Parks Commission Agenda Packet 07-24-2003
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
. 8.
9.
10.
II.
A 'ENDA
PARKS 'OMMISSION
SPECI L MEETING
July 24, 003 - 4:30 p.m.
West rairie Room
"To enhance wnulluni 'pride through deve/ol'il1f.: and
maintaining ci~r park.\ 1 ith a high standard (~lqllali(l'"
Call to Order
Approve minutes of June 26, 2003 r gular Parks Commission meeting
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments and requests.
Klein/O'Brien Development Plan Re iew (Hunter's Crossing)
Glen Posusta - Berm on park proper
East Bridge Pathway
Groveland Play Equipment
River Mill Pathway
Youth Football
Updates, (if any):
A. Park Acquisition relating to golf nnge.
12. Adjourn
.
.
..
.
NOTES TO PARK COMMISSION AGENDA
.J u y 24, 2003
Agenda Itcm #
5. Klein/O'Brien Developmcnt - Attache is a site plan for thc proposed development and a
narrative of the proposed devclopment Ncither the drawing or narrative refercnces any
park site being located in the develop ent itself. Since it is proposed to have 272 units in
this development, should there be a pa k included here or is the park in the Gold Nugget
(Featherstone) devclopment meant to s rYe this area as we)).
6. Glcn Posusta asked to be on the a~enda as he did not feel a)) the information regarding the
berm was prescntcd at the last meeting.
NOTE: Since the Parks Commission has chang d their meeting date to thefourth Thursday of the
month, you should be aware that the meetings w"ll have to be concluded by 6 p.m. as there are other
groups scheduled for the meeting rooms.
.
.
.
INlJTES
REGULAR MEETI G - PARKS COMMISSION
Thursday, .June 26, 2003 - 4:30 p.m.
"To enhance community pride through developing and
maintaining city park with a high standard of quality."
Members Present:
Fran fair, Ben Hitter, Nancy MeCani-ey, I,arry Nolan and Rick Traver.
Members Absent:
Council Liaison, Robbi Smith
Staff Present:
Public Works Director, ohn Simola; Park Superintendent, Adam I [awkinson,
Deputy City Administra or, Jeff O'Neill.
1. Call to Order.
Chair Nolan called the meeting to orde at 4:30 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
2A. A rove minutes of Ma 15 2003 re ular Parks Commission mectin .
R[CK TRA VER MOVED TO APPRO E THE MINUTES Of THE MAY 15,2003 REGULAR
PARKS COMMISSION MEETING. fRAN FAIR SECONDED TI [E MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
28.
A rove minutes of .June 12 2003 s eial Parks Commission meetin J.
RICK TRA VER MOVED TO APPRO
PARKS COMMISSION MEETING. f
CARRIED lJNANIMOUSL Y.
3. Consideration of addin items to the
E THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 12,2003 SPECIAl,
N FAIR SECONDED THE MO'lION. MOTION
Ollie Koropchak requested the I-fans Ha ren development be added to the agenda.
4.
Citizens comments and request.
Tom Link who lives adjacent to East Br dge Park was present to state his concerns about the plan
for a pathway in East Bridge Park. I Ie f It the pathway alignment is too close to his property. He
is in favor of replacing the steps at East ridge Park because they are in bad shape but he would not
like to see the steps replaced by a pathw y. Public Works Director, John Simola, stated he had
met with Mr. Link regarding the pathwa. and discussed alignment of the pathway. It was felt the
pathway would be more acceptable if it tarted at the top of the steps or was moved further towards
the river. John Simola stated that the P rks Commission does not need to make a decision until it is
known whether or not they receive grant funds. He pointed out that installation of the pathway
Parks COlmnission Minutes - 6/26/03
.
would accomplish the goals of the Pa ks Commission. Rick Traver asked if only the steps were
replaced, is there some way to allow or the movement of bikes up and down the steps. Both John
Simola and Adam Hawkinson felt be ause of the poor condition the steps were in there should be
warning signs placed on them.
