent
ofthe City's Zoning Ordinance and UD regulations by providing for a project
which is superior in quality and desi n than would be otherwise developed under
the strict application of the City's zo . g standards.
2. Motion to deny the concept stage P D based upon a fmding that the project
would not meet the intent of the Cit 's Zoning Ordinance and should be
redesigned to comply with the strict standards of the R-l Zoning District.
3. Motion to table action on the conce t stage PUD subject to the submission of
additional information.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staff recommends alternative #1, approval ith conditions. As noted in the report, the
intent of PUD is to require a superior proje t in trade for flexibility in standards. Staff
believes that the flexibility proposed with th s project will result in a superior project.
Clearly, the land could be developed accord' g to pure R-) and R-2 regulations.
However, the intermixing of diverse housin styles should add variety to the streetscape,
particularly when coupled with the variatio in front setbacks.
14
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
The reduced lot width on a portion of the I ts would be a component of this concept.
However, the developer has also asked for reduced side setback (five feet on the garage
side) to accommodate the narrower lots. 's varying standard could be a problem for
staff to manage, particularly given that calls will come in to city hall requesting setback
information without a thorough description of the location, or a requirement that
individual plats be checked for different sta dards. The City will need to develop a
process for dealing with the problem that v ied setback standards will create.
The development of the linear park system rovides convenient park access to the entire
project but does not chop the system into a series of separate small tot lots. This design
aids in park maintenance by minimizing the mount of equipment loading for the same
amount of maintenance area. With the reco nded conditions attached in the exhibit,
we believe the project complies with the P D intent.
With regard to the commercial land, staff lieves that a very limited amount of
commercial may be appropriate given the s' e of the project and the proximity of other
convenience neighborhood services. The n ture and extent of this use should be heavily
managed, however, to avoid conflicting wit the land use plan and competing
inappropriately with the more intensive co rcial areas of the community.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A - Concept Plan - Parks
Exhibit B - Concept Plan - Streets
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
.
15
.
~~ ~~
f~Zi PZy !
"i'~ \li'~ ~~~J
w ~~ !j ~~ Fl).
~!ift Ui~ Pg
ad~ a~h ~a~~
~
~
}'
9
~
!
t
~
~
'i _"Hnn~ n 'i
~. Dn..-l":ri~~ d
i 0 - ;1 I
~w I,U !
r ~:...
~ ~~p.~, , , r: ~~ I
B
".. n ~.
- n"
"... ,
--
, l ~ II
1fhf ~ n~ II
~"
~
! ip~~ ~~ ~ r.~ II
~7
.
~
~ $
~ t
JI in
t '1
At n'
_ r ~!
n.:'
I~ )1
IIi ~i
J: Ii
. , 1
P rj!
!.1 ~~
.';1 .l ~
II"" lot
,I ~ '1
;ll h
fU
~~ P
,Il1o .1;
U ~I
jl H
BH
.,':::{:f;;:f::,'
.'" !!1\;:}4:;Y~,,-- AI,!",.!. .":';;i~L ~.
>-
~
~
.!:
~
roo -:00_00 iIT ..--:-OOl
I ...~ :.: ...~ I
i -;'. :i: -;- i
I ""... III ...~., :
i \'- :i: ".:," 1:1
, HI '(IIjI '(10 1,1 I ~
..------"'.:-:=ili~~~~~=.~9 c
1'1 . III ·
"Y" i i'l
I ~ \ -;',,,~,,,! ~
z i !oo_..~oo...j"
r=, ... I : ~
-i: ~""~ ! #o~ _~ I ~ .
j -._~':;'>~~::;:::(~l:j n ~
L oo~..l__-':'.~_ooJ ~
: 00_: : ~
I .,;' I .',' I
I ~ __... . _ -.. :
i <.. i < '> I
: '...',/f..: \:~,,:
Loo_._-'::__loo_oo___J
. t
~ ~-- - ~II 0
~ - - - -'l I
~ 110
ro
.~ II
~J-;oll
;>;.:.-;.:- I I
..--'----.......
- A,
..-"- ,
..- "' t:
,...('>t.PI"~ ;....._2
~",:/_~3.VI (-
a;
u
~
Cl..
<Jl
..:.!.
ro
c...
ro
t:
o
'''::;
'6
"tJ
<(
""II ::;;z:
'~~
QIlIIliiilI: I i
~. ~
l/)
x.
'-
<<l
a.
c:
~
a.
-
Co
G>
o
s::
o
U
<(
u
a;
t:
t:
o
U
-
:0
:c
><
UJ
i.
o
>-
h'
"
"
::>
z
5
l8
z
j
"-
P.i
U
z
"
u
I
I ;J
~,j
I
J I
II
'}
II
II
l!/
I"
Iii
(I'
II!
I!l
IH
-\"
:If.!
If." ._
/0,1
drl note form
to;
re;
Lou Schultz
Sunfish Lake - Planning Services (211.02)
Attached is a blind copy of a note which I have sent to Frank with respect to some of the
comments which were made with regard to the City's development procedures.
Some time if you have the opportunity, I would appreciate discussing this matter as well
as others such as private streets versus public streets.
Many of these issues have been thoroughly discussed in the past and a regurgitation while
warranted to some degree, also becomes a cost factor for which we and others will be held
responsible.
.
.
.
l/)
,i{P::f? -
Q.l
Q)
:...
-
'i~ 'i~ en
.-~~ .-~~ ~
~w ~ ~w ~ 2 c
~~j~ ~~j~ 1~~.J .!2
ij~!~ ~~!~ ~; ~ Q.
. l~ r3 ~I~ -
gii~ gih ~s~~ a.
Q)
(.)
c
~ 0
~ c.>
~ ~
e ~ co
i ~ ~ -
.c
:2
><
W
f-
~,
U
U
;:>
z
!i .1IlI'8f1CJ1~",! ~ \ i i~
i ~fl~="n~ ~
.. , i
uu !
~ ,',
~ ~ ill'r.W: I I I ~ r~ I
1\ :l_ n B I z
~m ~
"... l
i il, , I, 0-
n.
w
()
,- z
0
~~ II u
~ i~!n~~ i ~ II
~~
.
~
~
~ ~
~ -t
h in
." , t
~ t n h
~f ~!
U :.'
p t~
n ~ ~~
I! n
fJ ~1
/;J !l
:;:J j~
t~ n
.~ tl
;H ~t
Ii i,~
i.
~a ~"!
H ~l
JOH
Uq
d ~~
.--;..---,E".----..l
Iv IIv ,
I ..' 1'1...... I
i -;- Ii: -;- I
I ., pi or'~.,:
i -'-:;, :j: \:,"" 1 ;1
t~--~-l~'~~~ili.;:.~:=:~~:~::~1 a
Id ' ~ ~
"'e'>; 'I n
'! - -, lj
~:> i~ < ',,~,....! ~
I . %.
