Planning Commission Agenda 10-05-2021AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October Sth, 2021- 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Alison Zimpfer, Eric Hagen and Teri Lehner
Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Hayden Stensgard, and
Ron Hackenmueller
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Special Meeting Minutes —July 6, 2021
b. Regular Meeting Minutes —August 7th, 2021
c. Regular Meeting Minutes —September 7t", 2021
C. Citizen Comments
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
E. Consideration to approve agenda
2. Public Hearing
A. Public Hearing — Consideration of request for Amendment to Planned Unit
Development for expansion of an existing Vehicle Sales & Rental use in a B-3
(Highway Business District).
Applicant: Ashbrook, Aeron
B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for
Accessory Structure exceeding 1,200 square feet and a Variance to Accessory
Structure square footage maximum of 1,500 square feet and Variance to side
yard setback for an existing single-family residential use in the Central
Community District, General Sub -District.
Applicant: McCarty, Clarence
C. Public Hearing — Consideration of request for an Amendment to the
Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development for Proposed Portable
Container Accessory Use.
Applicant: Burnham, Keith
D. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit
Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development and
Preliminary Plat Monticello Business Center Eighth Addition for Monticello
Meadows, a proposed 200-unit multi -family residential project in a B-4
(Regional Business) District.
Applicant: Baldur Real Estate, LLC
E. Public Hearing — Consideration of request for a Corrective Amendment to the
City of Monticello Official Zoning Map for Shoreland Overlay District
Boundaries.
Applicant: City of Monticello
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of Administrative Subdivision and Administrative Lot Combination
for two parcels located in the Central Community District, General Sub -District.
Applicant: Mosbart Properties, LLC
B. Consideration to appoint a Planning Commissioner to serve on the Chelsea
Commons Professional Engineering, Park & Open Space Planning and Landscape
Architecture Services proposal review team.
C. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report
4. Added Items
S. Adjournment
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 3, 2021 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, Eric Hagen, Teri Lehner, Andrew Tapper
Commissioners Absent: Alison Zimpfer
Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Schumann administered the oath of office to new commissioner Teri Lehner.
Chair Paul Konsor was absent. In the absence of the Chair, the meeting began at
with a quorum of three Commissioners at 6:00 p.m.
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPOINT ANDREW TAPPER AS VICE -CHAIR. MOTION
SECONDED BY TERI LEHNER. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
Chair Paul Konsor joined the meeting at 6:04 p.m. and presided for the
remainder of the meeting.
B. Consideration of armroving minutes
a. Special Meeting Minutes —July 6, 2021
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES —JULY
6, 2021. MOTION SECONDED BY TERI LEHNER. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
b. Regular Meeting Minutes — June 1, 2021
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES—JULY 6, 2021. MOTION SECONDED BY ERIC HAGEN.
MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
c. Special Meeting Minutes —July 6, 2021
Angela Schumann explained that the minutes for the joint workshop
from July 6, 2021 had not yet been prepared.
MINUTES TABLED TO NEXT MEETING.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
None.
E. Consideration to approve agenda
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION SECONDED BY
ANDREW TAPPER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 1 1 10
2. Public Hearing
A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Conditional Use Permit and
Variance to Size of an Accessory Use Structure — Major in the (Single Family
Residence) District. Applicant: William Swan
City Planner Steve Grittman explained that the applicant is proposing to add a
detached garage to the property currently developed with a single-family home,
including an attached garage. The proposed detached garage would exceed the
maximum 1,500 square feet of garage space on a residential parcel.
According to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, the subject site is zoned R-1
Single -Family Residence District and within the R-1 district, detached garages
are an allowed accessory use but are limited to a total floor area of 1,200 square
feet or 1,500 square feet by CUP. The total garage space being requested is
approximately 1,560 square feet, which will also require a variance.
For variances, the applicant is required to demonstrate that they have a
unique physical condition on the subject property that creates a practical
difficulty in putting the property to what would otherwise be considered a
reasonable use. Such conditions may not be caused by the applicant/owner,
nor may they be solely economic in nature. In the subject case, the applicant
has not identified any such condition. The primary argument put forth by the
applicant relates to the ability to fit the building within the required setbacks
and lot area. However, the City's standard, following state law, requires a
unique condition that interferes with property rights otherwise common in
the area. The City has not granted such variances on residential parcels in the
past, and the applicant's property is a typical single-family lot, although it is
somewhat larger than the average. Such larger lots are permitted to construct
larger accessory buildings than the base standard of 1,200 square feet, but
the cap is 1,500 by CUP, as discussed above.
Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit, based on findings in
the resolution, and the conditions of the approval as required in the
ordinance and in Exhibit Z. The lot is large enough to support additional
detached garage space and meets all setback requirements. However, staff's
recommendation includes a condition that the building result in a total garage
area of no more than 1,500 square feet when combined with the existing
attached garage. Staff recommends denial of the Variance to exceed the
1,500 square foot threshold. There are no apparent conditions that would
satisfy the uniqueness, practical difficulties, or reasonable use requirements
found in both the City's ordinance and state law.
Paul Konsor asked if we have an improved surface calculation that is used for
this type of zoning, so that we do not reset the standard. Grittman said that
does not come into play as this is not in the shoreland district.
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 2 1 10
Chairman Konsor opened the public hearing.
Applicant Bill Swan, 8526 Ebben Circle, commented that he did some research
on other lots in the neighborhood and found that at 1,500 square feet others
with smaller lot sizes were able to use around 6% of their lot size for
accessory structure and another resident was able to use 6.2% of the lot
size. Swan said that he is requesting to use 5.9% of the lot size for his
structure. The proposed structure is 24 x 32 and is not the biggest detached
garage in the area. There are outlines and drawings included showing the lot
and that the garage easily fits within the lot setbacks. He said that he is using
the garage to park his pontoon and his truck, and he said he is agreement
with the conditions of Exhibit Z.
Charlotte Gabler asked about the three lot examples provided by the
applicant, if they had a CUP approved. Staff confirmed that at least two
required CUPS with approvals.
Eric Hagen brought up concerns about setting a precedent for others coming
in requesting to go outside the city code for detached garage structures.
Swan said that most of his lot size is in the backyard and by putting the garage
on the back side of the lot it won't interfere with other neighbors or inhibit
their views in any way. Andrew Tapper said he's struggling with the fact that
the total square feet are over what is allowed by ordinance. The zoning
requirements as written, have nothing to do with lot size. Tapper says he
understands the applicant's reasoning but in following the ordinance it
doesn't meet requirements. Hagen said it really comes down to 1,500 square
feet and the fact that there's nothing in the code that allows a larger lot to
equal a larger structure in an R-1 zone. While the other examples use the
same or slightly higher percentage, they're still within the 1,500 square feet
requirement.
Angela Schumann said that this is the first variance request to go over 1,500
square feet in some time. Most applicants choose to meet the 1,500 square
feet when they learn of the requirements. She explained that the intended
principal use of a residential lot is a single-family home and that garages are
accessory uses. The ordinance limits the accessory use to maintain the
principal use as the single-family dwelling. While the city encourages
residents to store things inside and keep neighborhoods neat and tidy, there
is a balance.
Andrew Tapper said the only way to allow it would be to change the
ordinance to allow for a percentage of lots for accessory structures; however,
that may not be appropriate and is a mute -point at this time. Hagen voiced
concerns about allowing given sizes will then continue to increase in request.
Swan said he thinks the setbacks stop it and he is within the setbacks. Tapper
said the city must follow the ordinance as written and if this were allowed,
the city could be liable if someone would come back and sue to the city over
it.
Konsor asked Swan if he would suffer a hardship by reducing the building size
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 3 1 10
by 60 square feet. Swan said there's no hardship per se but when you build a
garage you just want extra space for storage. On that note, Konsor said the
rules state that a variance may be granted if there's a hardship but as stated,
there is no hardship.
Swan asked about what his next steps are with the CUP recommended for
approval and the variance denied. Grittman said that he would resubmit the
new plans (less 60 sq ft) and request a building permit, and there is no need
to go back to planning commission or council.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Konsor closed the public hearing.
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-025,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED ON
FINDINGS IN SAID RESOUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS
REQUIRED IN THE ORDINANCE AND IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY
ANDREW TAPPER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-026,
DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE EXCEEDING THE TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWANCE OF 1,500 SQUARE FEET ON A SINGLE-FAMILY
PARCEL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE RESOLUTION. MOTION SECONDED
BY ERIC HAGEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Amendment to the
Affordable Self -Storage PUD District for On -Site Storage Pods.
Applicant: Keith Burnham
Steve Grittman explained that the applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the
current self -storage property along the westerly boundary of the property to
store a series of "storage boxes" which are rented to individuals, and which are
then used to self -store goods on the properties of the renter. The applicant
indicates that the request is for a total of "approximately" 50 such storage
boxes, which he suggests will be empty, and not contain any private property
while they are stored at the Affordable Storage location. The applicant states
that the boxes would be stacked two -high. Box dimensions are 8 feet tall by 8
feet wide, and in lengths of 8 feet, 16 feet, and 20 feet. As such, the boxes could
be stacked to a height of 16 feet as proposed. It is noted that several of these
boxes have already been moved on to the site counter to the requirements of
the original PUD approvals and are currently in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance. A violation notice has been issued, with further enforcement halted
as the applicant moves through the amendment request process.
When the original PUD was granted for the self -storage facility on this property,
it was specifically noted that outdoor storage of materials on the site would not
be permitted. In Monticello, outdoor storage of materials is a use that is
specifically relegated to industrial districts. The reason for this is that such areas
often create a significant amount of noise and activity that is not compatible
with neighboring "low -scale" uses, and particularly problematic for single family
residential areas, where outdoor activities rely on relative quiet and
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 4 1 10
nonindustrial activity on adjoining property.
The applicant's materials do not specify, but the process by which the storage
boxes would likely be transferred to and from the site would be via truck and
some manner of lift, jack, or crane, increasing the heavy equipment activity and
noise on the site. This activity is expected in an industrial area, but not in a
commercial district, and not in proximity to a residential neighborhood.
There is one self -storage site in Monticello that was granted an interim use
permit for temporary storage boxes in the past. That site is the Storage Link
facility at Dundas Road and Cedar Street. The City granted the UP for this site as
a temporary measure to accommodate expansion of the facility. There are at
least three major aspects of this prior approval that differentiate it from the
Affordable Storage request as noted in the staff report included.
In summary, Grittman stated that the proposed storage box business on the
Affordable Storage site would introduce what is commonly considered to be an
industrial activity to the Affordable Storage PUD site. As noted, PUD requires a
finding that the proposed development meets and exceeds the City's land use
goals in exchange for relaxation of certain zoning requirements. Introduction of
an industrial use on property guided for "low -scale" commercial use, adjacent to
a low -density single-family neighborhood would be counter to this requirement.
Grittman indicated that staff recommends denial of the PUD Amendment.
Should the Planning Commission or Council desire to allow the use on the site,
including through interim use permit, conditions will be required to be
enumerated by the boards for Exhibit Z. Staff has provided a set of suggested
conditions in Exhibit Z and in the resolution drafted for approval. If allowed as
an interim use, such condition and timeline should be added to Exhibit Z.
Paul Konsor said the dilemma is that it changes business from residential self -
storage in nature to shipping containers and cranes, which is a different
business altogether. As a business owner, he said he understands putting the
two together. Andrew Tapper asked if the underlying zone, the 6-3 zone, allows
for outside storage. Grittman said it is not allowed, it is only allowed in an
industrial district with certain restrictions. Eric Hagen asked if the boxes stacked
two units' high are taller than the existing building. The boxes appear to be
slightly taller than the existing structures. In looking at the pictures.
Charlotte Gabler said that the shipping containers that are stacked there
currently look out of place and unattractive, especially from the road or to
residents living in the area. Gabler asked about the other site, Storage Link, and
the interim use permit. Grittman explained that those are single containers for
on -site storage and are there temporarily through interim use permit.
Andrew Tapper said his issue is the storage of empty boxes and that storage is
not allowed on this site.
Hagen asked about how a storage pod sales facility how would be classified.
Grittman explained that a similar example of that would be General Rental
where they store goods outside and renters pick and return those goods at that
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 5 1 10
site. This business model is different in that people aren't coming to view them,
pick them up or take them away. Another question brought up was if a request
came from a PODS company to set up shop and sell pods, is that B-3 allowable
or would that require a PUD. Schumann explained that facilities like PODS
typically have a warehouse facility where the PODS are built and kept in the
facility. On the other hand, if they wanted a display, it would be an accessory
use and there would be limitations per ordinance.
Chairman Konsor opened the public hearing.
Annie Decker from Decklin Group spoke on behalf of the applicant. She noted
that this is a common incidental use to a self -storage business. The pods are
empty, it is a temporary staging area and half the pods come assembled and
half don't, so they assemble those on site. B-3 allows for incidental light
manufacturing for an accessory use. In looking at this from the Comprehensive
Plan perspective, it states for the success of the commercial corridor to adapt to
allow businesses to change to meet market demand and this fits into that
model.
Decker said they read the conditions of approval and all the conditions are fine
with exception of the hours of business as he would like to open at 7 a.m. As
far as traffic, there would be no additional traffic or noise. The pods are moved
with a UTV like similar to that used by the RV dealerships, no cranes or other
heavy equipment is used. Decker said they are working with the applicant to
find warehouse space to store the empty pods. There will be a secondary
location where the pod is filled and stored. However, there is not currently an
off -site location so there is not an area to store them. The long-term plan would
be to have a warehouse but right now with the market demand the applicant
wants to launch the business from the Affordable Storage site.
Eric Hagen noted that if this is a short-term use thing, he could see an interim
use permit being OK like what storage link has; however, if it's a long-term thing
then we must weigh against a whole different set of long-term impacts. Decker
said she is fine with an IUP, but she doesn't know how long it will take to find a
suitable site and they have been looking for a while now.
Shawn Weinand, 4071 Chelsea Road West, addressed the Commission, noting
he is the 12-acre landowner to the south of the Affordable Storage property. He
owns the property being developed as Storage Link currently and the Groveland
property across the street. Weinand stated that he is against this approval as it
will open a can of worms in his opinion. He said that he worked hard to get the
Storagel-ink storage facility to follow the rules, and he totally enclosed Storage
Link with a tall fence that looks like a building. He noted that Affordable Storage
was originally required to put up a fence but then complained about it as it
would impede the snow removal process, so he did not have to do so.
Furthermore, Weinand said it would be allowing someone to just add on a
business that the city is not getting any tax dollars for. He res-stated his position
that it doesn't belong there and doesn't belong up against the neighborhood
and these boxes would be crammed into the snow storage areas.
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 6 1 10
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Konsor closed the public hearing.
Charlotte Gabler said she feels like it's a slippery slope to just violate the existing
PUD by doing what's not allowed and then asking for permission later. Tapper
noted that outdoor storage is a very hot button item even in the industrial area,
and he, too, has a problem with "well we did it and now we're asking for
forgiveness". The request is for outdoor storage, and it is not allowed, period.
Hagen agreed that the applicant is currently in violation, that the Planning
Commission is not responsible to enforce that, but that the outdoor storage is
not allowed.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-027 DENYING THE
PUD AMENDMENT BASED ON FINDING AS IDENTIFIED IN SAID RESOLUTION.
MOTION SECONDED BY ERIC HAGEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Preliminary and Final Plat for
a Car Wash Facility in the B-3 (Highway Business) District
Applicant: RRG Holdings, LLC
Steve Grittman explained that the applicants are seeking a combination of
several remnant parcels into a single platted parcel. The platting includes
abandoned right of way for previously designated street alignments and platting
of required right of way to accommodate existing road alignments and required
drainage and utility easements. The applicants will then construct a car wash
facility on the newly platted lot, a permitted use in the B-3, Highway Business
District.