Ollie Koropchak came before the Par s Commission to discuss the plantings that had been done in
the median on County Road 75 betw en Walnut Street and Locust Street. A group called
Community Exceptionales will be ta ing care of the plantings. She submitted an application for
Adopt A Park, a planting design and cost breakdown. Ollie Koropchak noted that although the
median was sprinkled, the soils were 001' quality and densely compacted. The cost of the
plantings was funded with money ren aining from the County Road 75 project. There was
discussion whether this kind ofproje t qualified for Adopt A Park since it was street right of way
rather than park. Jeff O'Neill felt the Adopt A Park program applied to any beautification project
on public property. Rick Traver concurred noting that when the entrance signs to the city are
installed they will also be located in t e right of way and the plantings that are proposed for the sign
area would have to be installed and n aintained. .lohn Simola stated they would monitor whether
the planting was successful and after year or so evaluate the project for fUI1her funding in the
future. Larry Nolan stated that the P rks Commission docs not formally act on the Adopt A Park
applications and the applications are just submitted to the Park Superintendent.
.
Ollie Koropchak then brought up the iverwalk development and the park along Front Street. Part
of the HRA agreement with Hans l-Ia en Homes calls for the City to have the park landed seeded or
sodded by September, 2002. The are was seeded last fall and was re-seeded last week according
to Adam Hawkinson.
5. Wild Meadow Sunset Ponds
Lynn Giovanelli was present and rep rted the developer is still working on the ponding and drainage
issues for this development. The Pa ks Commission reviewed pictures taken of this area after the
recent rainfall which confirmed some the drainage concerns that had been raised. L,ynn Giovanelli
did state that they had received verba indication that the gas company would allow 8' of fill along
the easement area but would require listers over the gas line. Lynn Giovanelli said the question
remains whether developer could pro ide the 5 acres of usable land the Parks Commission desired
especially since the ponding and drai age issues have not been resolved.
.
Lynn Giovanelli had two sketches on showing the proposed park land if the City would take the
water from the Tyler East area and th other showing the proposed park land available if the
developer provided ponding area for he Tyler East storm water. The 1.94 acres of green space
that was proposed for park land in ea lieI' versions of the development has been taken out as per the
Parks Commission recommendation. Lynn Giovanelli stated the developer is looking for park
dedication credit for the land in the e sement area. Larry Nolan stated that the easement area has
marginal value since the casement IiI its what the city could do in that area. Lynn Giovanelli
suggested that ballfields could be pia ed in the easement area but Adam Hawkinson stated they
2
Parks Commission Minutes - 6/26/03
.
could not place backstops in thc easemen area or install an irrigation system.
Lynn Giovanell i said the ponding needs l' I' the development would change dramatically if the City
would accept the drainage from the Tyler East area. Since that issue has not been resolved, the
question is if the developer can only prov de 2.92 acres of usable land what would the Parks
Commission do? Would they require 5 '- cres or would they accept 2.92 acres and cash
dedication. Because of the density of un'ts, the Parks COlnmission felt a park was needed in this
development. Lynn Giovanelli added th-'l if the gas company allows the filling of the easement area
the 1.20 acres in the easement would be at, usable land. Adam Hawkinson commented that if the
City did include the area in the gas line e sement, it could not be used for a parking lot nor could a
play structure be placed on it so the 2.92 cres (labeled #1 on the map) would have to hold the
parking lot and play structure. The smal basins that were shown on earlier drawings had been
removed but Adam Hawkinson stated the City wanted no drainage going towards the park. Rick
Traver felt that it was unlikely they woul be able to get any ballfields from this park but they could
utilize the 3 acres to provide adequate pa king, a hard court and play structure. The Parks
Commission said they could use the ease lent area as field area for a pickup games of soccer or
football.
.
Lynn Giovanelli indicated there was .92 . cres of trail and asked how that would be handled. Jeff
O'Neill stated tha1 city policy did not giv -. credit for internal trails. Credit is given only if the trails
are part of the city's trail system. The in ernal trails are a benefit for the developer in that it helps
them market their property.
The Parks Commission discussed the am unt of credit to be given for the easement area. Rick
Traver felt between 20%-250;() would be ppropriate. Jeff O'Neill indicated that the only previous
incident of park dedication credit was in he Battle Rapids development and they received 50%
credit. Adam Hawkinson noted the Com xehensive Plan stated that no credit be given for casement
area. Lynn Giovanelli thought that appli d only to power line casements. John Simola suggested if
the reference was only to power line casements, the Parks Commission should consider amending
the ordinance to make it apply to all type' of easements.
Lynn Giovanelli stated the developer pre ers the option where the City would accept the drainage
from the Tyler East area. John Simola sated that the City does not want to use capacity in their
storm water system f<Jr areas outside the ity limits. Not only does the City lose capacity in the
system that could be utilized for develop lent in the city, they also lose tax base and maintenance
fees. The City Engineer has indicated t at the storm sewer line that drains Meadow Oaks is not
large enough. The staff feels the pond n eds to be part of the development. There was some
discussion whether the gas line area coul be used for ponding.