Z ~ 1---..----1..
~, \! ..~_ i tL
t......~-ll, t I 0:" : ~
i '~.>>,~:::::(:;;d 11 ~
: ,.,.... J /\
L___..___J_..____.. , G
: ,: ' III
1 .>; 1 .>; _ !
: -;... : ~ 0('" ,
I ',,'>,! ,~'{-..,!
: v,." '-, j
L..____..l___..___
d) d) d)
~ ~ ~
V; V; V;
E (tj (0
u u
u 0 0
~ ....J ....J
(5 ". 0
u C() M
~ 1111
I-~~
~l-~
I ~
. .
]
\ ~j
~:'I
I
I 1
II
11
!I
II,
,"
,il
II'
!Ii
~
I I
" ,
!I'_-~
-r
:It.!
"... .-
10 ,,:l...,
drl note form
to;
re;
Don Sterna
Sunfish Lake - Development Administration (211.02)
I thought you might be interested in a note which I sent to Frank Tiffany relative to Sandy
Grieve's comments on regulations and inspections. Please find a copy of this memo
attached.
As we obtain a summary of the issues which were identified at the Council meeting last
evening, Liz and I will ~ back to you to discuss these matters further.
,t;'.
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
CONDITIONS OF CONCEPT STAGE PUD APPROVAL
Gold Nugget D velopment
Provision of a landscaped buffer between th project and the adjacent uses on the west
(TH 25) and the north (Kjellberg East). Thi need not be an opaque screen but should be
a reasonable green, visual buffer.
1.
2. No more than the proposed 43 lots fail to et the R-l minimums, and of those, the
minimum standards would be 10,000 square feet and 65 feet in width.
3. Reduction in side yard setback standards w' only be applicable to the blocks which
contain the smaller lots.
4. Townhome types will not exceed the densiti s proposed in the concept plan.
5. The corrunercial areas are limited to the size indicated on the concept plan and are limited
to neighborhood related uses.
6. A paved pathway is included in the project' lieu of sidewalk in most other areas.
7. The pathway is accompanied by low levelli hting for those areas internal to the project,
remote from the street.
8.
The park area is widened at the collector str et as indicated on the park exhibit. This area
should be graded to accommodate an infor 1 playfield for neighborhood use.
9. The park area is expanded to create a co on green near the western townhornes as
indicated on the park exhibit.
10. The park area is connected to the northwest via a pathway connection as shown on the
park exhibit, as well as to the southern tow orne cul-de-sac.
11. The collector street through the center of th project is platted at a 70-foot right-of-way,
with a street construction according to the ity Engineer's recommendations.
12. The remainder of the streets are platted at 6 -foot rights-of-way, with 30- or 32-foot
street sections as shown on the streets exhi it.
13. A sidewalk along the north side of the colle tor is developed as a part of the project.
14. Engineering and utilities rneet the require nts of the City Engineer.
15. Phasing which provides looping of water a additional major street access as soon as
possible.
10 .,. ?
Exh bit Z - Conditions of Approval
. 11.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
A
The Parks Commission has been working on the development of a Comprehensive Parks
and Pathways Plan over the winter. A copy f the draft plan is included under separate
cover. This plan is designed to provide a co prehensive inventory of community parks
and recreation facilities, establishes policies nd strategies for the location and siting of
new park facilities, and identifies a park syst m within which all park facilities, existing and
new, will be coordinated.
By establishing policies for new park locatio , both the City and developers will have a
clearer idea of when land or cash park dedic tion requirements will be imposed. This
should help the City better coordinate its rec eation system and should help developers
streamline their planning process. In additio , the Plan makes the case for a new park
dedication fee structure. That issue is addre sed in a companion proposal with an
amendment to the City's Subdivision Ordina ceo
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to recommend approval of t e amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
based upon a finding that the amend nt will provide greater consistency in the
planning process for the provision 0 park, pathway, and other recreation facilities
in the community.
1.
2. Motion to deny the amendment.
3. Motion to table action on the amend nt subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the amend nt. This Plan. as noted above. should help
streamline the development process as the c mmunity grows into the Orderly Annexation
Area, and also lays the groundwork for con inuing investments in the City's open space
resources.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
16
. 12.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/2/98
A
This item was before the Conunission on M 5, 1998, and was tabled pending further
review by staff. That review has been comp ted and it is believed that the ordinance
hereby proposed is compatible with the ord' ances of the City, The City of Monticello has
been regulating and issuing licenses for outd or sales and display without the substance of
an ordinance for many years. This proposed ordinance would give the City a legal basis
for such regulation, Transient Merchant bu inesses are currently regulated by other
ordinances also needing future amendment City Council.
Outdoor sales are divided into three classes:
.. Temporary outdoor sales and disp ays are sales and displays conducted by the
operators of a legitimate established usiness, such as sidewalk sales and the like.
Such temporary sales and displays w uld be allowed for up to 60 consecutive days
by the issuance of two consecutive 3 -day licenses.
..
Seasonal outdoor sales/displays ar sales and displays conducted by the
operators of a legitimate established usiness, such as such as garden center sales,
and the like. Such seasonal sales an displays would be allowed for up to 120
consecutive days by the issuance of wo consecutive 60-day licenses.
.. Transient Merchants/Itinerant ou door sales and displays are sales and
displays conducted by persons other than the operators of a legitimate established
business, such as artwork, flowers, f m produce sales, Christmas tree sales, and
the like, and engaged in a temporary business (five days or less per month
according to the defmition provided by ordinance.)
It is the intent of this ordinance to regulate
displays in a manner that is as consistent as
Monticello business community.
classes of outdoor sales and
ossible with the existing practices of the
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend to the City C uncll that the Ordinance establishing outdoor
sales and display regulations be ado ted as proposed.
2.
Motion to recommend to the City ouncil that the Ordinance not be adopted.
17
.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/2/98
Staff recommends that the Planning Co ssion recommend to the City Council that the
Ordinance establishing outdoor sales and di play regulations be adopted as proposed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance; Copy of CUfre t City Ordinance regulating transient
merchants.
.
.
17
.
ORDINANC NO.
CITY OF MO TICELLO
WRIGHT COUNT , MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2- AND ADDING SECTION 3-11A OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY E T ABLISHING OUTDOOR SALES AND
DISPLAY REGULATIONS.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDA
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Subsections [T A. ] and [RH] are hereby added to the City Code
to read as follows:
rT A.ll
lRHl
.