The applicant is establishing a plat consisting of one building lot, but which is
comprised of a series of parcels, easements, and former street rights of way.
The property has been utilized as a single business parcel for many years,
despite the complex legal descriptions underlying the use. At least five separate
property Identification numbers (PIDs) make up the property in question. The
plat consolidates this confused description by eliminating reference to the
former rights of way and clearing the title for new development. In addition, it
allows for the proper legal description and dedication of the Cedar Street and
Dundas rights of way as now constructed.
The property owner has petitioned for vacation of the rights of way as needed
to facilitate the plat as proposed. The applicant will be required to reestablish
drainage and utility easements and plat right of way along Dundas and Cedar as
required by the City Engineer.
Because the location is not near residential property, the external impacts are
not expected to raise any issues. The applicant has provided support for the
traffic lanes as proposed, and most of these items will be addressed as a part of
the formal site plan review that accompanies building permit application. As a
permitted use, the development is an expected facility in the B-3 District, with
expected impacts.
From a site planning perspective, the primary driveway entrance to the site is
the only departure from common development standards. The purpose of the
multiple -lane entrance is to separate traffic between those customers
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 7 1 10
continuing into and through the wash facility and those entering the parking
area only. Staff would suggest that these driveways are marked well to
distinguish lane locations and help drivers entering the facility to find the proper
lane. The City Engineer has also reviewed this proposed configuration and made
comments in their letter accordingly.
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat. As discussed, the plat is a
significant improvement over existing conditions, and will result in a compliant
B-3 parcel supporting redevelopment consistent with the City's zoning
requirements and Comprehensive Plan objectives. This recommendation
incorporates the conditions identified in Exhibit Z. The final plat will be reviewed
by the City Council for conformance to the preliminary plat.
Chairman Paul Konsor opened the public hearing.
No public was present to address the Commission on the item.
Paul Konsor asked if this is going to be right across from the city land that is
slated for parkland within Chelsea Commons. Grittman noted that there are
plans that may shift the park around the Chelsea Commons complex. If that
happens, then this would be across from commercial property. Charlotte Gabler
asked if the applicant is aware that we may close part of Dundas Road. Grittman
said that we aren't closing Dundas at this location and that small leg out to TH
25 stays. Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on what is requested of Planning
Commission, just talking about the preliminary plat at this time and not the
design. Grittman confirmed that the Planning Commission's responsibility at
this time is limited to the preliminary plat review only as the use itself is
permitted. Zoning compliance will be reviewed at building permit.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-028,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, BASED ON FINDINGS
IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IDENTIFIED IN
EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY ERIC HAGEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
D. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Ordinance Amendment to
allow Excavation of Materials in the B-3 and B-4 Districts by Interim Use
Permit
Steve Grittman explained that the City is contemplating the potential extraction
of sand and other aggregate resources as a part of an implementation plan for
the Chelsea Commons project. Currently, the City's zoning ordinance only allows
"Extraction of Materials" in the Agriculture -Open Space or Industrial zoning
districts. The proposed amendment would establish a specific set of
requirements for extraction in the B-3 and B-4 districts, where sand and gravel
mining may have greater impact.
There are two primary proposed changes to the current code. The first is a
reference correction in the existing language which no longer points to a place
in the City Code, following the recent recodification of the City Code. The second
relates to the changes being proposed that would allow extraction of minerals in
the B-3 and B-4 Districts.
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 8 1 10
Finally, the City attorney has suggested that the excavation of a public
stormwater pond and accompanying facilities may be considered an allowed
public use, potentially exempt from what is often a private mining operation.
This ordinance is designed to ensure that the City has covered possible
eventualities for creation of the Chelsea Commons project and is intentionally
narrowly written. City staff recommends the amendment to the zoning
ordinance as presented.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the city hires a contractor to excavate on their behalf if
it's still the city's permit. Grittman said that is correct. Paul Konsor asked why
change the zoning for this parcel as opposed to a blanket zoning change.
Grittman said that the city doesn't regulate by parcel but rather we regulate by
district for use. While the intention for this change is for this project, it would
apply to both the B-3 and B-4, but subject to the strict provisions outlined in the
proposed amendment. Paul Konsor wondered if we are leaving open for others
and Eric Hagen said he thinks the red tape that would stop that is that it has to
be approved by the City and relate to governmental uses. Gabler inquired
about the Drinking Water Supply Management Area. Grittman responded that
should be part of the city's review of any permit, along with any other
regulations, such as overlay regulations.
Chair Paul Konsor opened the public hearing.
No public was present to address the Commission on the request.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-030
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY
PAUL KONSOR. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of finding that land acquisition of Outlot A, Cedar Street Addition
by the Citv of Monticello is in conformitv with the Monticello 2040
Comprehensive Plan
Angela Schumann said the Planning Commission is asked to consider adopting a
resolution finding the acquisition of Outlot A of Cedar Street Addition by the City
of Monticello is in conformance to the City's Monticello 2040 Comprehensive
Plan.
The approximately 35.6 acre subject acquisition parcel is guided "Commercial
Residential Flex" in the Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned B-3 (Highway
Business) and B-4 (Regional Business) District. Over the last 7 months, the City
has been working on developing a small area plan (SAP) known as "Chelsea
Commons", which includes this parcel within its geographic scope.
The initial concept prepared for Chelsea Commons combines a varied mix of
commercial services, residential living opportunities, and public open space
amenities, consistent with the Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation chapter
of the 2040 Plan.
The City's acquisition of the parcel is intended to support and facilitate the
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 9 1 10
"Chelsea Commons" plan, specifically providing the City with additional control
over the timing of the core public improvements, including the water feature,
parkland, and transportation elements of the site. Through ownership, the City
will also be able to strategically manage private development consistent with the
SAP's goals.
The parcel is currently privately owned and has been used for agricultural
purposes for over 25 years. The City Council authorized a purchase agreement on
July 12th, 2021 for this site, contingent on Commission's review for
Comprehensive Plan conformance. City staff supports the acquisition and sees it
as consistent with the Monticello 2040 Plan.
Angela Schumann informed the Commission that there will be a Special Joint
Workshop on Thursday evening at 5 p.m. to gather final feedback of the four
primary components of the Chelsea Commons plan that will be presented to a
public hearing in September. Eric Hagan thanked Angela Schumann for providing
such detailed background information in her staff report.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-029 FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF OUTLOT A, CEDAR STREET ADDITION BY THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO 2040
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY ERIC HAGEN. MOTION CARRIED,
4-0.
B. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report as
included in the agenda.
4. Added Items
None.
5. Adjournment
[Alt"I ►[e1elDI0111:1►"e110:11>i 1A IA
Recorder: Angela Schumann
Approved: September 7, 2021
Attest:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 10 1 10
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 7, 2021 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, Eric Hagen, Teri Lehner, Alison Zimpfer
Commissioners Absent: Andrew Tapper, Council Liaison Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Chair Paul Konsor called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with a quorum of four
commissioners.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Special Meeting Minutes —July 6, 2021
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO TABLE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES —
JULY 6, 2021. MOTION SECONDED BY ERIC HAGEN. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
b. Regular Meeting Minutes — August 7, 2021
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO TABLE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES —
JULY 6, 2021. MOTION SECONDED BY ERIC HAGEN. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
None.
E. Consideration to approve agenda
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION SECONDED BY ALISON
ZIMPFER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
2. Public Hearing
A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Conditional Use Permit for an
Automotive Wash Facility in a BARegional Business) District. Applicant: Rosa
Morquecho/Take 5 Car Wash
City Planner Steve Grittman said that the applicants are requesting a conditional
use permit to construct an automotive wash facility (car wash) upon a 1.24-acre
undeveloped lot located at 4008 Deegan Court. "Automotive wash facilities" are
listed as an allowed conditional use in the B-4, Regional Business District and are
therefore subject to conditional use permit processing. The proposed car wash
building measures 4,146 square feet in size.
Planning Commission Minutes — September 7, 2021 Page 1 1 9
The proposed car wash is to be finished primarily in brown and white concrete
masonry units (CMU's). The concrete masonry units are to comprise 47 percent
of the exterior wall area of the car wash. Metal panels of varied colors are also
proposed as building finish materials. The panels are to be red, aluminum and a
unique blue (salty dog) and are to comprise 26 percent of the exterior wall area.
The remaining approximate 26 percent of the exterior wall area is to be devoted
to doors and glazing.
The proposed finish materials are generally consistent with building finish
materials which exist upon the office building located north of the site and the
bank located to the south. The proposed finish materials are also consistent
with the City's building material requirements as provided in Section 4.11(D) of
the Zoning Ordinance. Staff would note, however, that the building presents a
uniform monolithic face to Highway 25. There is virtually no glass and the wall is
dominated by a single color material. Staff would recommend that spandrel
glass windows be added to the east building wall facing Highway 25 to create a
more attractive exposure, rather than the "back wall" view of the site.
The submitted site plan illustrates stacking space for 17 vehicles. No information
has however, been provided by the applicant related to the number of vehicles
which can be washed during the referenced 30-minute period. As a condition of
conditional use permit approval, the applicant must demonstrate compliance
with this requirement.
As a condition of conditional use permit approval, the submitted grading and
drainage plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
The subject site is to be accessed via a 24-foot-wide driveway from Deegan
Court. The proposed single access point is not expected to create any traffic
movement conflicts.
The applicant has submitted a highly detailed sign plan which calls for a
freestanding sign in the southeast corner of the site, wall signs on all building
facades and five directional signs near drive lanes and parking areas. As a
condition of conditional use permit approval, all proposed signs will be subject
to sign permit.
Recognizing that the subject site is bordered on all sides by commercial uses,
noise impacts are not expected to be as significant as they may be if the site
bordered residential uses. The applicant has not submitted any information
related to noise reduction efforts. As a condition of conditional use permit
approval, noise issues, particularly noise generated by the proposed vacuum
station area, should be addressed by the applicant.
Recognizing access limitations along State Highway 25 which borders the subject
site on the east, access from the Deegan Court cul-de-sac provides the only
access opportunity available to serve the car wash site.
Planning Commission Minutes —September 7, 2021 Page 2 19
Although staff believes the landscaping to be generally consistent with the
quantity minimum requirements of the code, three additional considerations
are recommended. First, the trash enclosure would benefit from additional
screening as noted previously. Second, the ground cover material in the island
that surrounds the trash enclosure area is not identified on the plan. This should
be added as a condition of approval. Third, a line of evergreen shrubs and/or
trees is recommended for the north boundary to screen the exit dryer location
from the clinic building to the north for both noise and headlight glare.
Grittman referred to Exhibit Z and reviewed the conditions for the Conditional
Use Permit. There are a total of 14 conditions outlined in Exhibit Z.
Chairman Konsor asked about architectural appearance and standards at the
city regarding building materials. Grittman said the building materials meet base
code requirements, but the recommendation is related to an architectural
impression of the building as the backside of the building faces TH 25. Grittman
said while there is no code related to window amounts on buildings in this
district, because it's a conditional use permit, architectural enhancements to the
building are appropriate.
Chairman Konsor had concerns with the trash enclosure section being so far
away from the vacuum area and whether there would be trash receptacles by
the vacuuming areas. Grittman noted that the plan the trash enclosure is for the
business and employees to access, and the question about receptacles by the
vacuum area should be directed to the applicant.
Chairman Konsor opened the public hearing.
Jared Hanneman, Corporate Real Estate Manager with Driven Brands,
representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. In terms of the trash
receptacles near the vacuums he does not see that as a problem and will check
with the applicant to see that those are noted. The applicant agrees to the
conditions identified in Exhibit Z. Chairman Konsor asked if the applicant was
aware that there was another applicant at the Planning Commission last month
to put in a car wash on the other side of TH 25. Hanneman said they are aware
of that and that it is not a problem for them.
Cory Kampschroer introduced himself. He stated that he is one of the investors
in the other car wash referenced by Chairman Konsor. Kampschroer said his
question is not directed at Take 5 or other competition, but rather directed to
the city, asking what their strategic comprehensive plan or vision is for this
overall corridor. He noted that their car wash is in a different zoning district than
that proposed here. The owners of his car wash are local, including a manager
of Stellis Health. They know the community well. As they prepare to make their
investment into the community, he's questioning if the city will allow a number
of car washes in the area and that is a concern for them as they look to invest
close to $5 Million in this project. Kampschroer said in no way is he trying to
stifle any competition but just curious of the city's overall vision.
Planning Commission Minutes —September 7, 2021 Page 3 19
In fairness, this type of carwash is a new concept where volume is key. He said
he is happy to answer any questions. He feels confident of where they're at with
their project to break ground in two weeks.
Commissioner Hagen said that the city is looking at growth and redevelopment
as a whole. There is a small area plan for Chelsea Commons that will drive a lot
of traffic through the area, as well as the TH 25 corridor. The car wash usage
goes along with the comprehensive plan and redevelopment in the commercial
corridors. As far as the number of car washes allowed, the answer is that the
Planning Commission reviews every application that comes in, and one isn't
given preference over another. Commissioner Hagen said that the city doesn't
look at it from the developer's standpoint on whether it's a risky investment for
them, but rather look at it as whether it is a good use of the land, that it
supports the growth envisioned by the city and if it is something that the city
would support with the comprehensive plan.
Shawn Weinand introduced himself. He is a property owner across TH 25. He
said that he understands the city's point. His question is when changing from a
B3 to B4 zoning does this building fit in the neighborhood of the buildings
surrounding it, does it devalue the properties that are next door, or does it
maintain the architectural continuance of what is in the neighborhood. He
commented that he would like the city to take a look at the building and make
sure it fits the corridor. He added that architectural enhancements to the
building would be his suggestion.
Commissioner Hagen said that as a part of the review for this request City staff
has made a number of notations about how this request does align with the
conditional use permit. While the back of the building needs enhancement, the
applicant has said that they are willing to spruce that up and make it look nice.
Commissioner Hagen said that in his opinion, based upon the recommendations
by the city, it does fit in the area and the neighborhood along the highway.
With no other questions or comments, Chairman Konsor closed the public
comments.
Planning Commission discussion proceeded. Commissioner Zimpfer and
Commissioner Lehner both said that in their opinion it will fit in with the area
along the highway corridor and that it won't look out of place, especially with
the additional architectural enhancements and landscaping around it as
required by the conditions.
Chairman Konsor said that the request is a planning & zoning issue. It is not the
Commission's duty to determine whether or not it's a smart business plan or
how it may affect the competition.
Chairman Konsor noted that Item 1 of Exhibit Z doesn't go into detail on the
building fagade improvements. He questioned how involved the commission is
in that process or if that is a staff decision. He noted that there are higher end
buildings around it and then you have a blank building. To make it fit in should
that item be more specific. Additionally, he asked if there is a precedent for this
type of request.
Planning Commission Minutes —September 7, 2021 Page 4 19
Grittman said that past practice is that it is a staff decision. He also noted that
this is fairly routine in these types of requests, and the character of the area is
the definer of what those improvements should look like, and it should be
consistent of the setting that it's placed in. If Planning Commission wants to be
more specific, then that is a recommendation that could be brought to City
Council. The goal will be to make it look like it's presenting itself to the highway
side even though it's the back of the building. Grittman said the process is for
the applicants to design that side of the building to meet what we think the
intent is and if they haven't gotten close enough, then it is sent back with more
specific comments.