.
Overall the Parks Commission telt that a least three acres of flat, usable land would be the minimum
and preferably more would be better but John Simola felt that live acres was needed. As far as
park dedication credit for the easement a ea, the Parks Commission will evaluate that when it is seen
3
.
.
.
what the final park layout is.
7.
Parks COlnmissiol1 Minutes - 6/26103
Consideration of settin criteria for huildin
This item was moved up on the agenda '0 it could be discussed while John Simola was in
attendance. The request from a propert owner to build a berm on park land came up at the last
Parks Commission meeting and during t 1e Parks Commission tour they viewed the site in question.
John Simola indicated that the property )wner asked him to bring this item up and to ask the Parks
Commission to consider: ]) Whether th Parks Commission would sell some park land so he could
rclocate his driveway; and 2) Would th y allow him to build a berm on park land to screen his
property. The property owner construe cd a berm, without authorization from anyone, and with
the recent rainfalls dirt and debris from t 1e berm has washed into the street. This resulted in
significant hours of clean up by stalT. J hn Simola discussed this issue with the City Attorney and
the City Attorney concurred that no wor should be done on park land without a permit and proper
insurance and the work must be done to 'Crtain standards as set forth by the City. Another concern
is the construction activity taking place i 1 the power line easement area. John Simola noted that
there are restrictions on what kind of activity is allowed within the easement area. The Parks
Commission needs to decide if there is n erit in allowing the construction of a berm on park land and
ifso what standards of construction should apply. In response to the propeliy owner's request to
purchase park land, John Simola reporte that City Attorney referenced Minnesota Statutes] 5.054
which relates to the prohibition of sellin J city owned property to a city employee or city official.
Rick Traver lelt that based on the survey drawing there was adequate space on the owner's
property to place the berm and it was not necessary to have it on park land. Larry Nolan felt that if
the berm was tar enough away from the athway, he didn't have a problem with a berm on park
land. Adam Ilawkinson stated that it wo lid create problems with mowing. The propeliy owner
indicated that he would maintain the ben but John Simola noted that there were liability issues with
private construction on public property.
John Simola stated the berm has been put there and the deeision has to be made whether it can
remain. Riek Traver asked if the decisio was made not to allow a berm, what would happen. John
Simola replied that the berm would have 0 be removed and the area seeded or sodded. If the
Parks Commission allows the berm on pa k land, the berm would have to be constructed to certain
standards and the area restored. The pro Jerty owner asked if purchasing the land wasn't an
option would the Parks Commission cons del' a lease of the park land. Fran Fair felt the city would
face the same issues with leasing the pro erty to a city official or employee as they would with the
sale of the property to a city of1icial or em Jloyec.
In reviewing the property sketch, John Sit ola noted that the driveway is located very close to the
pathway and that could be a hazard. Fran Fair noted that if there was a hazard it was created by
the property owner in where he placed his driveway as he was aware of the location of the pathway.
City ordinance provides that the driveway cannot be closer than 3 leet to the property line. Based
on the property drawing there appears to b ] 0'-12' between the pathway and driveway. Some
4
.
.
.
Parks Commission Minutes - 6/26/03
Park Commission mcmbers voiced tl eir belief that since the pathway was there first, the pathway
was not the hazard. If there was a ha ard it was created by the placcmcnt of driveway which was
donc after thc pathway was in place. Larry Nolan stated he didn't have a problcm moving the
pathway as long as it was restored to its original condition.
RICK TRAVER MOVED TO HA VE TIlE PROPERTY OWNER REMOVE THE BERM AND
RESTORE TIIE AREA TO lTS ORI 'INAL CONDITION WITHIN 14 DAYS OF
NOTIFICATION. FRAN FAIR SEC NDED THE ManON. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
The proximity of the driveway to the athway will be evaluated to determine if any hazard does
exist. Adam Hawkinson questioned hy there was no erosion control or silt fencing in place as that
is an ordinance requirement. Hc also ~lt that the Building Departrnent should watch that the
driveway is properly placed. The con. ensus of the Parks Commission was that the pathway would
not be relocated and the driveway mus be placed on the property according to code.
6.