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section [3-11A] of the City Code is hereby added to read as follows:
3-11A
.
I~-I
Page 1
SEASONAL.ORD: 5/29/98
.
.
.
IID
ill
~fm
f" h
sales and disp1ftys as follows:
TYPE OF OUTDOOR
SAlE AND DISPLAY
UCENSE PERIOD IN
CONSECUTIVE DAYS
MINIMUM
UCENSE
FEE
Temnorarv
15.
license fees
shall be as
established
bv City
Council
Resolution
Seasonal
QQ
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately pon its passage and publication according to
law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this
day of
1998.
City Administrator
SEASONAL.ORD: 5/29/98
Mayor
1eJ. .. ~ Page 2
.
.
.
SECTION:
3-10-1:
3-10-2:
3-10-3:
3-10-4:
3-10-5:
3-10-6:
3-10w7:
3-10-8:
3-10-9:
3-10-10:
3-10-11:
3-10-12:
3-10-1:
3-10-2:*
TRANSIEN MERCHANTS
Definition
Permit Required
Exemptions
Application
Religious and Charitable Orga izations, Exemption
Investigation and Issuance
Duty of City Administrator to
Revocation of License
Appeal
Reapplication
Expiration of Permit
Penalty
DEFINITION: When used in t 's ordinance, the following term has the
following meaning:
(A) "Transient merchant" in ludes any person, firm, or corporation,
whether as owner, agent consignee, or employee, who engages in a
temporary business (five days or less per month) of selling and
delivering goods, wares, nd merchandise, or buying and receiving
goods, wares, and merch ndise within the city and who, in furtherance
of such purpose, hires, Ie ses, uses, or occupies any building, structure,
motor vehicle, trailer, te t, railroad boxcar, boat, public room in hotels,
lodging houses, apartme ts, shops, or any street, alley, or other place
within the city for the e 'bition and sale of such goods, wares, and
merchandise either priv tely or at public auction, provided that such
definition does not inclu e any person, firm, or corporation who, while
occupying such tempor location, does not sell from stock but
exhibits samples for the urpose of securing orders for future delivery
only. Location utilized b transient merchants shall be consistent with
uses identified as permit ed in particular zoning district and adequate
off-street parking is av ' able.
(10/11/93, #243)
PERMIT REQUIRED: It is awful for any transient merchant to engage in
any such business within the 'ty of Monticello without first obtaining a
permit therefore in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance,
(A) A daily permit shall be r quired for any "transient merchant" as
defined in Section 3-10- (A).
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE
I~ --.3
TITLE III/Chpt 10/Page 1
.
.
.
1.
An annual permi which may be issued only to the owner or
proprietor of a p 'vate premise such as motel, hotel, shopping
mall, banquet fa lity, service club, etc., wherein a transient
merchant as defi ed in Section 3-10-l(A) may lease or otherwise
occupy space to e gage in said temporary business. An
applicant for an a ual permit must provide the City with
assurances that e ch transient merchant engaged in business
upon his/her pre . se meets the minimum requirements of this
and all other app iicable ordinance.
2. The transient me chant shall operate from within a permanent
structure on the remise. Outdoor sales from parking lots or
other open space' s hereby prohibited under the provisions of
the annual permi .
3. No holder of an nual permit shall allow in excess of 12
vendors, stands, ooths, or similar sales area to operate per day
without the writt n permissions of the City Council.
(B) FEES: Fees shall be set and adopted by the City Council as follows:
1. Daily permit fees.
2.
Daily permit fees or a permit issued to a transient merchant
under the authori y of the annual permit, said fees to be
collected by the hIder of an annual permit and remitted to the
City Administrat r prior to the conduct of any business,
** . .. .
3.
*(11/14/83, #129)
**(1/23/84, #131)
(C) PERMISSION OF PRO ERTY OWNER REQUIRED:
1.
No transient mer hant shall sell or offer for sale any goods,
wares, or merch dise within the city from a stationary location
or public or priva e property without first obtaining the written
consent of the pro erty owner or occupant.
2.
No transient mer hant license shall be issued for sales from any
location which do s not have sufficient parking for customers
and for areas whe e customer parking would interfere with
normal traffic flo .
~-tf
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE
TITLE III/Chpt 10/Page 2
.
.
.
3-10-3:
3-10-4:
3. Only one (1) tran .ent merchant license shall be issued per
. location (property owner) at any given time.
(8/13/90, #194)
EXEMPTIONS: This chapter oes not apply to the following:
(A) Vendors of milk, groceri s, bakery products, or other perishable
commodities; or vendors of soft water service or laundry and dry
cleaning pickup and deli ery who make an uninvited call upon the
occupant of a resident a a preliminary step to the establishment of a
regular route service for the sale and delivery of such commodities or
the providing of such se ' ces to regular customers; or for the sale of
goods, merchandise, or s rvices to business, commercial, or industrial
users at their place ofb siness.
(B) Sidewalk sales authoriz d by the City Council.
(C) Limited open sales and I 'ted rummage/garage sales, (See Permitted
Accessory Sales, Chapte 6, Section 3, of the Zoning Ordinance for
regulations governing 0 en sales and rummage/garage sales.)
(05/13/91, #209)
(D) Any bona fide auction s e by a city resident.
(E) Any sale under court or
(F) The sale of regularly pu lished newspapers,
(G) The sale of goods or mer handise on behalf of bona fide charitable,
religious, civic, educatio , or political organization subject to
provisions of 3-10-2(C) d 3-10-5.
(H) Sale of farm or garden 'ts and vegetables from July 15 through
October 15 subject to th provisions of 3-10-2(C) and the daily permit
fees established by Co cil.
(8/13/90, #194)
APPLICATION: Applicants fo a permit under this ordinance shall file with
the City Clerk a sworn applica ion in writing on a form to be furnished by the
City Clerk. The application s I give the following information:
(A) Name and physical des 'ption of applicant;
(B) Complete permanent ho e and local address of the applicant and, in
the case of transient me chants, the local address from which proposed
sales will be made;
(C) A brief description of th nature of the business and the goods to be
sold; /.:l- S--
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE
TITLE IIVChpt 10/Page 3
(D) The name and address 0 the employer, principal, or supplier of the
applicant together with c edentials therefrom establishing the exact
relationship;
(F) General description of it ms to be sold;
.
(E) The length of time for w ich the right to do business is desired;
(G) The names of at least tw properly owners of Wright County,
Minnesota, who will cert fy as to the applicant's good character and
business respectability 0 ,in lieu of the names of references, such
other available evidence s to the good character and business
responsibility of the app. cant as will enable an investigator to
properly evaluate such c aracter and business responsibility;
(H) The last municipalities, ot to exceed three, where applicant carried
on business immediatel preceding date of application and the
addresses from which s ch business was conducted in those
municipalities;
(1) At the time of filing the pplication, a fee of $3.50 shall be paid to the
City Clerk to cover the c st of investigation of the facts stated therein
plus a fee schedule adop ed by the City Council.