Going back to the public comment about the city needing two car washes and
whether this fits, Commissioner Hagen compared it to when you see a gas
station on one side of the highway getting traffic going in that direction and a
gas station on the other side getting traffic from the other direction. The same
goes for restaurants across the street from one another. In looking at the long-
term plan in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan & Vision, we want to use the land in
the city in ways that will encourage growth, support growth and to put things
where they belong. Commissioner Hagen said that in looking at the Chelsea
Commons side with the car wash and how it fits, the same thing can be said on
th4e other side of the highway. It makes sense that if you're waiting for your
movie to start or if you're getting food to go at a restaurant, you can then go
wash your car while you're waiting. He's sure that both businesses did their
research. It not only supports growth but makes sense to why we would
approve this.
Paul Konsor thanked staff for doing a great job on reviewing the details. Angela
Schumann asked to make one additional notation on Exhibit Z. Item 6 requires
the applicant to apply for sign permits for all signs and in addition to that they
also must comply with the sign ordinance. In the ordinance there is a notation
on setbacks for the pylon but also that the pylon materials must be consistent
with the building and should be wrapped in some form and would like to include
that language that require the pilon itself complies with the sign ordinance.
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-031,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED ON
FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND ON THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN
EXHIBIT Z WITH THE ADDED CLARIFICATION ON ITEM 6 AS NOTED BY ANGELA
SCHUMANN. MOTION SECONDED BY ALISON ZIMPFER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-
0.
Schumann informed the commission that their recommendation will be
brought to the City Council on 9/27/21 for approval.
Planning Commission Minutes —September 7, 2021 Page 5 19
B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Rezoning to Planned
Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development, and
Preliminary Plat for 94 Townhome Units in the B-4 (Regional Business) District.
Applicant: Monticello Meadows Townhomes, LLC/Peter Stalland
Angela Schumann said that no action is required as this is an officially closed
application. The applicant has formally withdrawn their applications related to
the proposed townhome project. Per their letter of withdrawal, they intend to
submit a new application for apartment proposal. Staff have provided a
confirmation letter to the applicant noting that the apartment proposal will be
considered a new application.
C. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Interim Use Permit to
allow Extraction/Excavation of Materials in a B-3 and B-4 Districts. Applicant:
City of Monticello
Steve Grittman explained that the City (the applicant) is seeking an Interim Use
Permit (IUP) to conduct an excavation/extraction in a B-4 zoning district over the
next several months to remove up to 100,000 cubic yards of sand in a portion of
the subject property, which is within the Chelsea Commons planning district.
The proposed excavation would be coordinated with City objectives for the
stormwater aspect of the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan, currently in draft
form and scheduled for formal review later this month.
The applicant, which is the city's designated contractor, indicates that they
would scrape the topsoil from the excavation area and store it on the east side
of the excavation site. The topsoil would be stabilized and seeded to minimize
erosion from that location. The location of the topsoil pile may change slightly
depending on approval from the property owner.
The contractor's plan to haul the sand material to a construction site in western
Hennepin County. The city recently adopted an Interim Use Permit process to
regulate temporary extraction of materials such as this.
As a part of the application, the applicant's contractor has provided a proposed
excavation operation that would begin as early as September 13, 2021, and last
through the season until winter conditions made it impractical. No other
activities (such as concrete mixing, crushing, etc.) are planned for the project.
Dust control has been addressed, including for the trucking element of the use,
as well as for the topsoil storage.
The contractor would access the site via Cedar Street on the west, from Dundas
Road and Highway 25. One aspect of this request will be a return route for the
trucks after loading — they cannot turn south onto Highway 25 from Dundas, so
a return route must be planned that will avoid competition with other traffic or
roadway improvements. The City Engineer should identify the appropriate route
for out -bound trucks under load.
Planning Commission Minutes —September 7, 2021 Page 6 19
The contractor has provided information on planning for rodent control and fire
protection as a part of their amended application materials. Hours of operation
are proposed to be 7:00a to 7:00p, Monday through Saturday, consistent with
City code allowances. A restoration plan for the excavated area is to be worked
out with the City Engineers to accommodate the excavation requirements of the
Chelsea Commons stormwater/lake facility.
The purpose of an Interim Use Permit is to accommodate temporary land uses
in the period before permanent use and development is to occur. In this case,
the removal of the granular materials from the site is both a component of the
City's Chelsea Commons project, as well as an important recovery of valuable
materials for construction purposes to minimize longer hauls from farther
distances. It is consistent with Wright County's aggregate materials policies to
ensure capture of those materials before development makes their recovery
impossible or impractical.
The contractor will maintain access from Cedar Street, a commercial street,
minimizing direct impacts to the residential areas east and south of the subject
site. By limiting the hours of operation to the stated 7:00a — 7:00p, the activities,
and the attendant noise and lights, will be essentially a daytime occurrence.
Grittman reviewed the conditions identified in Exhibit Z. There area total of 8
conditions to be met.
Commissioner Hagen asked about the noise and if it's set in stone that they will
be working 6 days/per week 7a-7p or if that's the maximum number of days per
week. Grittman said that it is not necessarily six days/week as it will be limited
due to weather delays, etc.
Chairman Konsor asked about the location and asked for clarification on if this a
several step project as properties are attained. Grittman said that it's a several
step project as we find users for the materials. The city is still in the process of
bringing the Chelsea Commons SAP in a more formal way. Rather than paying to
haul the materials off site, doing this work now with the negotiated deal to haul
the materials is better for the city financially.
Chairman Konsor asked about the are circled and if that is the specific location.
Grittman clarified that it is that general area but that it could be a different
shape as the mining progresses. Konsor asked about safety precautions, and if
temporary fencing will be required around the area. City Engineer Matt Leonard
said that there is not a fencing requirement. The requirement is for a 3 to 1
slope which is a gradual slope and not a big deep hole.
Chairman Konsor opened the public hearing.
Hearing no public comment, Chairman Konsor closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hagen noted that there should be a correction on Item 6 to say
"...noted in condition 4" not condition 3.
Planning Commission Minutes —September 7, 2021 Page 7 19
Chairman Konsor asked for an explanation of what a 3 to 1 slope is. Leonard said
that is a 1-foot of fall over a 3-foot rise. He said that Mn/DOT ditches are a
4 to 1 slope and that 3 to 1 is a safer gradual slope.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-032,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT, BASED ON
FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z
WITH THE CHANGE TO EXHIBIT A, ITEM 6 AS NOTED IN THE DISCUSSION.
MOTION SECONDED BY ERIC HAGEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
D. Public Hearine — Consideration of a Reauest for Comarehensive Plan
Amendment for adoption of the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan.
Applicant: City of Monticello
City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission table action and continue
the public hearing on the item to September 27th, 2021, and to call for a special
meeting of the Commission on September 27th, 2021 at 4:30 PM.
Tabling of the item is requested to allow staff additional time to review the
document internally, as well as the ability to bring the document forward to the
Parks, Arts and Recreation Commission of the City.
The draft plan includes a significant level of public amenities for which PARC
input is desired prior to consideration for adoption.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing and asked for public comments. No
comments were made.
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION AND CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE
REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ADOPTION OF THE
CHELSEA COMMONS SMALL AREA PLAN TO SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2021. MOTION
SECONDED BY ALISON ZIMPER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER
27TH, 2021 FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR ADOPTION OF THE CHELSEA COMMONS SMALL AREA PLAN.
MOTION SECONDED BY TERI LEHNER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report as
included in the agenda.
4. Added Items
None.
5. Adjournment
ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:09 P.M. MOTION SECONDED
BY TERI LEHNER, MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Planning Commission Minutes — September 7, 2021 Page 8 1 9
Recorder: Angela Schumann
Approved: September 7, 2021
Attest:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Minutes —September 7, 2021 Page 9 19
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/2021
2A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Planned Unit
Development for expansion of an existing Vehicle Sales & Rental use in a B-3 (Highway
Business District). Applicant: Ashbrook, Aeron
Prepared by: Northwest Associated
Meeting Date:
Council Date (pending
Consultants (NAC)
Commission action):
10/05/2021
10/25/2021
Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building and Zoning Official,
Project Engineer, Fire Marshal
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow an addition to an automotive detail service
building in a B-3, Highway Business District.
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021-034, recommending approval of the Planned
Unit Development Amendment, based on findings in said resolution and on the
Conditions identified in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021-034, based on findings identified in
the report and following the public hearing.
3. Motion table action on Resolution No. 2021-034, subject to additional information from
applicant and/or Staff.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: Legal Descriptions:
Lot 1, Block 1, Carcone Addition & Lot 1, Block 2, Carcone Addition
PIDs:
155-217-001010 & 155-217-002010
Addresses:
1001 State Highway 25 South & 103 Sandberg Road
Planning Case Number: 2021-038
Request(s): Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow an addition to an
automotive detail service building in a B-3, Highway Business
District.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/2021
Deadline for Decision
Land Use Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable:
Current Site Use
November 23, 2021 (60-day deadline)
January 22, 2022 (120-day deadline)
Regional Commercial
B-3, Highway Business
The purpose of the B -3, Highway Business District is to provide
for limited commercial and service activities and provide for and
limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent
commercial and service activities.
The Zoning Map detail below illustrates the location of the two
parcels of land which comprise West Metro Buick GMC.
WEST METRO
Freeway Bonus Sign Overlay District
Automobile Sales, Display, and Service
Surrounding Land Uses: North: Interstate 94
East:
Automobile Dealerships
South:
Childcare Facility
West:
Vacant Commercial
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/2021
Project Description: In response to increased service department needs, the applicant
wishes to construct an addition to the automobile dealership's
detail service building located on the 1.2-acre west parcel. Two
building addition alternatives have been submitted. "Plan A" calls
for a single -story 2,736 square feet service bay addition to the
existing 4,495 detail building. "Plan B' calls a two-story addition,
with the same building footprint as "Plan A," but would include
office space above the service bay addition.
Background: The west parcel, upon which the building addition is proposed,
was previously granted an amendment to accommodate a small
detached photo studio building in the southwest corner of the
site. The new addition would extend toward the south from the
existing building, resulting in only a slight impact on site
circulation around the property. No other changes to the site are
proposed.
ANALYSIS
Planned Unit Development Amendment. In this case, the purpose of the PUD amendment is
to accommodate a proposed expansion to the automobile dealership's detail service building
located on the west parcel (103 Sandberg Road).
Site Access and Circulation. No changes to site access have been proposed. The expanded
detail service building would continue to be accessed via the existing entrance along Sandberg
Avenue.
The area of the site upon which the building addition is proposed is presently used for
automobile parking/staging (see aerial photograph). In this regard, the existing vehicle
circulation routes on the site will be maintained.
Off -Street Parking. The submitted site plan illustrates only eight off-street parking spaces, two
of which are reserved as accessible stalls. Recognizing that numerous vehicles have historically
been parked or stored on the site, it is recommended that the site plan be modified to depict
intended off-street parking areas and related drives aisles.
The potential addition of 2,736 square feet of new office space upon the site, as proposed in
"Plan B," could generate a need for additional employee parking. The applicant has indicated
no new employees are being added corresponding to the addition and therefore no additional
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/2021
employee parking is required at this time. However, the applicant has indicated that should it
be necessary, employee parking exists off site as needed.
Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed building addition meets applicable B-3 Districts
setback requirements.
Required Setback
Proposed Setback
East Front Yard
30 feet
63 feet
South Side Yard
10 feet
33 feet
West Rear Yard
30 feet
77 feet
Maximum Height. Within B-3 zoning Districts, a maximum principal height of 30 feet is
allowed. Greater structure heights are however, allowed by conditional use permit.
"Plan B," which includes a second story office component, illustrates a proposed building height
of 30' - 2". As a condition of planned unit development amendment approval, it is
recommended that the height of the building be reduced to 30 feet.
Finish Materials. According to the Ordinance, buildings in B-3 Districts must adhere to the
following material requirements, per Section 4.11 (D):
(2) Buildings in these zoning districts shall maintain a high standard of architectural and
aesthetic compatibility with conforming surrounding properties to ensure that they will
not adversely impact the property values of the abutting properties and shall have a
positive impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare, insofar as practicable.
ii. Metal exterior finishes shall be permitted only where coordinated into the overall
architectural design of the structure, such as in window and doorframes, mansard roofs
or parapets, and other similar features, and in no case shall constitute more than 15% of
the total exterior finish of the building.
While the applicant has indicated that finish materials will match the existing detail service
building, specific finish materials have not been specified. As a condition of planned unit
development amendment approval, it is recommended that the submitted building elevations
be modified to specify (document) intended finish materials. The existing building is a
combination of white -painted brick and concrete block.
Lighting. The applicant has indicated that the only change to existing site lighting will be wall -
mounted LED lighting which will be affixed to the building addition. Such lighting is not
4
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/2021
expected to increase existing footcandle readings which exist along shared property lines and
the centerline of Oakwood Drive.
Signage. The applicant has indicated that all new signage will match existing site signage and
that new wall signs may be provided on the south fagade of the proposed building addition.
The applicant has also indicated that "numbers" may be provided on the overhead doors of the
various vehicle bays.
As a condition of planned unit development amendment approval, all new site signage shall be
subject to sign permit processing.
Grading, Drainage and Utilities. The entire site is presently hard surfaced. In this regard, the
proposed building addition is not expected to increase site drainage. If any drainage
issues/concerns presently exist on the site, the planned unit development amendment process
does provide the City with an opportunity to address such issues. The City Engineer's office has
indicated that detailed drainage information shall be provided at building permit.
Issues related to site grading, drainage and utilities are therefore subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Staff recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow either
"Plan A" or Plan B," as proposed by the applicant upon the 103 Sandberg Road site, subject to
the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2021-034, Planned Unit Development Amendment
B. Aerial Image
C. Applicant Narrative
D. Plan A w/No Upper Office — Site, Building Elevations and Floor Plan
E. Plan B w/ Upper Office — Site, Building Elevations and Floor Plans
F. Colored Building Rendering
Z. Conditions of Approval
5
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/2021
EXHIBIT Z
Planned Unit Development Amendment
West Metro Buick GMC
Lot 1, Block 1, Carcone Addition & Lot 1, Block 2, Carcone Addition
1001 State Highway 25 South & 103 Sandberg Road
1. The site plan shall be modified to specify intended off-street parking areas and related
drives aisles.
2. The applicant address, to the satisfaction of the City, the handling of increased parking
demand which may result from the addition of 2,736 square feet of new office space
included in the "Plan B" development option. This dedicated parking should include
adequate parking for employee counts under either option, and avoid on -street parking
needs.
3. The height of the two-story development option (Plan A) shall be reduced to 30 feet.
4. The submitted building elevations shall be modified to specify intended finish materials
that match the existing structure.
5. All new site signage shall be subject to sign permit processing.
6. Issues related to site grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer.
0
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-034
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
WEST METRO BUICK GMC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
REVISING THE SITE AND USE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE
SUBJECT PARCEL IN THE B-3 ZONING DISTRICT
PID: 155217002010
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to construct an expansion of the current
service building for the applicant's automobile dealership; and
WHEREAS, the site is zoned B-3, Highway Commercial, and is subject to a previously
approved Planned Unit Development; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are consistent with the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan designation of "Regional Commercial" for the area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking the amendment to accommodate a revised site plan and
parking accommodations for the site employees and staff; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided materials otherwise documenting compliance with
the terms of the applicable zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the B-3 zoning district;
and
WHEREAS, the uses will not create any unanticipated changes to the demand for public
services on or around the site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 51", 2021 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the B-3,
Highway Business Zoning District.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-034
2. The proposed uses are consistent with the existing and future land uses in
the area in which they are located.
3. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by the existing and
future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances
as adopted.
4. The proposed accessory building meets the intent and requirements of the
applicable zoning regulations, subject to the flexibility granted under the PUD
and the conditions attached to this PUD Amendment.