Park Maintenance Items:
Park Superintendent. Adam IlawkinsOl sublnitted a list of the work completcd. He reported that
there is still work rcmaining to be done on the Pioneer Park shelter but they are trying to gct as much
done as possible before the dedication ( f the shelter. Larry Nolan asked about the plantings at thc
old library site and Adam Hawkinson st'- ted they were replanted at the liquor store. Thc paving is
done at Rolling Woods park. Only inst' lIation of the backboard and hoops remains as well as some
soil work on both sides of the pathway.
8.
LJ ndatcs:
A. East Bridge Park - The Park COl mission will not make a linal decision on the trail until it is
known whether the city receives Trant funds. It was suggested that the trail alignment be
pushed more towards the river. . dam Hawkinson stated that alignment would require
construction of a retaining wall.
R. Pioncer Park Shelter - Parks Commission was adviscd of the dedication of the shelter which
is scheduled for July 10,2003 at p.m.
C. Update on Comprehensive Plan - 0 progress has been made on getting the update
completed. The Parks Commissi n discussed some of the areas of the plan they felt needed
to be updated.
D.
Ballfield Usc fix Youth Hockey - dam Hawkinson will set a meeting date of the
subcommittee. 1 Ie pointed out th t the grass still has not grown back in somc of the divots
lcft from the football leagues use f the fields.
5
.
.
.
E.
Parks Commission Minutes - 6/26/03
Entrance Sign - The sign area has been staked and construction has started on the boulder
wall. It is hoped to have the e 1trance sign in by Rivericst. There was discussion of the
landscaping work done for th adjacent property owner.
F. Mowing at Battle Rapids Park - Pran Fair has received calls from residents in that area
asking when mowing would b done. Adam Hawkinson replied that they had staked the
stumps so that could be remov d prior to mowing. Someone removed the stakes so the
stumps need to be restaked. B cause the area is abound with poison ivy, it will have to
sprayed before they can go bac' in and mark the stumps. After the stumps are marked,
they will be ground out and then mowing will be done.
G. Steve Andrews expressed his c neern about erosion along the banks at Ellison Park. I Ie
questioned whether it would be better not to mow along the river bank but allow the grass to
grow there in order to eurb the rosion.
9. Adjourn.
RICK TRAVER MOVED TO ADJOU N AT 6:30 P.M. FRAN FAIR SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNA IMOUSLY.
-"'--'---"-'-'--_.,--,-"-~.,--"-,.
Recording Secretary
6
.
PROJEC NARRATIVE
94 +/- acre evelopment by:
Bison Development Co., Inc. and Sylvia Dev. LP
Bison Development Company, Inc. and S Ivia Development LP are proposing to develop
94.62 acres ofland as a planned residenti I development containing a mixture of housing
styles and options. The goal is to appeal t a broad range of buyers who wish to make
Monticello their home.
Hokanson Development, Inc., doing busi ess as Bison Development Company, Inc.,
purchased 38.17 acres of land and Sylvia evelopment LP purchased an adj acent 56.45
acres. The two development companies re utilizing the same engineering design firm to
design the project as a unified developme t. At this time, we are requesting that the
property be annexed into the City; we are also seeking rezoning and concept Planned
Unit Development (PUD) approval. The evelopment is utilizing the PUD ordinance for
the purposes of integrating housing types within a single development. The development
does not require any deviation to the zoni g standards that were used in designing the
separate segments within the PUD.
.
The property is presently located in Mont'cello Township but is directly adjacent to the
current municipal boundary. Said prope y is included within the City's long range land
use plan for annexation into the City of onticello with a land use designation of low
density residential. The site is located ea t of County Road 117, north of 85th Street, west
of Fallon Avenue and south of the Klein arms development. The northern portion of the
property is traversed by overhead power ines and an underground gas line. An existing
single-family home, built in 1995, is loca ed on the property as well as a 40' x 52' pole
building. The house will remain and will be incorporated into the development plan; the
pole building will be removed.
The Klein Farms development has two st eet stubs to the property. Our conceptual
development plans include connection to these streets, as well as street entrances from
Fallon Avenue (1), 85th Street (1) and Co nty Road 117 (2). The two street connections
to C.R. 117 align with the streets in the l' cently approved Gold Nugget development
across the road. The Klein Farms develo ment, which is primarily located north of the
electrical easement, has a 3.5 acre undev loped portion that is located south of the
easement and adjacent to our property. e had discussions with the developer of Klein
Farms about the purchase of land outside the easement for inclusion within our
development. David Klein wished to sel the land under the easement as part of the
purchase, however an agreement on the urchase price could not be reached. Mr. Klein
has access to the buildable area from Fallon Avenue for his use and development.