.
3-10-5:
(11/23/81, #107)
(8/13/90, #194)
RELIGIOUS AND CHARIT LE ORGANIZATIONS, EXEMPTION: Any
organization, society, associati n, or corporation desiring to solicit or to have
solicited in its name money, d nations of money or properly, or financial
assistance of any kind, or desi . g to sell or distribute any item of literature
or merchandise for which a fe is charged or solicited from persons other
than members of such organiz tions upon the streets, in office or business
buildings, by house.to-house c vass, or in public places for a charitable,
religious, patriotic, or phil ant opic purpose shall be exempt from the
provisions of Section 4 of this rdinance provided there is filed a sworn
application in' writing on a fo to be furnished by the City Clerk which shall
give the following informatio :
(B) Names and addresses fthe officers and directors of the organization;
(A) Name and purpose oft e cause for which permit is sought;
(C) Period during which so icitation is to be carried on;
(D) Whether or not any co mission, fee, wages, or emoluments are to be
expended in connectio with such solicitation and the amount thereof.
.
I~ ..,(p
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE
TITLE III/Chpt 10/Page 4
.
3-10-6:
.
3-10-7:
.
Upon being satisfied tha such organization, association, or
corporation is a religious charitable, patriotic, or philanthropic
organization, the Clerk s all issue a permit without charge to such
organization, association or corporation to solicit in the city. Such
organization, association or corporation shall furnish all of its
members, agents, or repr sentatives conducting solicitation credentials
in writing stating the na e of the organization, name of agent, and
purpose of solicitation.
INVESTIGATION AND ISSU CE:
(A) Upon receipt of each app ication, it shall be referred to the City
Administrator, who will 'mmediately institute such investigation of
the applicant's business nd moral character as he deems necessary
for the protection of the ublic good and shall endorse the application
in the manner prescribe in this section within 72 hours after it has
been filed by the applica t with the City.
(B) If, as a result of such inv stigation, the applicant's character or
business responsibility i found to be unsatisfactory, the City
Administrator shall end rse on such application his disapproval and
reasons for the same an notify the applicant that his application is
disapproved and that no ermit will be issued.
(C) If, as a result of such inv stigation, the character and business
responsibility of the appl cant are found to be satisfactory, the City
Administrator shall end rse on the application his approval and
deliver to the applicant 's permit. Such permit shall contain the
signature of the issuing fficer and shall show the name and address of
said permittee, the class of permit issued and the kinds of goods to be
sold thereunder, the dat of issuance and the length of time not to
exceed one year from the date of issuance that the same shall be
operative, as well as the ermit number and other identifying
description of any vehicl used in such licensed business.
Each peddler, solicitor, 0 transient merchant must secure a personal
permit. No permit shall be used at any time by any person other than
the one to whom it is iss ed. The Clerk shall keep a permanent record
of all permits issued.
DUTY OF CITY ADMINIST TOR TO ENFORCE: It shall be the duty of
the City Administrator to req re any person seen peddling, soliciting, or
canvassing, and who is not 1m wn by such City Administrator to have
obtained a permit hereunder, t produce his permit and to enforce the
provisions of this ordinance ag 'nst any person found to be violating the
same.
1~'7
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE
TITLE III/Chpt 10/Page 5
.
.
.
3-10-8:
3-10-9:
3-10-10:
3-10-11:
3-10-12:
REVOCATION OF LICENSE:
(A) Permits issued under th provisions of this ordinance may be revoked
by the City Administrato for any of the following causes:
1. Fraud, misreprese tation, or incorrect statement contained in
the application for permit;
2. Fraud, misreprese tation, or incorrect statement made in the
course of carrying on his business as solicitor, canvasser,
peddler, transient merchant, itinerant merchant, or itinerant
vendor;
3.
4. Conviction of any rime or misdemeanor;
5. Conducting the b siness of peddler, canvasser, solicitor,
transient merch t, itinerant merchant, or itinerant vendor, as
the case may be, i an unlawful manner or in such a manner as
to constitute a bre ch of peace or to constitute a menace to
health, safety, or eneral welfare of the public.
APPEAL: Any person aggriev d by the action of the City Administrator or
the City Clerk in the denial of permit or revocation may appeal to the
Council. Such appeal shall be aken by filing with the Council within
fourteen days after notice ofth action complained of and a written
statement setting forth fully t e grounds for the appeal. The Council shall
set a time and place for a he ng on such appeal, and notice of such hearing
shall be given to the appellant
REAPPLICATION: No permi ee whose permit has been revoked shall make
further application until at Ie st six months have elapsed since the last
previous revocation.
EXPIRATION OF PERMIT: I annual permits issued under the provisions
of this ordinance shall expire t midnight the 31st day of December in the
year when issued. Other th annual licenses shall expire at midnight on
the date specified in the licens .
PENALTY: Any person who 'olates any provision of this ordinance is guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon c nviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding $500 or by impriso ent for a period not exceeding 90 days or
both, plus in either case the c sts of prosecution.
(04/13/81, #97)
I~ .-.~
MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE
TITLE III/Chpt 10/Page 6
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/02/98
. 13.
The Comprehensive Parks and Pathways PI includes an implementation
recommendation for the collection of fees in lieu of dedication of park land. Rather than
base the amount of the fee on the appraised and value, the fee should be collected based
upon the number of housing units to be dev loped in a subdivision. This would bring the
fee into compliance with recent Court decisi ns which require that park dedications be
proportionate to the amount of demand on t e park system which is generated by the
development in question. The value of the I d is unrelated (generally) to that proportion.
In recent surveys of other area communities park fees are ranging from $500 per unit to
well over $1,000 per unit. The actual amou t should be based on the projected cost of
building the system and, again, the develop nt's proportion of the demand. We have
calculated a projected fee of $750 per unit ased on generalized estimates of park
acquisition and construction and an estimat that approximately 75% of future park
construction will be attributable to new dev lopment. This figure may be somewhat
conservative. However, it should provide a reasonable starting point for the change in
policy.
.
As noted in the attached ordinance, the act al fee would be set by resolution. Therefore,
it is expected to be monitored and updated ver time. The proposed ordinance eliminates
language in the current code regarding the eed for appraisals of land value as a
prerequisite to establishing the appropriate ee.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of he amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance
based upon a fmding that it more c sely reflects the expected costs of park
construction.