5. No impacts on public utilities or other services are foreseen as a result of the
proposed amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City
Council approves the Planned Unit Development for an expansion to the existing building
and related necessary site improvements, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z as
follows:
1. The site plan shall be modified to specify intended off-street parking areas and
related drives aisles.
2. The applicant address, to the satisfaction of the City, the handling of increased
parking demand which may result from the addition of 2,736 square feet of new
office space included in the "Plan B" development option. This dedicated parking
should include adequate parking for employee counts under either option, and
avoid on -street parking needs.
3. The height of the two-story development option (Plan B) shall be limited to 30 feet.
4. All new site signage shall be subject to sign permit processing.
5. Issues related to site grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer.
ADOPTED this 51" day of 2021 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Z
Paul Konsor, Chair
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-034
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Jeff Sell I Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment for Building
Expansion
155217002010 1 Lot 1, Block 2, Carcone Addition
Created by: City of Monticello
At West Metro Buick GMC, we strive to provide an outstanding experience to our customers
from the moment they step into the dealership and all the way through the life of the vehicle.
We have grown our sales department over the years and are proud to have become the
number one volume Buick and GMC dealer in Minnesota. While our sales department has
grown, our service department has struggled to keep up with the increased demand. Our
current wait time for a customer to receive an oil change is between one and two weeks, and
our goal is to provide same -day service.
General Motors sees electric vehicles as the future of the automotive industry, and we will be
receiving our first electric GMC Hummer pickup truck later this year. Among the electric vehicle
upgrade requirements include devoting two of our service bays to EV service, charging, and
battery replacements. We are already lacking the space to properly serve our customers and
losing two bays would only further our troubles.
We believe that an expansion to our detail building across the street from our main dealership
is the best option to grow our service department to meet our current and future customers'
needs. Two building options are proposed: A one-story addition to add service bays, and a two-
story addition to add a new office above the service bays. The second story office would allow
us to move our office staff to create more space inside the dealership for an internet sales
department expansion. We are still exploring our options regarding the two proposed plans.
We are seeking approval for both options while we make our final decision.
appreciate your time, and I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeff Sell
Owner
West Metro Buick GMC
West Metro GMC PUD Notes:
1. We are submitting 2 plans,
a. option 1 does not have offices above new shop addition
b. Option 2 has new offices above new shop.
Final decisions will be made after final numbers are received.
2. Lighting
a. Existing site is fully lite, additional to the existing site lighting we will be adding led wall
packs to new addition
3. Landscaping
a. Building addition location has no new green area, entire building site is existing
bituminous. All original landscaping to remain
4. Building Materials
a. All building materials to match exiting
5. Signage
a. All signage to match existing
i. Possible signage sites are numbers of overhead doors
ii. Building signage on south side of new addition
West Metro GMC PUD Notes:
1. We are submitting 2 plans,
a. option 1 does not have offices above new shop addition
b. Option 2 has new offices above new shop.
i. Final decisions will be made after final numbers are received.
2. Lighting
a. Existing site is fully lite, additional to the existing site lighting we will be adding led wall
packs to new addition
3. Landscaping
a. Building addition location has no new green area, entire building site is existing
bituminous. All original landscaping to remain
4. Building Materials
a. All building materials to match exiting
i. Concrete block painted white
ii. Bar joist ceilings
iii. EPDM roof finish with black coping
iv. White overhead doors
5. Signage
i. West Metro confirmed no signage on this building
42�`Q3 2 " E �.
1 .79
N 570 2 55 , E =
is.83
ME
\ LP
O� C❑NC1 CURB o \
Q0LP L
\ \
J
6
112102 ACRES \\\
BIT, SURFACE ) \\\
\
\\ FIB
d 4 CONICc. e \
\
° ° a d \\ T\EL
0 U I—L 0 T /5?
ON!
�t
SITE PLAN
1 9) ^ O' O"
,E
LP
N
�t
n
L
n
( BIT1
SURFACE
In
�Q
U
NEW ADDITION
2,736 SF
m
30
LP o i
6 ae a
as
° ° a-
a d
a
C❑NC,
70'-M
a
cU
w
XIS TIAV
V)
J
0
3l lL DINS'
ti
1 LP
12
n C BIT,
I
SURFACE
5 I
------65,6 ---—■
LP
6" PLUMS
I
2
61'-11 F'
PREP❑
30 x 30 C BIT. SU DACE ) �
BENCHMARK - TAP OF CONC. -? i
PAD AT DUMP SITE p;W
_ _ J
ENT
� DRAINAGE & UTILITY E�, oj
`D
S 86016w
LP
FE
SITE DATA
SITE AREA 52 71631 SF
0 COVERAGE BY BUILDING 7 157.5 SF 13.57o
\COVERAGE BY PAVING 37)025.5
COVERAGE BY GREEN SPACE — 8)533.31 SF 16.5%
Cwf1l
MH MH
L956
COMM NO Mil-iA
DATE 91 61 2I
REVISION
13
Ld
Ld
Q
U W
U
I
I
I
I
LiW
Vi Z�H
I
I
D } 0
I
I
J
I
I
-1
1
o 1
a Li a
f W
I
^ I
Vl f O
I
I
r } Q
I
F 3
I
Z
Li Q
I
H H J
W
I
HdH2
IZ
Q'
W H
I�
dzw
lw
Ll
QW
1W
I
HVI La
w Q lz
1f
If
I
I
W 3Z
10
I
U O
12
I
wo�wo
iu
W (L
I La
I
W W W 2 z
I Q
w
x aUz
-1Z
PROJECT NAME
Q
O
0
U-)
W
LL-1
z
U
Q
�
�
o
Q
u�O
LW
Q
W
OU
W
O
z
�(OD
H
W
z
o r
, OI
,1D
1--1
Lo Ln
w
Q
o0
()J
(y) (y)
w
U
�Z
=Q
W
w
'L
�
z
�
Z ED
U
az
/J
LdH
W2:
Q
U
L7
LJ
a
Q
=
3
U
uo
SHEETA I
N0.
FIIILI--V'ST FLOOILR'l PLAN
EAST 7LEVATION
1 /8 99 99 I 9 0 99
I
I
I
IL-------------------------------------------------------
L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
GLASS BLOCK
I I
----------------------------�
L----------------------------J
I
I
I
-----------------------------------------------�
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — J
5T ELEVATION
1 /g99991 9099
P AN
NOIRITH ELEVATION
1/8 /^ 99 99 1 9 0 99
SOUTH ELEVATION
1/8 99 99 9 0 99
COMM NO Z021-14
DATE 91612
REVISION
Z U
O wQ
Ld
U Ld
.
ViO
I
I
U W L7WLd
I
I
I
I
W Ld
Q p Q'Q
I
I
N
D (A
I
I
J
I
I
QOpz:
I
^I
O
oLd Q
f L,
I
^I
Q(4
2 CA
I
O
F :It
Z
Q
Ld QQ'QJ
I
L7
H dH2
IZ
�
Ld
Y Q'LaF
IFI
I
L,QZ Q'
IQ'
I
QW
IW
I
FV A
Q' Q Z
IF
I f
I
I
W 3 z D
10
I
U O
F F Q
I
I
r W!V OF
IU
I
WOE - -TWO
1
1
Ld 0-
I A
I
W WW2z
IQ
Ld
2 QUZ
-1z
F
Q O Q'�
10
Q
�O Vi Qf
IQ'
G
PROJECT
NAME
W
Q
O
W
W
z
U
Q
z
Q
UO
z
W�
Q
W
OU
W
L�2
0
U
z
�
CC) (OD
H
W
z
o r
I O
�,0 I0
H
Lo lT)
V J
W
�
Q
0O
()J
(Y) (Y)
Ld
U
V
Z
=Q
�
W
w
�'L
�
z
�
Z ED
U
W
az
/J
�H
�
W2:
t3
Q
U
LLJ
a
F--
(/)=)
=
3
U
u0
a
SHEET NO.
A2
FtRST FLOOR PLAN
—11
1 /^ 99 99 1 9 0 99
EAST ELEVATION
CD CD CD�II
GLASS BLOCK
IL--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- L,
L---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------J
Lo
COMM NO Mil-iA
N 42 326 E
1 .79
N 570 2 5" E
j 18.83
ME
ON!
�t
SITE PLAN
1 9) 2
O9 0
"
,E
5
954
1111111111111JI
1.
LP
C❑NC1 CURBLP L
o \
112102 ACRES
6 ► \ LP
II C BITI SURFACE `\\
I \
I `
\
I \
I d \
° d \
d d - °d \
CONC,, °
LP
n L
n
z
L
( BIT1
SURFACE
m
�Q
U
0
NEW ADDITION
2,7 36 SF
m
FIB \
\®
T\E L
�2 �
LP
I
12
n C BIT,
SURFACE
5
------65,6 --- T-
I LP
I
I
HC RAMP �
6" PLU
PROPO - -
30 X 30 C BITI SU FACE
BENCHMARK - TOP OF C❑NC,
i
PAD AT DUMP SITE i
-------- T C TY EASE ENT
--�o
,,o DRAINAGE & U
171.05
ad�� S v/ /y/�]�6 � 6 � 5 W
a
C❑NC,
c
L
1R2
LP
SITE DATA
SITE AREA 52 71631 SF
COVERAGE BY BUILDING 7J57.5 SF 13.57o
COVERAGE
60
Q�)
0
z
o
MH MH
L956
BY PAVING
BY GREEN SPACE — 8)533.31 SF 16.5%
DATE 9/ 6/ Z
REVISION
Z U
13LA
H ..W
QAw
U W
} H W
U
I
I
I
I
LiW
W W W H
I
I
z H
W
D } 0
I
I
J
I
I
-1
1
o 1
aLi
fQW
V f O
I
I
} Q
I
F 3
I
Z
A Q
I
H W H J
I
HdH2
IZ
W'
W H
I�
Ll0-ZQ'
IQ'
I
QW
IW
I
HV p
W Q Z
Im
If
I
I
W 3 Z D
I D
I
wo�wo
iu
W (L
W LdW W
I A
IJ
I
I
X a
iz
: -Liz
..otiaX
Iw
A
PROJECT NAME
Q
O
0
U-)
W
z
u
z
Q
Q
u�O
Z
W
Q
W
OU
LLI
O
z
�(OD
H
W
z
10,10
0
,'D
V /
v J
W
I �
o0
Q
()J
(y) (y)
L,J
U
�;
z
=Q
W
w
�'L
�
z
�
zED
U
az
/J
�H
�
W2:
Q
U
L7
LJ
a
Q
=
3
U
uo
SHEET NO.
Al
COMM NO 2021-1 4
DATE 91612
REVISION
13,_5„ 12,_9» 12,_g» 12,_g„ 7,_82„ 7,_81» 8'-7»
�� >WA R 7 W H ��
O 0
CD
00
OFFICE.O o0
OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE
EXIST O
EQUIP R M
TOILET EXIST
LAUNDRY (7 � � --� � I [-� "I (I r .
Z�QaV~H2i LQOAH}�)
O W ON aJ
ULd W
CD
W
W W W� Vi Z=JNEXST DETAIL SHOP ax} fO
m PO Q VlHH=�~H-j�
^"O
F 3 HZ
HC LIFT =a=iw L3 w
WdZOFFICE LlQW W IQwOFFICE OFFICE Q< z If
W3Z 10
U O I2
-w13STORAG w0
wwwtW I
W W W 2 Z I Q W
dU-IZ -
w D 0' 10 QCO III'�IIIIIIII
..ov,af 1Q' ra
13'- 5" Ll 12'- 9" 12'- 9" 12'- 9" 13'- 2" 10'-10"
75'-11" PROJECT NAME
S F L 0 0 11R, PLAN
1 /g 99 99 1 9 99/ZZ zzzz
XIST C WASH
2'- 2" 3'- 0" 3'- 0"
L
12'-0" 12$41 12'-0"
FD FD FD
21 �u�O
I I I 8-7> »
I I I I I I I
EXIST
FLAMABLE J
WASTE TRAP
EXIST EQUIP R M
i l i l i i l l
TOILETOo EXIST
I I I I I I I �11
L---------------J I L--------------- J I L---------------J I LAUNDR
I I I ))
I I I 2, -3
I
I I I
I I I
OE xx
NEW SHOP
I I I I
EXIST DETAIL SHOP L)
r---------------- I r--------------- i I r--------------- i I
CC)
IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII rIIII ---------------- IIII IIIII
Wro-
IIor-
0
01
HC LIFT �.Do0
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1--1 Un un
I I I I I I I I I I I-- I 1 I I 1 I I I I Q �O �p
4-94 o15-0» 15-0» 15,-0» p
15-0
MOE-
r--Ioo
I I I I I pp U =X¢
W w
z
12'- 0" 12'-0" 12'- 0" 12'- 0"
ID
_ 1, Z
-
75'-11»
W�
Q U L7
17'-32" 37'-424'-54" � FT F L 0 0 � PLAN �N
uL0
� 0 u
a
SHEET NO.
COMM NO Mil-iA
DATE 9/ 15/ 21
2
cV
O
r7
II CD CD II
II O O II
II O CD II
EAST ELEVATION
0 99
II CD O II
0
NEW METAL PANELS
TO MATCH EXIST ON
i GLASS BLOCK i
I I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�
L---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------J
I I
I I
I I
IL--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
L- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J
WEST ELEVATION
1 / ^ 99 99 ^ 9 O 99
NOIRITH ELEVATION
O O II II O O II II O o
SOUTH ELEVATION
P AN
TD
REVISION
U
W+LdP7
Ld
P7W
U
L, .X V1 0
U WLoLd
I
I
I
I
d P]o�Q
I
I
V) zZWMLJ
I
I
V~J
J
I
I
Q O P7S
I
^I
O
oLj
Qli
f
I
m>Q
F 3
I
Z
4=1Ld Q
I
¢Q'QJ
I
l7
H 0-H2
IZ
�
W H
I�
+a-
QW
IW
I
Q'Q .Z
If
I
W 3 Z 7
10
I
U O
F F Q
I
I
IU
I
PAO�W0
W WW�W
IJ
I
.. o v0<X
Iw
A
PROJECT NAME
U
U
Q
U
�
Q
O
U
( 1
U
U
�
U
Q
U
U
Q
�U
U
"L
U
U
Q
U
DU
U
�
U
UU
U
UU
U
z
rco- (oic)
Ld
�
I —I
z
I p
L'3
�D I0
h-I
Lo Lr)
n
V J
W
I 0
Q
o0
(U
(Y)()
W
U
Z
7-
U
w
n
�
z
I —I
<
�
Z71
U////��
LJ
az
Vl
�H
Q
U
LD
LIJ
�- r�
F-
3�
=
U
u0
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
2B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a reauest for Conditional Use Permit for Accessor
Structure exceeding 1,200 square feet and a Variance to Accessory Structure square
footage maximum of 1,500 square feet and Variance to side yard setback for an
existing single-family residential use in the Central Community District, General Sub -
District. Applicant: Clarence McCarty
Prepared by: Northwest Associated
Meeting Date:
Council Date (pending
Consultants (NAC)
Commission action):
10/05/2021
10/25/21
Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building and Zoning
Official, Community & Economic Development Coordinator
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage with a total of
more than 1,200 square feet on a single-family parcel.
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021-035, recommending approval of the
Conditional Use Permit, based on findings in said resolution, and the conditions of
approval as required in the ordinance and in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2021-035, based on findings to be
made by the Planning Commission following the public hearing.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. 2021-035, pending additional information
from staff or the applicant.
Decision 2: Variance from the maximum total garage space on a single-family parcel.
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021- 036 (Approval) approving the variance for a
detached garage that increases total garage space to 1,933 square feet, based on
findings to be identified by the Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals.