.
The proposed rezoning request consists fR-l and PUD designations. The Bison parcel
is proposed to be entirely R-l lots; the S Ivia parcel is a combination of R-1 lots and a
PUD. The PUD portion of the developm nt is centrally located on the site with County
Road 117 to the east and the overhead p werline easement to the north. The PUD will
include attached townhomes consisting of2-6 unit buildings and single-family detached
townhomes (patio homes). The mixture fproduct types will provide an appealing
variety of owner-occupied housing. The rices of the attached units will vary depending
on the size and style of unit within each nit building. The detached units are typically
~
marketable to buyers who are empty nesters looking to downsize and eliminate some
maintenance responsibilities. The homes will be two-stories and designed with multiple
styles. The homes are built with several architectural design elements such as brick fronts
and varied pitches along the roofline adding to their distinguished appearance.
.
The property was designed to reflect the developer's strengths in Single-Family and
Townhome construction and to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. The
property owner's development plan needs to have an association of at least 40 plus patio
homes that can be integrated with single-family homes and townhouses. To create the
association, the development design needed to keep the patio homes in a general location
but also transition effectively with the whole development. The townhomes also needed
to be in an association and provide several styles to serve the rising demand in townhome
living. Th'e grouping and varied styles oftownhomes gives this area a unique and creative
element that integrates well with the rest of the development.
The primary goal was to meet the housing mix of the development plan and not to exceed
an overall density of three units per acre (284 units). This was achieved by first creating
the single-family lots on the east parcel and on the north and south side of the west
parcel. The second step was creating an association of patio homes. The remaining area
was to be used for a mixture oftownhomes. This area was to be adjacent to County Road
117 to provide efficient access for this higher density segment of the development. Using
these design parameters, the development resulted in the following housing mix:
R-l Single-Family Homes
Patio Homes
Town homes
140
42
90 ( 20 row units, 6 twins, 10 quads and 3 sixplexs)
.
Total Units
272
The lot design and setbacks that were incorporated into the development meet the
standards established in the R-l, R-2 and PUD Districts. The vast majority of the lots
exceed the districts' average standard. The Lot dimensions and setbacks that were used
are as follows:
R-l Single Family
City Standards Dev. Standards
Patio Home Lots
R-2A Standards Dev Standards
Lot Area:
Lot Width:
Setbacks
Front
Side
Rear
Corner
12,000 sf avg
80 ft avg
14,000 sf avg
80 ft + avg
7,500 sf avg
45 ft
9,000 sf avg
52 ft
30 ft
21 ft total
30 ft usable
20 ft street
6 ft int.
30 ft
21 ft total
30 ft usable
20 ft street
6 ft int
10 ft
6ft
10 ft
20 ft street
6 ft int
25 ft
6ft
20 ft
20 ft street
6 ft int
Townhomes Minimum Setbacks:
.
30 feet from the public road separating the townhomes from the patio homes
.
22 feet from public road R-O- W inside t e townhome area
25 feet from internal private streets
50 feet from County Road 117
30 feet from the Single-family homes to he south
25 feet between townhome buildings
Street Widths:
Public Streets R-O- W in SF and Patio Ho
Public Street R-O- Win Townhome:
Private Streets R-O- Win Townhome
60 feet
52 feet
24 feet
The final plan has a harmonious configur tion that met the design objectives of the
developers; a connective street system, co patibility to adjacent land uses, uniformity
along street corridors and meeting the city's housing density. The plan provides an
effecti ve use of the land without "shoe-ho ing" units for the sole purpose of achieving a
higher density. The R-l single-family lots ere designed at 12,000 square feet in size
with most lots being larger. The average 1 t size is 14,324 square feet.
.
The patio home segment of the PUD was odeIed under the standards of the city's R-2
district. The R-2 district has a minimum 10 size of 7,500 square feet and a minimum
width of 45 feet. Again, the owners did not design this segment to maximize the number
of lots but to meet their overall design plan The proposed lots are well above the
minimum R-2 standards having lot widths f 52 feet and an average lot size over 9,000
square feet. Sixteen of the lots are over 10, 00 square feet, which is an allowable
minimum area in the R-l district. The patio homes are proposed as part of the PUD for
the purposes of integrating housing types w'thin a single development. It is not being
used for the intention of reducing zoning st ldards.