2. Motion to recommend denial of th amendment.
3. Motion to table action on the amen ment subject to additional information.
C. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Ordina ceo As noted, the Parks Plan establishes the
groundwork for this change, which is mor consistent with the legal requirements for park
dedication.
.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Proposed Ordinance Amend nt
18
ORDINANCE AME DMENT NO.
.
City of Mo ticello
Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11, CH PTER 6, SECTION 1, OF THE
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ELATING TO PARK DEDICATION
FEES IN LIEU OF LAND.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MO TICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
1
Chapter 6, Section 1 is amended to read as follows
11-6-1:
DEDICATION REQUIREMENT:
.
[A] Pursuant to Minn. Stat. &462.358 Subel. 2, he City Council of Monticello shall require all
subdividers requesting platting or replatting of land in the City of Monticello to contribute
an amount of land which is generally ten pe cent (10%) of the gross plat area. Said
contribution shall be dedicated for use as ei her parks, playgrounds, public open space, or
linear park and pathway systems. In the alt rnative, the City shall have the option of
accepting cash in lieu of land dedication, or a combination thereof. The amount of cash
contribution shall be established by City Co ncll resolution. The amount of land or cash
contribution shall be reviewed and amende from time to time, based upon the City's
reasonable estimate of the cost of park dev lopment and the subdivider's contribution to
proportionate demand on the City's park s stem In the event a subdivider believes that
his or her proportionate contribution to sys em demand should be set at a figure other than
that determined by said resolution or this dinance, the City may conduct a specific study
to determine the proper proportion in acco dance with the City's approved park plans.
The cost of any such special study conduc ed at the subdivider's request shall be borne by
the subdivider.
[B] Park dedication credit shall not include we land or ponding area necessary for the drainage
plan of the subdivision or other public uses Land to be dedicated shall be usable for
normal park purposes as determined by th Parks Commission, and shall exclude slopes of
more than twelve percent (12%) unless sp cificallyapproved.
s
[C] Land dedicated for park purposes shall be ransferred to the City by warranty deed.
This ordinance shall become effective from and a er its passage and publication.
. //s//
I~....I
EXHIBIT A
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/2/98
. 14.
At the previous meeting of the City Council, the City Council reviewed the Planning
Commission's recorrunendation for denial 0 the zoning text amendment necessary to
allow a go-cart to operate at the Monticello Roller Rink. Along with the information
provided by the staff and Planning Commiss on, the Council received a request from the
applicant that the Planning Commission rev' w additional information regarding site
operation that was not available to the Plan ' g Commission at the time of the original
deliberation. City Council responded to the applicant's request by sending the item back
to the Planning Commission for additional r view and consideration.
.
As you recall, one of the main reasons why he Planning Commission recommended denial
of the request was the testimony from an a 'acent property owner regarding the concern
over noise produced by the operation of th go-carts. In response to this testimony, the
applicant organized a demonstration of the peration of the facility, which was conducted
on May 28, 1998. In attendance at the de onstration were Steve Grittman, Wanda
Kraemer, and Dick Frie. In reviewing the emonstration, Steve Grittman reported that the
sound generated by the go-carts is consider bly less than the sound generated by the
nearby freeway. He also noted that when t e sound of the go-cart was obstructed by a car
or a fence that it almost became inaudible a a distance of 200 ft. Even without the
obstruction, the go-cart sound was almost' audible.
Planning Commission is asked to review t s additional information and other testimony
that may be provided by the applicant and onsider making a different finding on this
matter.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Amendment to allow out oor go-cart track use on subject site:
1. Motion to approve an amendment 0 the Zoning Ordinance to make outdoor go-
cart tracks a conditional use within the 1-1, light industrial, district, subject to the
same conditions as outlined for thi use in the B-3 District, based upon a fmding
that the use is consistent with the urpose of the 1-1 district and Comprehensive
Plan objectives.
2.
Motion to approve an amendment 0 the Zoning Ordinance to include outdoor go-
cart track uses within the scope of "amusement places" based upon a finding that
the use is of similar character to th t of other uses so defmed and that the
amendment is consistent with the bjectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/2/98
.
3.
Motion to approve the rezoning oft subject site from 1-1, light industrial, to
B-3, highway commercial, based upo a finding that the existing and proposed use
of the subject is commercial in natur and that the amendment is consistent with
Comprehensive Plan objectives; and,
Motion to approve an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance making "amusement
places (i.e., roller rinks and dance h s) and bowling alleys" a conditional use in
the B-3 district based upon a finding hat said uses are commercial in nature and
are consistent with the purpose of th B-3 district and Comprehensive Plan
objectives.
4. Motion to deny applicant's request b sed upon a finding that none of the proposed
actions are consistent with the objec ives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Decision 2: Conditional use permit for o-cart track in subject site:
1.
Motion to approve a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor go-cart track in
the 1-1 district based upon a finding hat the proposed use has met or will meet,
with appropriate changes, the condit ons as defined in the Zoning Ordinance,
including adequate screening to prot ct adjacent properties and adequate parking
to accommodate the proposed use a d compatibility with the area and
Comprehensive Plan objectives.
.
2. Motion to approve a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor go-cart track in
the B-3 district based upon a fmding that the proposed use has met or will meet,
with appropriate changes, the condi ions as defined in the Zoning Ordinance,
including adequate screening to proect adjacent properties and adequate parking
to accommodate the proposed use d compatibility with the area and
Comprehensive Plan objectives.
3. Motion to deny a conditional use pe mit to allow for a outdoor go-cart track on
the subject site based upon a fmdin that the proposed use cannot meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordina e or objectives of Comprehensive Plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation remains the same as t was with the previous agenda item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Previous agenda item
.
2
.
.
.
11.
COP~
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
B.i.nk.. (N AC)
Russ and Paula Adamski have requested Zoning Ordinance text amendment to allow
outdoor go-cart tracks as a conditional use 'thin the I-I, Light Industrial District. This use
is currently only allowed by CUP in the B-3, ighway Business District. The purpose of the
request is to accommodate an expansion 0 the applicant's existing roller rink amusement
area, located at the southeast comer of Coon y Road 117 and Thomas Park Drive (zoned 1-1
District), to include an outdoor go-cart tra k, As such, the applicants are also requesting
approval of a CUP for an outdoor go-cart track. However, any action on this request is
contingent upon the City taking one of t ee alternative actions to allow this use on the
subject property,
1.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
The applicants are requesting an a ndment to the Zoning Ordinance so that an
outdoor go-cart track can be devel ped on their property, which is currently zoned
1-1 District. The applicants have r quested that outdoor go-cart tracks be made a
conditional use in the 1-1 District, su ~ect to the same conditions as provided for this
use in the B-3 District. Amending th Ordinance to allow outdoor go-carts in the 1-1
District increases the opportunity t establish uses within the 1-1 District that are
more commercial in nature than indu trial. Therefore, the proposed amendment may
be considered inconsistent with the purpose of the 1-1 District and Comprehensive
Plan.