2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021- 036 (Denial), denying the
variance for a detached garage exceeding the total square footage allowance of 1,500
square feet on a single-family parcel, based on the findings in said resolution.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. 2021-036, pending additional information
from staff or applicant.
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: Legal Description:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 37, Original Plat
PID: 155-010-037010
Planning Case Number: 2021-27
Request(s): Conditional Use Permit to construct a detached garage resulting in
total garage space of more than 1,200 square feet, and Variance
to allow garage space of more 1,500 square feet.
Deadline for Decision: October 24, 2021 (60-day deadline)
December 23, 2021 (120-day deadline)
Land Use Designation: Mixed Neighborhood
Zoning Designation: CCD, Central Community District
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable:
NA
Current Site Uses:
Single Family Residential
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Residential
East: Single Family Residential
South: Single Family Residential
West: Single Family Residential
Project Description:
The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot (20' x
24') two -stall garage addition to the east side of his existing
single-family home. A detached accessory structure (barn), which
measures 1,453 square feet in size, presently exists on the north
portion of the site. Construction of the proposed attached garage
will result in a total of 1,933 square feet of accessory storage
space on the subject site which exceeds the maximum 1,500
square feet of garage space which is allowed on a residential
parcel.
2
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit. The subject site is zoned CCD, Central Community District. For single
family residential uses within the district, the R-2, Single and Two -Family Residence District
provisions apply. In this regard, attached garages are an allowed accessory use. The Zoning
Ordinance limits total accessory building floor area to 1,200 square feet, or 1,500 square feet by
conditional use permit.
5.3(D)(2)(a)(i) Size.
1. Except by Conditional Use Permit issued pursuant to Section 5.3(D)(2)(a)(i)(2)
below, no detached accessory building shall exceed ten percent (10%) of the rear
yard of the parcel on which it is located, nor shall any combination of attached
garage and detached accessory building exceed the following maximum area,
whichever is less:
a. 1,200 square feet; or
b. The gross square footage of the principal building footprint.
Staff Comment: The combination of the existing 1,453 square foot accessory
structure and the 480 square foot attached garage will result in a total of 1,933
square feet of accessory storage space on the subject site. Because the amount
of accessory garage/storage space is greater than 1,200 square feet, an
application for a conditional use permit to exceed such amount has been
requested.
The gross square footage of the principal building footprint is 843 square feet.
2. The size limitations for accessory building area listed in Section 5.3(D)(2)(a)(i)(1)
above may be increased, up to a maximum square footage of 1,500 square feet,
by the issuance of a Conditional Use permit when the following conditions are
found to exist:
a. Accessory building space is to be utilized solely for the storage of
residential personal property of the occupant of the principal dwelling,
and no accessory building space is to be utilized for commercial purposes.
Staff Comment: The applicant has indicated that the proposed attached
garage will be used for the parking of two vehicles (presumably owned by
the applicant). The existing and/or intended use of the existing accessory
structure on the property has not however, been indicated. If the
requested conditional use permit is to be approved, a condition of
approval should be that no commercial business activities shall take place
upon the subject site.
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
b. The parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is of
sufficient size such that the building will not crowd the open space on the
lot.
Staff Comment: The subject site measures 21,450 square feet in size. Per
the applicant's site plan, it is possible for the proposed attached garage to
meet the required 6-foot east side yard setback.
C. The accessory building will not be so large as to have an adverse
effect on the architectural character or reasonable residential use of the
surrounding property.
Staff Comment: The new garage measures approximately 480 square
feet in size (staff has calculated at 20 x 24 based on a recent email from
the applicant). While this size is certainly reasonable in association with a
single-family home, Staff has concerns related to the total amount of
accessory storage space which will exist upon the site.
The existing accessory structure located on the north side of the site
measures 1,453 square feet in size. This structure is accessed from the
west via a driveway along Linn Street. Also, to be noted is that existing
accessory structure is nonconforming in that a portion of the structure
appears to encroach on the neighboring property to the north and
therefore fails to meet the City's setback requirements.
The applicant has requested a variance to exceed the 1,500 square foot
maximum, which is reviewed below. It is also noted that there are a
number of trailers and a shed on the property, vehicle parking on grass
areas of the property, and other code compliance issues. The proposed
garage would enclose parking for two vehicles that currently park on a
separate driveway from 3rd Street, but would not help address other
outdoor storage on the property.
d. The accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar to the
principal building in architectural style and building materials.
Staff Comment: The applicant has stated that his intent is to finish the
proposed attached garage in stucco to match the fagade of the existing
home.
4
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
As a review component, Conditional Use Permit requests must show consistency with the
specific requirements mentioned above, as well as show consistency with the general character
of the neighborhood in which the use is located. The addition of a two -car garage would be
consistent with the general requirements for single-family homes, and the majority of
surrounding properties in the neighborhood.
The existing non -conformities on the site do raise an issue as to consistency with the character
of the neighborhood. Adding more garage space to this condition is potentially counter to the
way in which CUP review is typically applied to single family properties, and is also counter to
language of the non -conforming use sections of the ordinance, which prohibit expansion or
change of non -conforming conditions. As such, the applicant has applied for variances to avoid
the maximums allowed under the CUP provisions of the ordinance.
Variance. For variances, the applicant is required to demonstrate that there is a unique
physical condition on the subject property that creates a practical difficulty in putting the
property to what would otherwise be considered a reasonable use. Such conditions may not be
caused by the applicant/owner, nor may they be solely economic in nature.
5
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
As previously indicated, the combination of the existing 1,453 square foot accessory structure
and the 480 square foot attached garage will result in a total of 1,933 square feet of accessory
storage space on the subject site. As mentioned, the footprint of the existing home measures
only 843 square feet in size. In this regard, the footprint of land devoted to accessory storage
space would be more than double the footprint devoted to the principal use of the property.
The provided site plan suggests an ability to meet required setbacks.
The applicant's property is a typical single-family lot, although it is somewhat larger than the
average. Such larger lots are permitted to construct larger accessory buildings than the base
standard of 1,200 square feet, but the cap is 1,500 by CUP, as discussed above.
Reasonable use is typically defined for single family residential property to include garage
parking for at least two vehicles. In that sense, the proposed garage would be consistent with
this definition. However, the City has been consistent in limiting single family properties to the
maximum allowances of 1,500 square feet for accessory garage space under the CUP
provisions.
In discussions with the applicant regarding the requests, the applicant has noted that the
existing detached structure was built prior to the home, before 1927, and is original to the site.
While the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a unique physical condition that creates
a practical difficulty in putting the property to what would otherwise be considered a
reasonable use, the nature of the existing detached accessory structure does present a
condition uncommon to other single-family properties. The City's standard, following state law,
requires a unique condition that interferes with property rights otherwise common in the area.
If the applicant is to construct the requested attached garage space, staff would recommend
that a portion of the existing "barn" structure be removed to bring the total garage square
footage to no more than 1,500 square feet, including the new construction. Further, the
removals would bring the existing structure into conformance with the required setbacks,
eliminating the encroachment onto adjoining property. This approach should include a
requirement that any other detached sheds be removed, and outdoor parking and storage be
brought into conformance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
If the Planning Commission is favorable to the variance, a finding must be made that the
conditions on the property are unique, create a practical difficulty in complying with the
general standards, and that the proposed use is a reasonable one, given the circumstances on
the property and the character of the neighborhood. The primary uniqueness of this property
is the prior existence of an old "barn" structure, in the range of 100 years old or more, a
condition obviously not created by the applicant.
0
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
If an approach for approval of the variance is followed, staff would continue to advocate for the
removal of all other outdoor storage on the site, including the smaller accessory shed and
trailers that currently exist, and the prohibition of any business use or purpose of the various
accessory buildings on the property. The exception would be an allowance for a trailer sitting
on the paved driveway leading to the "barn" garage door.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recognizing that more than 1,400 square feet of accessory storage space presently exists upon
the subject site, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow additional
garage (accessory storage) space on the site.
Staff would support the CUP for construction of the new garage, with conditions that include
the following:
1. Removals from the existing detached building to bring total garage/accessory building
space to no more than 1,500 square feet, combined.
2. Removals from the existing building must be done to bring the building into
conformance with the setback requirements applicable to that portion of the property.
3. Removal of any other accessory buildings, equipment, outdoor storage, and sheds.
4. Placement of other vehicles to meet requirements of the zoning ordinance related to
parking and outdoor storage.
With this motion, as noted, a prohibition of any business use of this residential property would
be included, as well as the removal or enclosure of the current outdoor storage and shed
structure.
Staff recommends denial of the variance to exceed the 1,500 square foot threshold at this time.
In planning staff's view, there are no apparent conditions that would satisfy the uniqueness,
practical difficulties, or reasonable use requirements found in both the City's ordinance and
state law. However, the applicant should provide as part of the hearing any additional
information on the existing structure and its potential uniqueness to the site.
If Planning Commission approves the variance, the conditions in Exhibit Z require modification
as related to the conditional use permit.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2021-035, Conditional Use Permit
B. Resolution PC-2021-036 (Approval)
C. Resolution PC-2021-036 (Denial)
D. Aerial Image
E. Applicant Narrative
F. Applicant Site Plan
G. Elevations
H. Zoning Excerpts
Z. Conditions of Approval
7
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
*7:II 11 to
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
GARAGE SPACE TOTALLING 1,500 SQUARE FEET
319 3RD STREET WEST
1. A portion of the existing accessory building shall be removed such that a setback
of not less than 6 feet is maintained along the north property line.
2. The amount of accessory garage (storage) space on the property shall not exceed
1,500 square feet.
3. No accessory buildings other than the new attached garage and the
reconstructed detached building are permitted on the property.
4. The proposed attached garage is constructed per the provided plans.
5. No business use may be made of the building, and such building is utilized solely
for the storage of personal residential equipment and materials.
6. The exterior materials used to finish the new attached accessory structure must
match the existing home in material type and color.
7. No exterior lighting be attached to the garage that will glare onto adjoining
property.
8. All exterior parking and storage shall meet the requirements of the zoning
ordinance, and existing residential trailers, equipment, and other storage is
removed from the site, lawfully parked in the rear yard, or stored in the accessory
buildings on the property.
9. The disturbed areas of the site shall be seeded or sodded within one calendar year
of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
10. Recommendations of the City Engineer.
11. Comments and recommendations of other staff.
0
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-035
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A DETACHED GARAGE IN AN R-2
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT
LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 37, ORIGINAL PLAT
PI D: 155-010-037010
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to construct an attached garage structure
in the side yard portion of the subject property for parking of automobiles; and
WHEREAS, the proposed attached garage space, combined with the existing detached
accessory building, would exceed the standard garage area of 1,200 square feet; and
WHEREAS, garage space, when exceeding 1,200 square feet, requires a Conditional Use
Permit, and
WHEREAS, the site is zoned CCD, Central Community District, for single family residential
uses within the district, Single and Two -Family Residence (R-2) provisions apply, which
allows such use by Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are consistent with the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan designation of "Downtown Mixed Use" for the area; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting the proposed structure and
location of the structure on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 5t", 2021 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the attached garage will be
in compliance with maximum square footage requirements, which require a
maximum square footage for attached and detached accessory structures of
1,500 square feet, or a separate variance to exceed that total.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-035
2. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the attached garage
addition is architecturally similar to the principal structure in roofline and fagade
appearance, subject to appropriate conditions of approval.
3. The parcel is of a size which will accommodate the accessory space without
crowding the subject property or neighboring parcels.
4. The building will be constructed so as to be consistent with the use and building
massing of other single-family structures common in the community and in the
neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for an attached garage, subject to the
conditions identified in Exhibit Z of the Staff report, as listed below:
1. A portion of the existing accessory building shall be removed such that a
setback of not less than 6 feet is maintained along the north property line.
2. The amount of accessory garage (storage) space on the property shall not
exceed 1,500 square feet.
3. No accessory buildings other than the new attached garage and the
reconstructed detached building are permitted on the property.
4. The proposed attached garage is constructed per the provided plans.
5. No business use may be made of the building, and such building is utilized
solely for the storage of personal residential equipment and materials.
6. The exterior materials used to finish the new attached accessory structure
must match the existing home in material type and color.
7. No exterior lighting be attached to the garage that will glare onto adjoining
property.
8. All exterior parking and storage shall meet the requirements of the zoning
ordinance, and existing residential trailers, equipment, and other storage is
removed from the site, lawfully parked in the rear yard, or stored in the
accessory buildings on the property.
9. The disturbed areas of the site shall be seeded or sodded within one calendar
year of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
10. Recommendations of the City Engineer.
11. Comments and recommendations of other staff.
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-035
ADOPTED this 51" day of October, 2021 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By:
Paul Konsor, Chair
ATTEST:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
3
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-036
APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A DETACHED GARAGE IN AN R-2
(SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT
LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 37, ORIGINAL PLAT
PI D: 155-010-037010
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to construct an attached garage structure
in the side yard portion of the subject property for parking of private automobiles; and
WHEREAS, the proposed garage space would exceed the standard garage area of 1,200
square feet; and
WHEREAS, garage space, when exceeding 1,200 square feet, requires a Conditional Use
Permit, which the applicant has also requested; and
WHEREAS, the proposed garage space, including attached and detached areas, would
exceed 1,500 square feet in floor space, the maximum allowed under the Conditional Use
Permit provisions of the zoning ordinance, with total accessory building and garage area of
approximately 1,950 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the site is zoned Central Community District and, which allows such use by
Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are consistent with the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan designation of "Mixed Neighborhood" for the area; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting the proposed structure and
location of the structure on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided evidence to the Planning Commission, sitting as the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals, that based on extraordinary lot size, historical character
of the existing detached building, consideration of the construction of an attached private
garage, and other factors, that a practical difficulty is present which interferes with putting
the property to a reasonable use, which includes a garage of more than 1,500 square feet;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 51", 2021 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-036
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the approval of the variance:
The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the attached garage will be
in compliance with zoning requirements, which require a side setback of 6 feet
and floor area of 450 square feet.
The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the attached garage
addition is architecturally similar to the principal structure in roofline and fagade
appearance, subject to appropriate conditions of approval.
3. The parcel is a lot which will accommodate the accessory space without
crowding the subject property or neighboring parcels.
4. The building will be constructed so as to be consistent with the use and building
massing of other single family structures common in the community and in the
neighborhood.
5. The applicant's additional square footage is comprised of a very old, historical
barn of more than 100 years of age, and which character is worthy of preserving,
together with the contemporary need for attached garage space.
6. Restricting the applicant's garage to no more than 1,500 square feet deprives the
applicant of reasonable use of the property, due to the factors stated above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby approves the variance for attached and
detached garage floor area of up to approximately 1,950 square feet, subject to the
conditions identified in Exhibit Z of the Staff report, as listed below:
1. The applicant provide a certificate of survey including the proposed structure
for building permit.
The structure is constructed per plans, with the requirement that the side
setback is no less than 6 feet.
No business use may be made of the buildings on the property, and such
buildings are utilized solely for the storage of personal vehicles, residential
equipment and materials.
4. The exterior materials used to finish the attached structure must match the
existing home in material type and color.
No exterior lighting be attached to the garage that will glare onto adjoining
property.
6. The disturbed areas of the site shall be seeded or sodded within one (1)
calendar year of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-036
The proposed driveway be constructed as illustrated on the site survey,
which shall limit the width of the driveway at the property line to that
allowed by ordinance.
8. Recommendation of the City Engineer as related to site grading and
drainage.