The concept plan incorporates the direction fthe city's planning staff that were outlined
in a memo to Jay Roos of Hokanson Devel pment, property owner, dated March 12,
2003. This memo followed several discussi ns and plan reviews since the owners initial
meeting with city staff in the fall of 2002. St ff comments included, avoiding the use of
cul-de-sacs, uniformity of housing along ma n street corridors, creating a park or public
trail, a pleasing transition between housing t es and a connective street system that
matches the surrounding developments traffi patterns. The following changes were
made to the plan:
· Cul-de-sacs were removed except in the W comer. The existing street alignment
and power easement limited access avail bility to this developable area. The OWners
requested access from County Road 117 or this area but were denied by Wright
County.
.
· A public trail was added that provides a onnection between the Klein Farm
development to the proposed trail system ithin the Gold Nugget development to the
east. It is hoped that this trail would beco e part of a larger park system connecting
the large park in Klein Farm to a future ci y park south of the Gold Nugget
development.
. Utilizing public and private streets in the townhome segment provides an efficient
traffic pattern that limits traffic congestion. The internal private streets provide
emergency access and convenient trash collection services to all of the units.
.
. Harmonious transition of housing was accomplished by having R-l single-family lots
along the perimeter of the development to match existing and expected surrounding
land uses. R-l lots are also planned along main street corridors to create an overall
uniform look. Larger patio home lots were also created along main street corridors to
match the R-l lots. The only exceptions are the four-unit townhomes adjacent the
north south street corridor. The transition of the townhomes was softened by having
the townhomes face the road giving an appearance of twin homes. This also places
their front yards toward the main street, which matches the single-family design
throughout the entire development. Twin homes are also used along the periphery of
the townhome neighborhood that is adjacent to single-family homes.
City staff had also recommended that the development does not exceed a ratio greater
than one attached townhome to every two detached single-family homes. However, it
was unclear on how the detached patio homes should be calculated. Even though they are
a detached single-family lot, staff was uncertain if they should be considered as a
townhome type use. It was suggested that the city may divide the patio homes between
the R-l lots and the townhomes at a 50/50 split or some other type of hybrid calculation.
If the patio homes are split 50/50, 21 units added to each (161 SF and III townhomes)
the development would exceed the 2: 1 ratio. At this ratio, only 80 townhomes would be
permitted. However, ifthe patio homes are considered as detached single-family homes,
which they are, the development meets the recommended ratio.
.
As stated earlier, the average lot size for the patio home is 9,000 square feet. This is
slightly less than the minimum lot size in the R-l district and 1,500 square feet larger
than the R-2 lot size standard. The developers wanted the larger patio home lots to meet
the needs of their buyers and to integrate them into the predominately R-l development.
The owners can convert the patio homes into R-l lots by reducing lot sizes and widths
throughout the development, as allowed by the city's averaging standard, to create the
182 lots needed to meet the 2:1 ratio for 90 townhomes. However, they hope to have a
patio home housing mix to offer their buyers and to keep a more spacious feel throughout
the entire development that the larger lots create.
We believe that this development meets the intent ofthe city's comprehensive plan and
zoning standards. The use ofthe PUD enabled the owners to design the two parcels as a
uniform development harmoniously integrating streets, utilities, and housing within the
site and in compatibility with the surrounding land uses. The use of the PUD was not
used to relax zoning standards, which none were required, but for the purpose of
providing different housing needs. We hope that the benefits achieved by using the PUD
are not overshadowed by a strict ratio calculation but are seen as an efficient use of land
that meets overall density standards. As noted in the March 12, staff comment memo it
was staffs interpretation that there should be an approximate ratio of 2: 1 single-family
homes to townhomes. lfthe city deems it necessary to establish a specific ratio to define
the number oftownhomes, we ask that the single-family patio homes be considered as
single-family lots in your calculation.
.
.
.
'.
HOKANSON 0: VELOP1\;lENT, lNC,
HOKANSON 0 VELOPrvlENT, INC.
July 14, 2003
RE: Application submittal by Bison De e10pment Co. Inc. and Sylvia Dev. LP
annexation
rezomng
conceptual POD review
To Whom It May Concern:
The following land use application is submi ted for consideration at the Planning
Commission meeting of August 5. Enclose please find the following:
1.) Project Narrative
2.) One (1) 11" x 17" concept plan
3.) Four (4) full size concept plans
4.) Application from Bison Dev. Company ith application fee of$2,750
5.) Application from Sylvia Dev. LP with a plication fee of$2,750
6.) Surrounding property owners listing (35 ' radius) with mailing labels
7.) Annexation request
and
8.) Colored rezoning drawing
If any additional information is required, plea e feel free to call me at (763) 786-6177.