A second option to accommodate t e applicant's request is to amend Section 15B-
4[D] of the Zoning Ordinance" usement places (such as roller rinks and dance
halls) and bowling alleys" as a co ditional use within the 1-1 District to include
outdoor go-cart tracks. This opti n however is problematic in that "amusement
places" as currently defined relates t indoor type uses, Outdoor uses, including go-
cart tracks, raise different compatib' 'ty issues such as screening, noise, lighting, etc.
Combining indoor and outdoor recre tional uses under the same conditional use may
result in problems ensuring that co atibility issues of potential uses is adequately
addressed. .
Finally, a third option to consider' a rezoning of the applicant's property to B-3,
Highway Business District. The Ian s to the west of County Road 117 are zoned B-
3, therefore spot zoning would not an issue with this action. While the B-3 District
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\GO-CART.PC
18
Itf-I
.
.
.
Planning Conunission Agenda -5/05/98
allows outdoor go-cart tracks as a con itional use, the applicant's existing roller rink
is not a conditional or permitted use the B-3 District. As such, an amendment to
allow amusement areas as a separat conditional use in the B-3 District would be
required. From a technical standpo t this option is more appropriate given the
commercial character of the indoor utdoor recreational uses. This option does,
however, result in a loss of industrial zoned land.
2.
Conditional Use Permit - Outdoor G -Cart Track.
If the Planning Commission reco nds and the City Council acts favorably on the
rezoning issue, consideration of the p oposed development of a go-cart track on the
applicant's property may occur. Ass . g that the Zoning Ordinance is amended to
allow outdoor go-cart tracks as a con 'tional use in the I-I District or the subject site
is rezoned to B-3 District, approval 0 a CUP for an outdoor go cart track is subject
to the following conditions, as outline in Section 13-4[N] of the Zoning Ordinance.
A.
The proposed use must meet all conditions of Chapter 3, Section 4[A].
Comment: This section rela es to lot area and building size requirements.
There is no minimum lot siz required in the B-3 District and the minimum
lot width is 100 feet. The inimum lot size of the [-1 District is 20,000
square feet and the minim m lot width is 100 feet. The subject site is
approximately 107,250 squar feet in size and has a width of approximately
225 feet at the front setback ine. As such. this condition is satisfied.
The Conditional Use Permit ill be reviewed yearly to determine whether or
not it is compatible with ne'ghboring properties and in conformance with
conditions of the conditional use.
B.
Comment: This statement 'Il be included as part of the recommended
conditions of approval.
C. A solid six-foot high fence ust be part of the screening required when the
adjacent properties are resid ntial.
The subject site is surrounded only by commercial and industrial zoned properties.
However, to minimize the impacts f noise from the go-cart track to any adjacent
properties, and to screen the use om the public right of way a wood fence and
landscaping should be provided. The types and quantities of planting materials should
be such that a dense planting wall ultimately develops to further buffer the noise
impacts of the go-cart track.
C:\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\GO-CART.PC
19
1'1 ,. ~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
D.
For dust and noise (70dB at residential property line) must be controlled at all
times to the satisfaction of t City.
Comment: The fence and pi ntings discussed above should be adequate to
address noise issues. Howev r, beyond the noise of the go-carts, in no case
should any type of outdoor ublic address system be utilized on the subject
site.
The submitted plans do not indicate the swface of the proposed go.cart
track. To control dust, the o-cart track will be required to be concrete or
bituminous surfaced.
E. The provisions of Chapte 22 of this Ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
Comment: Section 22 of the
proposed use and complianc
The subject site is in a locatio
land uses.
ning Ordinance addresses compatibility of the
with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
to avoid compatibility conflicts with adjacent
Parking. The existing parking lot is bitu . ous surfaced and striped. However, submitted
plans do not indicate the number of stalls ithin the parking lot. Staff has estimated the
capacity of the parking lot to be at least 70 salls, based upon the minimum design standards
within the Zoning Ordinance. With the num r of stalls to be provided, at least two must be
designated disability accessible with a 7 foo access strip in between for van accessability.
The Zoning Ordinance requires one space p r 40 square feet of building area for roller rink
uses. Based upon this requirements and a b ilding size of 11,700 square feet, a total of 294
parking stalls would be required for the ro r rink use alone. However, lTE data suggests
that the actual parking demand for the ro r rink, based upon building size is actually 46
stalls. As such, 24 stalls would remain for t e go-cart track use. At least on an initial basis,
this number appears appropriate. There is a ditional site area indicated on the site plan as a
proposed mini-golf area that could be dev loped as parking, if demand is found to exceed
supply. A condition of approval will be that he applicant must improve the existing parking
lot to provide at least 70 parking stalls, tw of which must be disability accessible.
Mini-Golf Area. As noted above, the submi ted site plan indicates a proposed miniature golf
area. Development of this use on the subje t site would require the applicant to request an
CUP amendment. Whether the miniature olf use would be allowed would be dependent
upon confonnance with Zoning Ordinance rovisions, particularly parking.
C:\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\GO-CART.PC
20
,'I -' "3
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
Lighting. The submitted site plan does not ' dicate if any exterior lighting is proposed to be
utilized to illuminate the go-cart track. The a plicant should revise the site plan to specify the
location of any and all exterior site lighting. dditionally, the applicant must provide details
regarding any proposed light fixtures, includ g photometric plans. All site lighting must be
subject to review and approval of the City ouncil.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Amendment to allow Outdoo Go-Cart track use on subject site:
Alternative 1. Motion to approve an amen nt to the Zoning Ordinance to make outdoor
go-cart tracks a conditiona use within the 1-1, Light Industrial District,
subject to the same condition as outline for this use in the B- 3 District, based
upon a fmding that the use i consistent with the purpose of the I-I District
and Comprehensive Plan ob ctives.
Alternative 2. Motion to approve an amen nt to the Zoning Ordinance to include outdoor
go-cart track uses within t e scope of "amusement places" based upon a
finding that the use is simil character to that of other uses so defined and
that the amendment is consi tent with the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Alternative 3. Motion to approve the rezo . g of the subject site troml-l, Limited Industrial
District to B-3, Highway C mmercial District based upon a finding that the
existing and proposed use of the subject is commercial in nature and that the
amendment is consistent wit Comprehensive Plan objectives; and,
Motion to approve an a ndment to the Zoning Ordinance making
"amusement places (i.e., ro er rinks and dance halls) and bowling alleys" a
conditional use in the B-3 istrict based upon a fmding that said uses are
conurercial in nature and ar cons~tent with the purpose of the B-3 District
and Comprehensive Plan ob'ectives.