9. Comments and recommendations of other staff.
ADOPTED this 51h day of October by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
A
Paul Konsor, Chair
ATTEST:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
3
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-036
DENYING A VARIANCE FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE OF GARAGE SPACE IN AN R-2 (SINGLE AND
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT
LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 37, ORIGINAL PLAT
PI D: 155-010-037010
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to construct an attached garage structure
in the side yard portion of the subject property for storage of private residential storage and
lawn equipment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed attached garage space would exceed the standard garage area of
1,200 square feet; and
WHEREAS, garage space, when exceeding 1,200 square feet, requires a Conditional Use
Permit, and
WHEREAS, the proposed garage space, including attached and detached areas, would
exceed 1,500 square feet in floor space, the maximum allowed under the Conditional Use
Permit provisions of the zoning ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the site is zoned Single and Two -Family Residence (R-2) and, which allows such
use by Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are consistent with the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan designation of "Mixed Neighborhood" for the area; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting the proposed structure and
location of the structure on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not provided evidence to the Planning Commission, sitting as
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, that a practical difficulty is present which interferes
with putting the property to a reasonable use, which includes garage space of more than
1,500 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the City has defined "reasonable use" of single-family residential property as
including garage and accessory building space up to a maximum of 1,500 square feet per
property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 5t", 2021 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-036
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the denial of the variance:
1. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the attached garage could
be in compliance with zoning requirements, but which exceeds the maximum
square footage of 1,500 when combined with existing structures on the
property.
2. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the attached garage
addition is architecturally similar to the principal structure in roofline and fagade
appearance, subject to appropriate conditions of approval.
3. The parcel is a lot which will accommodate the accessory space without
crowding the subject property or neighboring parcels.
4. The building will be constructed so as to be consistent with the use and building
massing of other single-family structures common in the community and in the
neighborhood.
5. The applicant's additional square footage is not in keeping with other garage
floor areas in the primarily single-family residence area.
6. Restricting the applicant's garage to no more than 1,500 square feet does not
deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property, due to the factors
stated above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby denies the variance for attached and
detached garage floor area of approximately 1,950 square feet, and thereby limits any
Conditional Use Permit to 1,500 square feet of total accessory building and garage floor
area.
ADOPTED this 5t" day of October, 2021 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
IN
Paul Konsor, Chair
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-036
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
0
From:
Clarence McCarty
To:
Anaela Schumann
Subject:
Garage Narrative
Date:
Saturday, August 28, 2021 12:02:25 PM
Nancy and I feel that an attached garage is necessary because of the inaccessibility of the
outbuilding that is currently on the property. We need the privacy and security of an attached
garage to protect our vehicles and to keep them out of the weather.
The drawing may not reflect it, but there is a current projection of our house that is narrower
than the main house. This is where the flat roof is located. The garage would need to be that
length to accommodate the roof of the new attached garage. We will need the 20 foot width to
accommodate two vehicles.
Thank you for your consideration,
Clarence and Nancy McCarty
From: Clarence McCarty
To: Anaela Schumann
Subject: Siding
Date: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 9:04:07 AM
Hi Angela,
For the garage, it will be a continuation of the stucco that we have on our house. Also, the
contractor I am working with said I should have it at least 20 feet wide to make room for 2
cars, so I suppose that would require variance on the setback.
Thank you,
Clarence A McCarty
O
36'-0"
' °' PROPOSED
N GARAGE 24 - '
L �
� 19.5 � �
rn
N 15'-0" '� �'
T I
' 3.83 �
i
i
' 13'-6" 40'-0" 26.34 �
' t-- ~ I
I �
� 0
� o
� N
' BARN
-�
I
I
DECK HOUSE � '
i
�,
J'
� '
' 12►-0�� �
' 40.5 '
i
� �
� �
i i
i i
i
i �
� �
i �
i �
i i
i i
i i
i �
i �
i �
t �
i �
� i
i �
� i
� i
i �
i �
� �
� �
i i
i i
i �
i i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LYNN STREET
W
W
W
�--
M
SCALE: 1" = 20'
4'-0"
o
RIGHT ELEVATION
c
FRONT ELEVATION
i
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section S.3 Accessory Use Standards
Subsection (B) General Standards and Limitations for Accessory Uses and Structures
5.3 Accessory Use Standards
(A) Purpose
This section authorizes the establishment of accessory uses that are incidental and
customarily subordinate to principal uses. The purpose of this section is to allow a broad
range of accessory uses, so long as such uses are located on the same site as the
principal use, and so long as they comply with the standards set forth in this section in
order to reduce potentially adverse impacts on surrounding lands.
(B) General Standards and Limitations for Accessory Uses and Structures
(1) Compliance with Ordinance Requirements
All accessory uses and accessory structures shall conform to all applicable
requirements of this Ordinance. The provisions of this Section establish
additional standards and restrictions for particular accessory uses and structures.
(2) General Standards
All accessory uses and accessory structures shall meet the following standards:
(a) Directly serve the principal use or structure;
(b) Be customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to the
principal use and structure;
(c) Be subordinate in area, extent, and purpose to the principal use or structure;
(d) Be owned or operated by the same person as the principal use or structure;
(e) Be located on the same lot as the principal use or structure, subject to the
Public Improvement Project Exception as regulated by Section 6.2 (D)(1);
(f) Not be constructed or established prior to the time the principal use or
structure is constructed or established, subject to the Public Improvement
Project Exception as regulated by Section 6.2 (D)(1);
(g) Together with the principal use or structure, not violate any standards of this
Ordinance;
(h) Not be located within platted or recorded easements or over underground
public utilities;
Page 410 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section S.3 Accessory Use Standards
Subsection (8) General Standards and Limitations for Accessory Uses and Structures
(i) An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal
building if it is connected to the principal building either directly or by an
enclosed passageway. Such accessory buildings shall adhere to requirements
for the principal building.
0) If a principal building is proposed to be removed with no immediate
replacement, all accessory structures shall also be removed.
(k) Not constitute a combination use, which is the combination of two principal
uses (combination uses will not meet the above standards in terms of being
subordinate or providing service to the principal use).
(3) Location of Accessory Uses or Structures
Except for fences and walls, the following standards shall apply to all accessory
structures:
(a) All accessory structures, except as may be specifically denoted, shall be
located at least six (6) feet from all lot lines, and at least the minimum
distance from public rights -of -way as denoted in the individual zoning district
regulations. All such structures must meet applicable building codes related
to fire separation distance.
(i) A side yard setback of twenty (20) feet shall be maintained from property
lines abutting public streets.
(b) Detached accessory buildings shall be six (6) feet or more from any other
building or structure on the same lot.
(c) Detached accessory structures shall not be located beyond the front building
line established by the principal structure, with the exception of commercial
canopies and signs, which must adhere to regulations of this ordinance.
(4) Maximum Height
(a) Detached accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height
except in the I-1 and I-2 districts.
(b) No accessory structure shall exceed the height of the principal structure unless
specifically allowed by this ordinance.
(5) Maximum Number of Accessory Structures
In all residential zoning districts, the following limitations on accessory structures
shall apply:
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 411
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section S.3 Accessory Use Standards
Subsection (C) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses
(a) No more than one (1) private, detached major accessory building may be
erected for each dwelling;
(b) No more than one (1) private, detached minor accessory building may be
erected for each dwelling;
Section 2.40):
(c) Additional major or minor accessory buildings may be erected if approved via Conditional Use
a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 2.4(D). Permits
(6) Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings Opt Out
The City of Monticello opts -out of the requirements of Minnesota Statute
§462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care
Dwellings.
(C) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses
(1) Listed Accessory Uses
Table 5-4, lists the allowed types of accessory uses and structures within each
zoning district. If a specific accessory use is allowed in a district, the column
underneath the district is marked with a "P." If a specific accessory use is
conditionally permitted in a district, the column underneath the district is marked
with a "C." If the accessory use or structure is not allowed in a district, the
column is shaded. If there is a reference contained in the column entitled
"Additional Requirements", refer to the cited section(s) for additional standards
that apply to the specific accessory use.
(2) Interpretation of Unidentified Accessory Uses
1. The Community Development Department shall evaluate applications for Section 8.4:
accessory uses that are not identified in Table 5-4 on a case -by -case basis Definition of
using the following standards: "accessory"
a. The definition of "accessory use" (see Section 8.4 — Definitions) and the Section 8.4:
Definition of "use"
general accessory use standards and limitations established in Section
5.3(B);
b. The additional regulations for specific accessory uses established in Section 5.38):
Section 5.3(D), Specific Standards for Certain Accessory uses; General Standards
and Limitations Lor
c. The purpose and intent of the base and overlay districts in which the Accessory Uses and
accessory use or structure is located; Structures
Page 412 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section S.3 Accessory Use Standards
Subsection (C) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses
(3) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures
•
Accessory Building —
P P P
P P
P P P P
P
P
P P P P
P
minor
5.3 D1( 1 I
(
Accessory Building —
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Pmajor
5.3 D 2
Adult Use — accessory
LP]
C
5.3 Q 3
Agricultural Buildings
5.3 LQJ 4
Air Conditioning Units
P
I P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Automated Teller
Machines (ATMs)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
S. 3(D)(51
Automobile Repair —
C
Major
5.3f D)(6)
Automobile Repair —
Minor
C
C
5.3 UD 7
Boarder(s)
P
P
p
5.3 D 8
Bulk Fuel Sales/Storage
P
P
P
C
ICI
C
5.3 D 9
Cocktail Room (Retail
Sales Accessory to Micro-
C
C
C
C
C
C
Distillery)
5.3(Dj(10)
Co -located Wireless
Telecommunications
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Antennae
4.13(E)
Columbarium (Accessory
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
use to Cemeteries)
5.3(D(1 1)
Commercial Canopies
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
5.3(D 12)
Commercial Transmission/
Reception Antennae/
C
C
C
C
C
C
Structures
4.13(D)
Donation Drop-off
P
P
Containers
5.3 D 13
Drive -Through Services
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
5.3 Q14
Entertainment/ Recreation
C
C
C
C
14
5.3 D 15
— Outdoor Commercial
Fences or Walls
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p p
p
p
p
p
p
p
P
4.3
Greenhouse/Conservatory
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
5.3 D 16
non-commercial
Heliports
C
C
C
C
C
5.3 D 17
Home Occupations
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
p
p
P
5.3 D 18
Indoor Food /
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
5.3 D 19
Convenience Sales
Page 414 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards
Subsection (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses
Retail Sales of Goods (as
P
P P P P P C
C 5.3(D)(29)
part of an office or
industrial use
Shelters (Storm or
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
5.3(D)(30)
Fallout
Sign(s)
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
5.3 Q 31
Solar Energy System
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
5.3(D)(32)
Swimming Pool
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
5.3(D)(33)
Taproom (Retail Sales
C
C
C
C C
C
5.3(D)(34)
Accessory to Production
Brewer
Large Trash Handling and
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
5.3(D)(35)
Recycling Collection Area
Wind Energy Conversion
C
C
7
C C
C
5.3(D)(36)
System, Commercial
Wind Energy Conversion
C
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C C
C
5.3(D)(37)
System, Non-commercial
Wireless
Telecommunications
Support Structures
C
C
C
C
C C
C
4 3
(E1
4.3(Fl
(D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses
(1) Accessory Building — Minor
(a) Minor accessory buildings do not require a building permit, but shall comply
with all applicable zoning regulations.
(b) In the M-H district, one minor accessory building for storage of equipment
and refuse is permitted for each manufactured home provided the accessory
building can meet all required setbacks, and is designed of weather resistant
material that will enhance the general appearance of the lot.
(2) Accessory Building — Major
(a) In all residential districts except M-H, the following shall apply:
(i) Size
Page 416 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards
Subsection (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses
1. Except by Conditional Use Permit issued pursuant to Section
5.3(13)(3)(a)(i)(2) below, no detached accessory building shall exceed
ten percent (10%) of the rear yard of the parcel on which it is located,
nor shall any combination of attached garage and detached accessory
building exceed the following maximum area, whichever is less:
a. 1,200 square feet; or
b. The gross square footage of the principal building footprint.
2. The size limitations for accessory building area listed in Section
5.3(13)(3)(a)(i)(1) above may be increased, up to a maximum square
footage of 1,500 square feet, by the issuance of a Conditional Use
permit when the following conditions are found to exist:
a. Accessory building space is to be utilized solely for the storage of
residential personal property of the occupant of the principal
dwelling, and no accessory building space is to be utilized for
commercial purposes.
b. The parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is of
sufficient size such that the building will not crowd the open
space on the lot.
c. The accessory building will not be so large as to have an adverse
effect on the architectural character or reasonable residential use
of the surrounding property.
d. The accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar to the
principal building in architectural style and building materials.
(ii) Private Garages
1. Private garages shall be used by the family or families residing upon
the premises, except as follows:
a. One-half of the private garage spaces on the premises can be
rented to non-residents of the property for private passenger
vehicles and/or non-commercial vehicles, trailers, or equipment if
sufficient off-street parking in full compliance with this ordinance
is provided elsewhere on the property.
b. All of the private garage spaces on the premises can be rented to
non-residents of the property for private passenger vehicles
and/or non-commercial vehicles, trailers, or equipment if the
available garage space does not exceed two spaces.
2. No business, service, or industry shall be carried on within a private
garage;
3. Private garages shall not be used for the storage of more than one (1)
commercial vehicle owned or operated by a resident per dwelling
unit.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 417
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
2C. Public Hearing —Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Affordable
Storage Planned Unit Development for proposed Portable Container Accessory Use.
Applicant: Burnham, Keith
Prepared by: Northwest Associated
Meeting Date:
Council Date (pending
Consultants (NAC)
Commission action):
10/05/21
10/25/21
Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building and Zoning
Official, Community & Economic Development Coordinator, Project Engineer, Fire Marshal
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of an amendment to a Planned Unit Development for Affordable
Self -Storage to keep storage boxes on the site as outdoor storage.
1. Motion to recommend approval of a PUD Amendment for outdoor storage as provided
in the application materials for the Affordable Self -Storage PUD, based on a finding that
the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objectives for uses
and activities in the area and other findings to be made by the Planning Commission,
and per conditions set by the Planning Commission as a part of the public hearing.
2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021-037 (denial), based on findings as identified in
said Resolution, and requiring the removal of the storage boxes from the site no later
than .2021.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2021-037, subject to additional information
supplied by staff and/or applicant.
Decision 2: Amendment to Ordinance for Planned Unit Development for Affordable Self -
Storage to correction of language in Section (8)(c).
1. Motion to recommend approval of a PUD Amendment for the Affordable Self -Storage
Planned Unit Development for correction of language in Section (8)(c) to read as
follows:
Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and
incidental to *,gal commercial uses, and as specifically identified by the
approved final stage PUD Plans, but shall not include outdoor storage or other
activities.
2. Motion to table action on the proposed Amendment to Ordinance for Planned Unit
Development for Affordable Self -Storage to correction of language in Section (8)(c).
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 4, Groveland Addition
PID: 155-125-004110
Planning Case Number: 2021-036
Request(s): Amendment to a Planned Unit Development to allow outdoor
storage of rental storage containers
Deadline for Decision: November 12, 2021 (60-day deadline)
January 11, 2022 (120-day deadline)
Land Use Designation: Community Commercial
Zoning Designation: Affordable Self -Storage PUD District
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable:
NA
Current Site Uses:
Self Storage Facility
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: RV Dealership
East: Vacant Commercial (Zoned B-3)
South: Single Family Residential
West: RV Dealership
Project Description:
The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the current self -
storage property along the westerly boundary, as well at the ends
of several of the self -storage buildings on the property to store a
series of "storage boxes". These units are delivered to the
property and rented to individuals which are then used to self -
store goods. The applicant indicates that the request is for a total
of 58 such storage boxes of varying sizes, between 7.5 by 7.5 feet
and 8 by 20 feet. The applicant has suggested that the units will
be empty, although that is not expressly stated in the application
narrative.