9174 Isanti Street N. E.. BI ine. \t!innesota 55449
(763) 786~3130. Fax (763)7Bd-9136
~~------._~-~-~~~
'1 :, '1 II
!: ~ ~ ~
..............~--...............
.""
'I
~
ij ij ij ij
~ ~ ~ ~
g
OS....I
i~
I
:,
~
II
~
'1 .\
~ :
"-
!--L
I
\
II
~!
:,
~
II
~
11
!:
II
~
':
'1
~
:,
~
1,
~
II
!l
.,
~
n
~
:,
~
II
~
11
!I
.1
!~
'.
"
~
.1
~
'1
!:
.1
~
'1
~
'1
!:
'1 .1
~ ~
'1
~
.,
t.
t
'1
f:
II
!l
.,
~~
'1
~
'.
"
~
11 .,.
~ p ~
t:
!~
'1
~
'I
!:
,I
~
.,
'"
"
~~
.1
1J
<
.;.. .ui
\{)I-"1
_0 ~
C (J
j
. D
f' 6-
o
~~. ~)
("I n
..". dl
>-
ll::
<".r:
~
~:
1
.::>
{/1
1-
o
.,)
j
~ ~ tJ
~ ~; ~
--
MONTICELLO PARKS DEPARTMENT
Work list July 24th, 2003
June 26th thru July 24th ,2003
· Finishing up Rolling Woods, enches and landscaping to do
· Watering of plants and trees
· River fest activities/parade
· General park maintenance
. Ballfield striping
· Installation of more trash cans
· Brushing along Otter Creek pa way
· General equipment maintenan e
· New boards on picnic tables
. Tree replacement
. · Routine cleaning of restroom fi cilities
· Ballfield maintenance
. Chipping orders
· Mulching trees and planting be s
. Tree inspections for residents
· Spraying for noxious weeds
· Chamber of Commerce landsc ped and concrete poured
. City sign installation number 1 done
· Dutch elm marking and remov Is
· Riverside Cemetery maintenan e
.
._'... I _. ,_____
Page 1 of I
. Dawn Grossinger
From: Lynn Giovannelli [Imgiovannelli@yahoocom
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 9:20 PM
To: Jeff O'Neill; mmgergen@aoLcom; jwingard bohlen.us
Cc: Rick Wolfsteller; John Simola; Bret Weiss (E mail); Steve Grittman (E-mail); Dawn Grossinger; Lori
Kraemer; gschlink@bruggemanhomes.com
Subject: Re: Sunset Ponds Update
Jeff --
Thanks for the updates. I am eager to understand ti leframes. I wil! be in contact with John Simola or Bret
regarding the County review timing and Bret regard ng the MN Dot comments and Pre-con scheduling as you
recommended. I will be at the parks meeting on Th rsday. See you then. Lynn
Jeff 0 'Neill <jeff.oneill@ci.monticello.mn.us> wro e:
Lynn
Here is the latest.
The deposit needed to complete the lift station des'gn and bidding process is $26J)OO.
MN DOT reported that they do not want Ill! materi I for the berm to be placed in the Freeway ROW. I
do not know how this decision affects
the grading plan -- question for Bret.
The County needs to OK the grading and drainage Ian because a portion of the site drains to Ditch 33.
Bret does not want to grant the grading permit unti the County gives the OK to the plan. I do not have a
good handle on the timing associated with County eview. Contact John Simola or Bret Weiss regarding
County meeting schedules etc.
Bret has been asked to have the Grading plan revie ed and ready for final comments prior to the Parks
Commission meeting on July 24th. You should aU nd this meeting.
A pre-con needs to be scheduled prior to initiation . f grading. Contact Bret to schedule the precon.
Jeff
Do you Yahoo!?
SBe Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
.
7/21/2003
.
.
.