Alternative 4. Motion to deny applicant' request based upon a finding that none of the
proposed actions are consi tent with the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Decision 2: Conditional Use permit fo go-cart track in subject site:
Alternative 1. Motion to approve a Cond'tional Use Permit to allow an outdoor go-cart
track in the I-I District based upon a finding that the proposed use has met or
C:\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\GO-CART.PC
21
11 -- t/-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
will meet, with appropriate c anges, the conditions as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance, including adequa e screening to protect adjacent properties and
adequate parking to acco odate the proposed use and compatibility with
the area and Comprehensive Ian objectives.
Motion to approve a Condi ional Use Permit to allow an outdoor go-cart
track in the B- 3 District base upon a finding that the proposed use has met
or will treet, with appropriate hanges, the conditions as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance, including adequ te screening to protect adjacent properties and
adequate parking to acco odate the proposed use and compatibility with
the area and Comprehensive Plan objectives.
Alternative 2.
Motion to deny a Conditional se Permit to allow for a outdoor go-cart track
on the subject site based up n a finding that the proposed use can not meet
the requirements of the Zo g Ordinance or objectives of Comprehensive
Plan.
Alternative 3.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a rezonin
arnendtrent to make "amusetrent places" as
1, Alternative 3) and a Conditional Use Per
subject to the conditions included as an aU
D. SUPPORTING DATA
of the subject site to B-3 District and text
nditional use within the B-3 District (Decision
't to allow said use (Decision 2, Alternative 2)
hment to this report as Exhibit C.
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Reconunended Conditions of A pro val
C:\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\GO-CART.PC
22
1"1 ' S-
~ ,. <<t"~Nlr.~.',:-T:j.~,:J~~ / I
N \t~J 'rLUL_-~ _J /.. / !
I i _ '!'---.-'-----~.--v~ I . ,'T, _ ; -- ,--' jr''''
I ~ / t-.. ' ~. ;'.' Ll-c' i l?7f\ 1//
" ~ }'- \ :,..'-...., ; ';",.u.., :=1~- )}
/ r::---::.\ : :. '~-'. ' ::r-- ~
_ ~~' [~ ~J'" A.H: ""-
i '_"I".ft._~_fi~~.. t ':~I'\~
I ~- .-~'--:A\~ ~ "'"~~~t"'~WJJ.:~;jff+-_..
i -~"~"':"@~/"~ .', .-~~~~ :
Ii ~~~'" 'i;;~~" ;I:~ :';;. hi<,.~ i
. -----;-,' ~ k:f-~- ~~:7$' I .':":'i.!.[.II\=f.- .,,' !
..... t:::, ..... ~.,~-=:::;:;' U~. . ,
I --'--. >-..:c' - I, 0:;\'!" \1..,,------\------'P.----
,0 I
: ~
/ j:,/~.i ~"~ '// -<~ i.;1
./ -: -;''1.1 /.. /;,~ , <!> \' \\ \ I"" 1/' ..
/ '...~.~.,. ..'~ r~k' h,.' ]..~~'i:.:' J J ~ " . '.. "'~"':"'t
/ ~,<"/'i1 -;,' /' Nr'l - ~'/i \~1//\\.-'1
. ~ j ~ r:::H::~?<2H,-,--,-
/ ,<' ";1,. ,it ~__ .ll~~I~
// 7 'l~'" "'..", ~i4" 'd - II . - -~-__~ .- '.~~.t~tl-'
'...1'--'1 \, .. :' +-::: .::f:. I
/ '''''l./'')II .-" ( ;; ;::..:; :>:.:t I '" _.' ~ +
/" j~1i;: ~~~ ~?: 0 ' ','i' d: J---
l'<t . ~~~~'. V I' 'I" .;;'!"~"l ";( ---- :": ~ ~ i
; -.. ti!f ,- : -...JA I '\ ~ 7/:: \::......, O:c ~ ~.'":: ~~ ~
0'-::::: I ".,......., ... y." . ."" ~
. . ...... . ' :1 '.'" .' ',' , -- '" - --..~ _:-:_l!SO' ::a'
t" ,- ;,~:" '. -n-7fj ---r----ll,/0J" '; > <:j', ~ Of j~ i'
. .:;:,' :7"--.' ,'!\-, ~'t;" .................. '~. ..~; -'=.::: ",\"'-/,-~
. ?: ~ :~. ;J;. c..1'<h<l.:,' Q:\>> ..:- = -'-' ~'J; ;.;:..~\,;; ,
<, 'WIl/.., 'U - , ji/f--.i...71 i'.:' .......< - '.: :~
.::t; :' 1,'~Jf....:.." '.' "i I I"."',ji':'>; tJi ',' d
~:. '~~. :i.~7 I . 1\<:I.)t.<;j..f>oo;i'I,'. ,_';::',~ ~~~8
'l;!jffJ ~ ""Q;f"-.'IfI..-- """- 0./:' -C,'f:, :"----,"'0'" -o,...:J'.";;;';: . 'H"'VC:,'i-'l." ~I'I"I' T-!'!-I' ,t; /l! \ I
~"~"' ~ t~-P~f~X ~\.~ I -:.}J:; ~.;~;~~;r~~!i'.~?:~~11."~.'i"~.'.;:,.;:".,,'1.1.':~~Y~:~.~. :.' ~-f;jtE.: !~,,\'\Ir>.,. !
':':." .~':f!{J f:::~ :'t' ..2 It:s~\ !, >-- t~;::;~:;t,i15:; r:';;~:~l~;~::' i:.,."~,, n ~ I
........ ~ ~:i,:-:,.I ..." "-':':R'" -1-. ".---.. . .~. .\.,):./ ':-z',z: '\""'<';:'.i.~
! . l~~: ~.C "':'."'.)' .'.}:';:;:~:i:i~~:;~i~~1~r ,;~~,,~~'" ":, ,:.~~';\"~ ~(l$.';::J::~"/~'71
~!"m. {j " '>i ,<,' ~,.~;,%. :'":t t!>.\.~ ~ ..:....:ci-.L~r.Tf. ::::
. "f~ <> W ....'. i;",>"i"f~.i;~i,;'~::::. ':",~{"_ :'.' ': : p.'~'." ~
~, -:'-I "-r.::-:r J. ~ ., ." " ~"';*, '.::"-1 .:,'-"-- ~, ::!L .( .'I.'~' '.