The applicant has indicated in the past that the boxes would sit on
the ground, without stacking, although that clarification is not
made in the current application.
The applicant previously proposed an amendment to the
Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development for the
2
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
introduction of storage boxes on the site, which was considered
by the Planning Commission in August of 2021. The application
was withdrawn prior to Council consideration.
it is noted that several of these boxes have already been moved
on to the site counter to the requirements of the original PUD
approvals and are currently in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a zoning technique that allows developers and the City to
establish a set of development requirements which, while not meeting all of the specific
standards of a traditional zoning district, are designed to exceed the City's objectives for the
zoning district that would otherwise apply. The City's land use objectives are described in the
Comprehensive Plan, and typically address various performance standards as well as classes of
land use.
In this case, the applicable land use classification in the Comprehensive Plan is "Community
Commercial", and the underlying zoning district that would apply if the PUD zoning were not in
place would be B-3, Highway Business. One of the primary objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan is the orderly development and use of land, consistent with consideration for other land
uses in the neighborhood of the subject property.
As shown on the map below, and noted above, the subject property is in an area of mixed
commercial and residential uses, indeed abutting residential development on one side of the
property. The Community Commercial designation is designed to be a "low -scale" retail area
along major roadways that serve the community.
3
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
When the original PUD was granted for the commercial self -storage facility on this property, it
was specifically noted that outdoor storage of materials on the site would not be permitted.
In Monticello, outdoor storage of materials is a use that is specifically relegated to industrial
districts. Such areas often create a significant amount of noise and other activity that is not
compatible with neighboring "low -scale" uses, and particularly problematic for single-family
residential areas, where outdoor activities rely on relative quiet and non -industrial activity on
adjoining property.
The applicant's narrative seeks to distinguish this use as "Open Sales" accessory use, as
opposed to outdoor storage. However, "Open Sales" uses involve retail transactions where
customers may visit the retail site, inspect the goods, pay for the materials, and transport them
from the retailer. This type of transaction is distinguished from the current proposal in that the
storage boxes are stored on the site, loaded, and delivered to off -site customers, all without the
customer's ability to pick up and take any retail goods with them from the retail location. This
is fundamentally not a retail activity, as would be implied by the "Open Sales" land use
category.
Further, the zoning ordinance definition for Outdoor Storage is directly applicable to the
proposed use. That definition reads as follows:
OUTDOOR STORAGE: The keeping, in an un-roofed area, of any goods, material,
merchandise, or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty-four (24) hours. This
shall not include the display of vehicles for sale in a new or used car sales lot.
Outdoor storage is prohibited in commercial districts and is specifically prohibited by the
language of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD.
The applicant's materials do not specify, but the process by which the storage boxes would be
transferred to and from the site would be via truck and some manner of jack or crane,
increasing the equipment activity and noise on the site. This activity is expected in an industrial
area, but not in a commercial district, and especially not in proximity to a residential
neighborhood.
The proposed storage of these units on the property is therefore an industrial one, and
incompatible with the proximity of the use to residential property.
The narrative further notes that the original PUD district references accessory uses in the
"Industrial" areas as potentially allowed uses in the Affordable Storage PUD District. While staff
believes that the original reference is a typographical error— noting that outdoor storage was
expressly not allowed in the district language — industrial use would be inappropriate in this
4
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
location based on the impacts and discussion previously noted. As part of any amendment
consideration, staff would request that the City amend the ordinance of the PUD to correct this
language to "Commercial."
Further, the City's fire department officials have noted concern with the storage of the
proposed boxes on the site, which were not anticipated when the original plan was approved.
The locations restrict fire -fighting access to portions of the property, most significantly, to the
west side of the line of stored boxes along the west boundary of the site. Moreover, the
revised site plan shows a large area of snow storage in the southwest corner of the site that
would make the fire hydrant in that location inaccessible. The Fire Marshal has requested an
apparatus turning template be prepared to demonstrate maneuverability within the site with
the unit locations as proposed.
As noted in prior review, there is one self -storage site in Monticello that was granted an interim
use permit for temporary storage boxes in the past. That site is the Storage Link facility at
Dundas Road and Cedar Street. The City granted the IUP for this site as a temporary measure
to accommodate expansion of the facility. There are at least three major aspects of this prior
approval that differentiate it from the Affordable Storage request.
First, the Storage Link facility abuts undeveloped commercial land. There is no residential in
near proximity to the site. Moreover, the facility sits at the intersection of roads that serve
exclusively commercial properties west, north and south, and industrial property to the east.
Second, the Storage Link temporary storage boxes are utilized as an interim storage use, and
have only limited, if any, trucking and active machinery at the site. As such, there is much less
likelihood of noise disruption to surrounding land uses, particularly as the adjoining property
was anticipated to be vacant for some time.
Finally, as noted, the permit granted was an Interim Use Permit, acknowledging that the
proposed storage units were temporary in nature. While no adjoining development was
anticipated in the near term, removal of the temporary storage is required at the expiration of
the IUP term and adjoining development (now a part of the Chelsea Commons planning area)
would then develop without the impacts of temporary storage on that site.
In summary, the proposed storage box business would introduce what is commonly considered
to be an industrial activity to the Affordable Storage PUD site. As noted, PUD requires a finding
that the proposed development meets and exceeds the City's land use goals in exchange for
relaxation of certain zoning requirements. Introduction of an industrial use on property guided
for "low -scale" commercial use, adjacent to a low -density single-family neighborhood would be
counter to this requirement.
5
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
For Decision 1, Staff recommends Alternative 2, denial of the PUD Amendment. As noted in
this report, the addition of outdoor storage, and the nature of the storage in question which
would entail heavy equipment and truck operations to support it, would be inconsistent with
the intent of the land use direction specified by the Comprehensive Plan, and incompatible with
the uses directly adjoining the subject property, particularly that of the single-family residential
neighborhood to the south of the subject property.
For Decision 2, Staff recommends Alternative 1, which would correct the prior error in the
adopted ordinance for the Affordable Storage PUD consistent with the intent of the original
approved plans. Staff would ask the Planning Commission to specify a removal date within
their motion. Per ordinance, staff typically allows up to 30 days for correction of a code
violation.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2021-037
B. Aerial Site Image
C. Applicant Narrative
D. Proposed Site Plan and Detail
E. Affordable Self -Storage PUD Ordinance
F. Ordinance Excerpts
G. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, Excerpts
Z. Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT Z
Lot 11, Block 4, Groveland Addition
Affordable Storage PUD Amendment
1. If Planning Commission motions to recommend approval of the amendment to PUD to
allow the proposed storage units, staff would recommend that Commission provide a
list of conditions applicable to the proposed use on the site.
0
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-037
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
AFFORDABLE STORAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISING THE SITE USES IN THE
AFFORDABLE STORAGE PUD ZONING DISTRICT, AND AMENDING FOR CORRECTION THE
LANGUAGE OF SAID DISTRICT TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO INDUSTRIAL ACCESSORY USES
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to revise certain aspects of an existing
self -storage project, including the addition of outdoor storage and handling of individual
"storage boxes"; and
WHEREAS, the site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and is subject to a previously
approved Planned Unit Development ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan designation of "Community Commercial" for the area; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would create impacts that are incompatible with the
adjoining single family residential neighborhood, including noise, truck and machinery
operations, and other effects; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided updated materials describing the changes, which are
associated with industrial uses in Monticello's land use regulations; and
WHEREAS, the uses are inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the underlying zoning
district, which is "Community Commercial", and anticipates only "low -scale" commercial
activities; and
WHEREAS, the uses will create unanticipated changes to the demand for public services on
or around the site; and
WHEREAS, the storage proposed meets the Zoning Ordinance definition of "Outdoor
Storage", an industrial use; and
WHEREAS, references in the current language of the Affordable Storage PUD District to
industrial accessory uses require amendment to delete said references and clarify the
prohibition of such uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 51", 2021 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-037
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of denial:
The proposed uses are inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the
Affordable Storage PUD Zoning District.
The proposed uses are inconsistent with the existing and future land uses in
the area in which they are located, including both the adjoining commercial
uses as well as the adjoining single family residential area.
The impacts of the improvements exceed those anticipated by the existing
and future land uses and cannot addressed through standard review and
ordinances as adopted.
4. The planned amendments do not meet the intent and requirements of the
applicable zoning regulations.
5. The existing storage uses related to this request for amendment are not
consistent with the terms of the approved PUD and must be removed from
the site no later than .2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City
Council denies the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Affordable Storage and
amend the language of the Affordable Self -storage District to remove references to
Industrial accessory uses.
ADOPTED this 51" day of October, 2021 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Paul Konsor, Chair
ATTEST:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
2
O
A
D
L
O
V)
W
V/V
L
0
r)
D
0-
O
+-+
E
W
E
Q
E
L
M�
W
N
O
O
Ln
c-I
C"I
0
Q
N
r-I
Ln
Lf)
7i
C)
d
c
O
C
Co
v
O
L
U
O
co
r
-61
_!
N
Cl)
U �
J Z
J
N
W
cO W cI W
0_ X U
ix
o m ~
Z
O
Y a 2
w
w
a
o'
Y
O
w O
r-+ m J
0 N Z W
Oo Q Z U
r-1 H
O O 0
w
w
41
L
C �
o: a
u O
d N 0.
N
00
co
O
J
W
V
Z
O
2
W
O}
F-
V
r1
0
c-�
v41
IZT
0
Y
V
O
m
r-4
r-i
O
O
J
Z
0
Q
a
0
N
a
J �
W E
O L)
D! O
V �
� Co
N �
O �
pp O
c a
� v
a=
N �
r-I �
O
f- O
O Z
0
tN z
C
O
�i
u
Q)
0
x
O
CO
KB Properties PUD Amendment and Corresponding CUP
Affordable Storage provides public self storage, with multiple locations in MN. The company has
invested nearly $4MM in its 6.28 acre Monticello location and has provided a much needed service to
the community. In addition to providing an in -demand service for local residents, Affordable Storage
also contributes over $62,000 in annual property taxes, while placing very little demand on municipal
services.
In September of 2017, the City Council approved a PUD for Affordable Storage, located at 10111
Innsbrook Drive, and recently approved an amendment related to screening on this property (October
2020).
Affordable Storage is proposing Accessory Use activities identified as "Open Sales" in the MZO within
their current PUD. Subsection C of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District in the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance (MZO) outlines the permitting of an Accessory Use as follows:
(c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to
industrial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD Plans, but shall
not include outdoor storage or other activities.
"Open Sales" is defined on Page 495 of the MZO as follows:
OPEN SALES: Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, and/or
renting merchandise and for the storing of same prior to sale. This use includes all outdoor
sales and display of goods and/or materials that are not specifically addressed as Outdoor
Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off -Street Vehicle Parking.
As the display, leasing and sale of a "Portable Container" (Defined in MZO Page 499) is not specifically
addressed as Outdoor Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off -Street Vehicle Parking, the proposed
use being defined as "Open Sales" is accurate.
"Open Sales" is identified as an allowed Accessory Use, with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), in the
underlying B3 Zoning District, as well as the 11 Zoning District as outlined in Table 5-4 on Page 415 of
the MZO.
Subsection E of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District in the Monticello Zoning Ordinance goes on to
establish the method for amending the existing PUD for this Accessory Use CUP as follows:
(e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site
plan, development layout building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer
shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Section 2.4 (O,)(10. The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD
property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment.
Therefore, Affordable Storage, in accordance with the MZO, is applying for an Amendment to its
existing PUD to grant a CUP for "Open Sales" as an Accessory Use.
Affordable Storage is asking to be granted a PUD Amendment and CUP to allow for the utilization of
5,687 sq ft of at -grade space for the purpose of selling and renting merchandise and for the storing of
the same prior to sale. This represents less than 7.5% of the current building space on site and 2% of
the total land area of the parcel. This puts the request well within the Accessory Use guidelines as
written in the MZO.
The proposed locations for displaying varying size portable containers are outlined in the attached
site -plan. This plan allows the maintaining of adequate site -circulation, fire access and snow removal.
The area utilized for "Open Sales" will be neatly organized and screened from public view at a much
higher standard than similar uses in the immediate area.
There will be no assembly or manufacturing on site. All portable containers will be assembled off -site
prior to being brought to the location to be displayed for the purpose of selling and/or renting. Although
this accessory use will not substantially increase the amount of traffic, or noise at the site, Affordable
Storage is willing to limit the hours for placement and replacement of the portable containers to Monday
through Friday, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Affordable Storage currently operates at 98% capacity for it's fixed location self -storage products
indicating there is still substantial market demand for this use in the community. The addition of this
Accessory Use will allow the company to not only serve more community members, but also serve
them in a more convenient and affordable manner, capturing a growing trend in its industry. The
proposed use has little to no measurable impacts on adjacent land owners, the general public
right-of-way, or local infrastructure.
There will be no changes to lighting, signage, garbage, or any other elements of the property. There will
be no changes to the amount of impervious surface, or drainage on the site.
Affordable Storage feels that this is an ideally suited location for this use and the request is in harmony
with the area as well as the spirit of its original PUD.
ir
SNOW STORAGE
AREA = 6,055 SF
h'f
A
SNOW STORAGE
AREA = 5,330 SF
2ox8,
2px8,
2oX8,
1018,
2018
2U r8,
10X8
10,
co o�
4 EA - 15'X8'
p / STORAGE CONTAINERS
i
�\EGG
\ SNOW STORAGE
S�\EGG
4 EA - 7.5'X7.5'
STORAGE CONTAINERS
a.
\\� 2 EA - 15'X8'
Q) 1 STORAGE CONTAINERS
3 EA - 8'X8' o,/
G STORAGE CONTAINERS
V\�O 2 EA5' 8'
1� STORAGE CONTAINERS
3 EA - 7.5'X7.5'
STORAGE CONTAINERS 3 EA - 7.5'X7.5'
STORAGE CONTAINERS
1 EA - 20'X8'
STORAGE CONTAINER
�0-
�\EGG
*4
4 EA - 7.5'X7.5'
STORAGE CONTAINER
�Q
o,
4 EA - 7.5'X7.5'
STORAGE CONTAINERS
4 EA - 7.5'X7.5' /
STORAGE CONTAINERS\Cj
4 EA - 7.5'X7.5'
STORAGE CONTAINERS /
SNOW STORAGE
AREA = 15,525 SF
/ d d
SNOW STORAGE
AREA = 14,650 SF
EpE
EOF
la
�
�
al
r
X
0 30'
SCALE: 1" = 30'
LEGEND:
15'X8' PROPOSED STORAGE CONTAINER
(SIZE OF UNIT INDICATED ON PLAN)
SNOW STORAGE AREA
SITE PLAN NOTES:
1. PROPOSED STORAGE POD CONTAINERS SHALL BE LOCATED ON EXISTING
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
2. SNOW SHALL BE STORED IN LOCATIONS INDICATED ON PLAN.
SITE PLAN INFORMATION:
PARCEL AREA:
• 6.28 ACRES ±
SITE DATA
EXISTING / PROPOSED
PAVEMENT AREA
121,956
SF
BUILDING AREA
76,144
SF
PERVIOUS AREA
75,316
SF
TOTAL AREA
273,416
SF
PROPOSED STORAGE CONTAINERS
CONTAINER SIZE
AREA (SF)
NO. OF CONTAINERS
TOTAL AREA (SF) OF STORAGE
20' X 8'
160
17
2,720
15' X 8'
120
10
1,200
8' X 8'
64
3
192
7.5' X 7.5'
56
281
1,575
TOTAL AREA OF CONTAINERS 5,687
EXISTING BUILDINGS
AREA (SF)
BUILDING 1
3,364
BUILDING 2
4,530
BUILDING 3
5,130
BUILDING 4
4,530
BUILDING 5
5,130
BUILDING 6
4,530
BUILDING 7
5,130
BUILDING 8
4,230
BUILDING 9
5,130
BUILDING 10
3,930
BUILDING 11
5,130
BUILDING 12
3,930
BUILDING 13
5,130
BUILDING 14
3,030
BUILDING 15
5,130
BUILDING 16
5,130
BUILDING 17
3,030
TOTAL 76,144
STORAGE CONTAINER:
z
O
D_
U
U7
w
0
uO
N
0
U
0
U
0
U
0
v
N
p
O
N
m
m
m
0
w
z
z
Y
O
Q
W
C2
CD Lu
D
D
D
U
D IL
Z
MI*
0 v
10�
Z
w
Zm
N
W (n
Y C
oW
coV_
W
li QW
9
U.