Bohlen Su
and Engine
Sunset Ponds F a rk & Trail Calculations
Site Area 93.84 AC
Less Bauer 20.16 AC
Net Site Area 73.68 AC
Park Dedication 10% 7.37 AC
Total Park Shown:
Park West of Pipeline Esmt. (1) 2.92 AC
Park East of Pipeline Esmt.(3+4) 1.59 AC
Gasline Easement in Park (2) 1.20 AC
Infiltration Pond in Park (5) 0.55 AC
Trail Shown* 0.52 AC
Parkland net of gasline easement ami infiltration pond 4.51 AC
Gasline credit AC
Net Park Shown AC
* Including trail within 95th S. NE right of way
rveying
ering
-. -. - .-. --"'. -
7/24/2003
UI
W
~U1U1(/)U1U10:::
<(WWWWWU
00:::0:::0:::0:::0:::<(
UUUUU
<(<(<(<(<(<(tD
W N
O:::NOtDl'I)L()c.ci
<(m~~~~
N~O~O
:L -..J
0::: <(
1 A, 0'0' ~ ~ N to ..q- L() 6
.,; ~ '\ II f--
-==== \ \ ~ " ":>-
~ T I ci
I g.r;::- ___ T .--
.,.~ ......
f, ,TrN :1 \ \ r,-
: 'II ~ I l~t--
I 1,6. \ \.. ~~\ IL-_
I ~f\ III; ~. ~
I } I I I I /
i I I~ I : I I
, / i ~ .,. J /
<Q. I =+ /,,,< / 1 / /
iJ'ol ,If'. ~ I /
ooi ) L ~ I /
0: : \,/" - "R t(" I
O'\h""-f\ II I I r \
1\ ~ I'! ~ I \ \
I I/I){{I'I~
i 1",lil' J~
i - \r! i i ~,I ~ 'f,
: - ~~, '\
! I, /' \ I I
/1, I I \ J1
'vQ/s: I ,I I. ~ 6- I J'
Sd- 1 \\ \ 0 I b--
'fr' I \ I 0/
II ~ I "'-
0'0' i ~ ~ r I I :
i--+- II lOll
: --+- II I 'i-J
I 11(4; I I
i I \ I / 01
! I III ( /
I I~rr II-'W..... ( ""
: \ I '.r/I '---
I \I'~ _____ \
~O' ~ ~ '--- \
>---)~ III 'I-e' \
: I . ~ Ilia> 6" \
I~ I::. "~~ \
I I friO' II ~ ~ M \
, . VI, ~ <f. \ \
II-- l' I 0.... "'- \ \ <9"'6
i lr) " I;;; I \ \ \
I I I II --- -- \ \ N
i~ II ~ ~,~ 1 \ ~
il() J r:f'\ \ ; } )
i())Y I
Y.L
't
%
'<'1--
-....... ~
''-J ~
~
)
--J
')
'\j
n
~
~
;;l
~
0-
~
...
;;;
:il
0'0'
~
,
~'l3b""'"
0'0'
-DJ~ F ~---1
--.
"I
T/
,\
I>~(,
l--c
m' 9~OO-'1
: /
- '-.
I J. ) /
' ---I. / /
:r- J: I
/0, \ I ~ , hi ~~
/ 0,,,,0;; 'I'" 1 / -YJ\-- -!-J{_
/ 0'\ -:> r-- h I ~ I I
/ I " ~~~" / / }'
/ II '<t<L .' Ii! ff;. '1--.. ')\
~G ~r !l \N 7 Wi( I /
y: \ v I b- ; I jJ\ .~If '" r
Ct:\ \h \ \\ I
~ \ ( ~ ':< 1\ '- -~ lfJ
'l' I l'<1_~
\ \ 1.." ~ II \
-'-; /' '" '\ Yt-- IL h \;-\
) PI"'</' /N' J\ "r II ~ \ l";J:~ ~
r L'B) tf; tlt;r i
'\ \ \ / lJ I /'/11 I':). ___\
\\\ (,,~\ -'!W 0 / rt-Y / /
0)[:) ~:\::. J I I ;' I( ~
~Cb\~ / r-L-1 ~ ,l , ~ (
'\ / !l,W I ~ I 'Ft-r--
1\ "\ ~c~ 'l '-1 C.-
1'0 ,..:.- f I
'" '1.--'- / L\
/ 1\ Vi L'l] 8Ct'._ ~.
o ~ ( t.~~~ ~I--::~;~
~ I~~/ ,
~ -~
ll"""'M \ '~ __ . J.J -+---I. =
\ "-'06;,p:; · ~ ~1Jt;';
\ ~ <');J, \ \\ ,I r--7
\ r fA'\ Vl T ",--, I t / i
'M{. \ '~\ J'~, ~ I ~.",-7]J
/~ AJ'fo, "" '\ 0, ", ~ ,,__
\
1O