~h ~.., ._~7 . ,~;'~1. en 'rr;~' ',~'./;;:}';;.:f; ::.~I ~.~\:: ~ ~~'~\.'~~,.::~ t:1.
~':::;, 'fii:1jK ~m~ ~ ~.~>.:.jft~:.;/l;~'t{:~,,~.' ~};;t~~~~ : :1lr.: ',n-: ~ : ''',~\'';~ :vI
~ ~J,,; ~;~J k: ?;.i;;~~, ~,~~ ...., "'~~
~ ;:; 'I r'""'. ',~':; ,", 7;[,~,.,;k::::) !t:',.::,;~;.~;;k .0i:8l:.~~";;;A t..i.,,' \ _. /7Y.i
dF. ~~,' ..,..,~:j"'S;;:",~CJ) m,c'/J" .Y'",'",~,:,,'ii~'~"1~ " - -- -
~,z~Zi~;tf'"""-"'r: .. ":~"~:~"~~~'.....0~ .~. ~ ~-
~4}1.. .~~~~~ ,.,,,~ l"" \'':- .),~~;'.1" - , I",>:" ....... 'CO;, ;::;"'(~ ~ _'" ~il
r.., f&.':lj~ I!'li ..' .\ ".., \ I, ,,",'::' <; " . ',;-':li~l
~ N'" 1 I. L .:'~ ' -" Il~' ~ ,( ;';'''<(%Y'
~./3J.f(f;,: ,€:j-.llii , \ ~~-'~j'l-i'\' ,.' -' ,;-- +-;,-::'~~f-,:-"::!:.--:tlt)~ "1:1:-;:'(""1'-.,,,
~ " ~:i;ifl--t'~'- .-:-- \I~' --.' ::-: '..\ .-.I-.-~-c--t ~. .,<.t<~':2;<}:"~a~' V(!{f,,~f:;~I""--' .' ,.,..
.' ., /- ffb ; ~.,. .<-,.:.~ 1I.......I"-;,'.G...1 .
." ,';" \ I ~............. '.. ...6 $. ~.I-.''\......f.rl! t:
1~..-;.~:1li'~~'~r=_~~.~~ ~'~:HIBIT::~\:~~~= EX~STING ZO~ING _
.
'!j
.=:5/
u
\
,
I
,
r -_ui
I '
, ;
i ~-~.
, .-l--
, ..----.--}=' 1_______
I
-/!
I
'"----,--~--~.- ~::::.-:-.
I i
,
~
~:
.1, .,11
______l~\.-----, _
.
.
or
(IL' (',.
;
- ~
:>
:>
-, ~'
'-
')
~
I
'; I ~
'" '.
:; I ~
2
/) ",
-.::
J.J
L.
l-
e>
-'
-z~
~
~
..
Il
..--
!JNHlt1f1."
<.'-=-'-==-=-=--===-=.~ o6-.'oor
--Hmos
00' oq~
";:L 2>'6'..7
'.e?fOd~CY.,....:
I
1-,
.~
\~
,
Q)
"
Q
- .... ~ ~~-
\.,
..
<\J ..~..~
.~ IIQ:
~Q
Cl: . "
I- ~
I 2 lc.
I 'C{CJ ~~~
I~ \ ~r.n
r! ~ <>:Q) ~ ~~
., Ul
-.;
I~ Q) ~~~
'?
I . ..... ~~
O'l
."," ','....'" ,,'......,...~' 'Of:1 '.,'...... .~, "'. ...........,.
.,..
\,...... ~ '
~
\~
6
\
_J~
, '\ '., '.' ".
9 'n~r '..'. '" \ ......... ~, ".'" '..... \.
t
!
>
l
~
I..~ t-.,
,. 0:
Ci fS
~ -'
~ ~
'" !!.
~-
I
Ir -----~--
~----
\ \ ..., \. ...... '.... .
...
'"
-J
~
'"
~
"-
IC
I~
c
I~
~:l:
It)
~'q"
~
- --- I-.~-
~ ilJ:J~ ~
II>
"
'"
;>
'i
i'2
0;
.1 ;;-- - - :=:-:~ - - -~'"~~;': ~ ::-.':'~~~~-,^-" ~". ~
--g,'~g;- ~ -- --
r
~ , I
!~~~ I
~ 'i-'
i;?' ~ _n-.-'-____ ""c__...
., } j
6L -!;cc '
., I
., - (..,-_._-~-
~~~---:-;;:- ,~._.====- ---=-----==..........~-~~-
'"
'"
3 .!; r . cc. r N
=""
.J;Jr~I'i'IS ~f'l(..,.,{..IIJ /"
. ~_ . I ~
'>-1
. -----J
.. ..~ ~--_.~
o
'~.l
.,',
--" '
\
,
\
J
OO.!;L
I.:-,~
~I
.~
: ,
." l~
I
-~--
10" ,r"u<
... '
; !
. ,
:~--II
'- '
\ '
o'~1
'" ,
I
,
I
,.
,\
'.
"
"T.
C\Ji
~i
C\J\
!
:l:1 ~
: I ~
~l ~
C\J
C\J
0'1
Cl)
&Cr)
I
,
V
I
,
I
3.grtCC.rN
, ~
! Ii
, ~M
I
~
;;
~~
a
=: I---~O!i--
e;
u
~
1- _
I
--~--._-_. -t--
---.........--
'?
~
I~" 1
EXHIBIT B . SITE PLAN
.
.
.
The Conditional Use Permit will be revie ed yearly to determine whether or not it is
compatible with neighboring properties and in conformance with conditions of the conditional
use.
1.
2. A solid 6 foot high wood fence be provided around the rear yard of the subject property.
3. The applicant provide a landscape plan t at provides planing materials of the type and
quantity necessary to supplerrent the required wood fence as an effective screen/buffer. Said
landscape plan shall be subject to review an approval of the City Council.
4. The go-cart track be surfaced with concret or bituminous material.
5. No exterior public address system or loud s eakers be utilized on the subject site.
6. The parking lot be improved so as to pr vide 70 parking stalls, two of which must be
disability accessible with a 7 foot access Ian in between.
7. Any expansion of uses on the subject site s require an amendment to existing CUP subject
to compliance with Zoning Ordinance pro vi ions, subject to review and recommendation of
the Planning Commission and approval of t e City Council
The site plan be revised to indicate the locaf n of any and all site lighting. Additionally, the
applicant shall provide details regarding exterior light fixtures including photometric
illumination fields. All site lighting shall b subject to review and recommendation of the
Planning Commission and approval of the ity Council.
8.
9. Comments of other City Staff.
Exhib t C . Recommended Conditions of Approval
C:\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\GO-CART.PC
I~ ~71