..
C7f/1
WN
�WH~0�0
y�
Q
cow
m
yN
r1� ♦^
mzz
rLco
LL
v
Oaj°C
WWO
0
Z5 z
JVW
o -
OJ
W
�H
a
A U
w
z z
w J Q o
Q U z u
r QC Q O =
LL U C Q
w
J
Ln O 0-
J W DC O W
0o U u c/)
p~ L/) z
z I=
0 0 2
0 ILL ILL
LL G 0
LL m O
Q U F--
U
SHEET NO.
c I
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 3.8 Planned Unit Development Districts
Subsection Q) Special Use Overlay District
(b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Autumn Ridge PUD District
shall be single family residential uses as found in the "T-N", Traditional
Neighborhood Zoning District, subject to the approved Final Stage
Development Plans and development agreement dated September 1 lth, 2017,
as may be amended. The introduction of any other use from any district,
including Conditional Uses in the T-N District, shall be reviewed under the
requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section (0) —
Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD and Final Stage
PUD.
(c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and
incidental to residential uses as allowed in the T-N District, and as specifically
identified by the approved final stage PUD plans.
(d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development
of any lot in the Autumn Ridge PUD District shall adhere to the approved
final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any
proposed improvement or use is not addressed by the Final Stage PUD, then
the regulations of the T-N, Traditional Neighborhood District shall apply.
(e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use,
density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or
any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD
under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (0)(10). The
City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property
be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment.
(8) Affordable Self -Storage PUD District
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District is to
provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for
commercial land uses.
(b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Affordable Self -Storage PUD
District shall be self -storage uses as found in the B-3, Highway Business
District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, subject to the approved Final
Stage Development Plans dated September 11, 2017 and development
agreement dated September I Vh, 2017, as may be amended. The introduction
of any other use from any district, including Conditional Uses in the B-3
District, shall be reviewed under the requirements of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section (0) — Planned Unit Developments for
Development Stage PUD and Final Stage PUD.
Page 222 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 3.8 Planned Unit Development Districts
Subsection Q) Special Use Overlay District
(c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and
incidental to industrial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved
final stage PUD Plans, but shall not include outdoor storage or other
activities.
(d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development
in the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District shall adhere to the approved final
stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any
proposed improvement or use is not addressed by the Final Stage PUD, then
the regulations of the B-3, Highway Business District shall apply.
(e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use,
density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or
any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD
under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (0)(10). The
City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property
be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment.
(9) Rivertown Suites PUD District
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the Rivertown Suites PUD District is to provide for
the development of certain real estate subject to the District for multiple
family residential land uses.
(b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Rivertown Suites PUD
District shall be multiple family residential uses as found in the R-4, Medium -
High Density Residential District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated July 23, 2018
and development agreement dated September 7, 2018, as may be amended.
The introduction of any other use from any district shall be reviewed under
the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section (0)
— Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD and Final Stage
PUD.
(c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and
incidental to residential uses, and as specifically identified by the approved
final stage PUD plans.
(d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development
of any lot in the Rivertown Suites PUD District shall adhere to the approved
final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any
proposed improvement is not addressed by the final stage PUD, then the
regulations of the R-4, Medium -High Density Residential District shall apply.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 223
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section S.3 Accessory Use Standards
Subsection (C) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses
(3) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures
•
Accessory Building —
P P P
P P
P P P P
P
P
P P P P
P
minor
5.3 D1( 1 I
(
Accessory Building —
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Pmajor
5.3 D 2
Adult Use — accessory
LP]
C
5.3 Q 3
Agricultural Buildings
5.3 LQJ 4
Air Conditioning Units
P
I P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Automated Teller
Machines (ATMs)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
S. 3(D)(51
Automobile Repair —
C
Major
5.3f D)(6)
Automobile Repair —
Minor
C
C
5.3 UD 7
Boarder(s)
P
P
p
5.3 D 8
Bulk Fuel Sales/Storage
P
P
P
C
ICI
C
5.3 D 9
Cocktail Room (Retail
Sales Accessory to Micro-
C
C
C
C
C
C
Distillery)
5.3(Dj(10)
Co -located Wireless
Telecommunications
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Antennae
4.13(E)
Columbarium (Accessory
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
use to Cemeteries)
5.3(D(1 1)
Commercial Canopies
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
5.3(D 12)
Commercial Transmission/
Reception Antennae/
C
C
C
C
C
C
Structures
4.13(D)
Donation Drop-off
P
P
Containers
5.3 D 13
Drive -Through Services
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
5.3 Q14
Entertainment/ Recreation
C
C
C
C
14
5.3 D 15
— Outdoor Commercial
Fences or Walls
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p p
p
p
p
p
p
p
P
4.3
Greenhouse/Conservatory
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
5.3 D 16
non-commercial
Heliports
C
C
C
C
C
5.3 D 17
Home Occupations
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
p
p
P
5.3 D 18
Indoor Food /
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
5.3 D 19
Convenience Sales
Page 414 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards
Subsection (C) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses
9 ,
. '
- -.
Indoor Storage P P P P p P 5.3 D 20
Incidental Light
p
p
p
p
P
5.3(D)(21)
Manufacturing
Machinery/Trucking
:�iEc
5.3(D)(22)
Repair & Sales
Office
P
P
P
P
P
P
none
Off-street Loading
p
p
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
4.9
Space
Off-street Parking
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
4.8
Open Sales
P
h
C
C
C
5.3(D(23)
Operation and
storage of
agricultural
P
5.3(D)(24)
vehicles,
equipment, and
machinery
Outdoor Seating —
Accessory to
restaurant, bar,
production
brewery with
P\C
P\C
P\C
P\C
5.3(D)(25)
taproom,
microdistillery
with cocktail room,
and/or brewpubs
Outdoor Sidewalk
Sales & Display
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
5.3(D)(26)
(businesses)
Residential
5.3(D)(27)(a)
Outdoor Storage
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Industrial
5.3 D 27 b
Park Facility
Buildings &
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
5.3(D)(28)
Structures (public)
Private Amateur
4.13(B
Radio
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Private Receiving
Antennae and
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
p
p
p
p
4.13(C)
Antenna Support
Structures
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 415
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards
Subsection (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses
Retail Sales of Goods (as
P
P P P P P C
C 5.3(D)(29)
part of an office or
industrial use
Shelters (Storm or
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
5.3(D)(30)
Fallout
Sign(s)
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
5.3 Q 31
Solar Energy System
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
5.3(D)(32)
Swimming Pool
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
5.3(D)(33)
Taproom (Retail Sales
C
C
C
C C
C
5.3(D)(34)
Accessory to Production
Brewer
Large Trash Handling and
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
5.3(D)(35)
Recycling Collection Area
Wind Energy Conversion
C
C
7
C C
C
5.3(D)(36)
System, Commercial
Wind Energy Conversion
C
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C C
C
5.3(D)(37)
System, Non-commercial
Wireless
Telecommunications
Support Structures
C
C
C
C
C C
C
4 3
(E1
4.3(Fl
(D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses
(1) Accessory Building — Minor
(a) Minor accessory buildings do not require a building permit, but shall comply
with all applicable zoning regulations.
(b) In the M-H district, one minor accessory building for storage of equipment
and refuse is permitted for each manufactured home provided the accessory
building can meet all required setbacks, and is designed of weather resistant
material that will enhance the general appearance of the lot.
(2) Accessory Building — Major
(a) In all residential districts except M-H, the following shall apply:
(i) Size
Page 416 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS
Section 8.4 Definitions
Subsection (8) Lots
or on the effective date of any amendment of this Ordinance, that does not comply with the
use regulations of this Ordinance or the amendment.
NURSING HOME (CONVALESCENT HOME): A facility that provides nursing services
and custodial care generally on a 24-hour basis for two or more unrelated individuals who for
reasons of illness, physical infirmity, or advanced age, require such services; but not including
hospitals, clinics, sanitariums, or similar institutions.
OBSTRUCTION (in relation to flood plains): Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee,
dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire,
fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any
channel, watercourse, or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the
direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by
such water.
OFFICE USE: An establishment primarily engaged in providing professional, financial,
administrative, clerical, and similar services.
OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE: A space accessible from the street, alley or way, in a
building or on the lot, for the use of trucks while loading or unloading merchandise or
materials. Such space shall be of such size as to accommodate one (1) truck of the type
typically used in the particular business.
OPACITY (OPAQUE): A measurement indicating the degree of obscuration of light or
visibility. An object that is 100% opaque is impenetrable by light.
OPEN SALES: Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, and/or
renting merchandise and for the storing of same prior to sale. This use includes all outdoor
sales and display of goods and/or materials that are not specifically addressed as Outdoor
Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off -Street Vehicle Parking.
OPEN SPACE: An area on a lot not occupied by any structure or impervious surface.
OPEN SPACE, USABLE: A required ground area or terrace area on a lot which is graded,
developed, landscaped, and equipped and intended and maintained for either active or passive
recreation or both, available and accessible to and usable by all persons occupying a dwelling
unit or rooming unit on the lot and their guests. Such areas shall be grassed and landscaped or
covered only for a recreational purpose. Roofs, driveways, and parking areas shall not
constitute usable open space.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 495
CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS
Section 8.4 Definitions
Subsection (B) Lots
ORDINARY HIGH WATER (new shoreland district code): The boundary of public waters
which may include wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level
which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the
landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly
aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the
elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the
ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool.
OUTDOOR STORAGE: The keeping, in an un-roofed area, of any goods, material,
merchandise, or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty-four (24) hours. This shall
not include the display of vehicles for sale in a new or used car sales lot.
OUTPATIENT CARE: Medical examination or service available to the public in a hospital.
This service is provided without overnight care and shall be considered a separate,
independent, principal use when combined or operated in conjunction with a hospital.
OWNER: The person or entity with a legal or equitable interest in the land on which the
construction activities will occur.
PARAPET: A low wall which is located perpendicular to (extension of front wall) a roof of a
building.
PARK FACILITY, ACTIVE: A park or recreation facility that includes one or more of the
following: buildings, lighting, ball fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, skate parks, golf
courses, or other active sports facilities. Active park facilities will commonly include
benches, picnic areas, trails, sidewalks, and other similar features.
PARK FACILITY, PASSIVE: A park or recreational facility that does not include the
construction of facilities, lighting, or development of ball fields or other active sports
facilities. Passive parks may include benches, picnic areas, trails and sidewalks.
PARKING, OFF-STREET: The act of keeping a passenger vehicle as defined herein and/or
small commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles and emergency vehicles as defined herein, on
an approved parking space, properly surfaced, for a period of less than twenty-four (24) hours.
PARKING BAY: The parking module consisting of one or two rows of parking spaces or
stalls and the aisle from which motor vehicles enter and leave the spaces.
PARKING ISLAND: Landscaped areas within parking lots used to separate parking areas and
to soften the overall visual impact of a large parking area from adjacent properties.
Page 496 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS
Section 8.4 Definitions
Subsection (8) Lots
RIVER, TRIBUTARY: Rivers in the Protected Public Waters Inventory that are not classified
by the DNR as an agricultural, forested, remote or transition river.
ROOF: The exterior surface and its supporting structure on the top of a building or structure.
The structural makeup of which conforms to the roof structures, roof construction and roof
covering sections of the International Building Code.
ROOT ZONE: The area inside the dripline of a tree that contains its roots.
SCHOOL, Pre-K-12: A public or private school offering general, technical, or alternative
instruction at the elementary, middle, or high school level that operates in buildings or
structures on land leased or owned by the educational institution for administrative purposes.
Such uses include classrooms, vocational training (including that of an industrial nature for
instructional purposes only in middle or high schools), laboratories, auditoriums, libraries,
cafeterias, after school care, athletic facilities, dormitories, and other facilities that further the
educational mission of the institution.
SCHOOL, HIGHER EDUCATION: A public or private non-profit institution for post-
secondary education or a public or private school offering vocational or trade instruction to
students. Such educational institutions operate in buildings or structures on land leased or
owned by the educational institution for administrative purposes. Such uses include
classrooms, vocational training (including that of an industrial nature for instructional
purposes only), laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, cafeterias, after school care, athletic
facilities, dormitories, and other facilities that further the educational mission of the
institution.
SCROLLING TEXT: A type of dynamic sign movement in which the letters or symbols
move horizontally across the sign in a continuous scroll, permitting a viewer to observe the
message over time. Scrolling shall not include flashing or other types of video movement.
SEDIMENT CONTROL: Measures and methods employed to prevent sediment from leaving
the site.
SELF -STORAGE FACILITY: A building or group of buildings that contains equal or
varying sizes of individual, compartmentalized, and controlled access stalls or lockers for the
storage of residential or commercial customer's goods or wares.
SEDIMENT: The product of an erosion process; solid material both mineral and organic, that
is in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved by water, air or ice, and has come to
rest on the earth's surface either above or below water level.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 501
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS
There are four commercial and mixed land use designations as follows:
Community Commercial
A Community Commercial designation applies to existing commercial uses
along State Highway 25, School Boulevard and Chelsea Road, as well as other
small pockets of Monticello that include existing shopping centers, retailers and
entertainment uses. The intent of Community Commercial is to provide locations
for everyday retail goods and services generally oriented to a city-wide basis.
Regional Commercial
A Regional Commercial designation applies to areas targeted for uses that serve
the traveling public and larger retail uses and commercial development intended
for a regional market. This designation is generally applied to various areas along
the Interstate 94 corridor with high visibility. The development character of the
regional commercial development will continue to be auto -oriented, large format
commercial uses such as `big -box' uses and other uses that require a large parking
area. Looking to the future, opportunities for connectivity and design linkages
between such development and nearby uses and neighborhoods will
be emphasized.
Downtown Mixed -Use
The Downtown Mixed -Use category identifies and designates the downtown area
as a primary development focus for downtown intended to improve, revitalize
and redevelop Downtown Monticello as envisioned in the 2017 Downtown Small
Area Plan. The goal is to transform downtown into a thriving commercial area with
new mixed -use, specialty retail and restaurant uses with enhanced streetscape
and pedestrian amenities. Entertainment uses, co -working spaces, boutiques and
cafes are also envisioned. New downtown development should also embrace and
be oriented towards the river whenever possible.
Commercial/Residential Flex
The Commercial/Residential Flex designation encourages the mix of flexible
and compatible development of commercial, office, retail and residential uses
in limited areas of the city on the same or adjacent properties. The purpose of
this designation is to give the city and property owners flexibility for future land
use based on market demand. The Commercial/Residential Flex designation
is applied to a few of the remaining large vacant parcels in the City including
the parcels located south of Chelsea Road and north of School Boulevard and
centered along Dundas Road. This designation is also applied to parcels located
between Interstate 94 and 7th Street West. These properties may be developed as
commercial, residential, or mixed land uses under the city's PUD zoning, subject to
review and approval of the City.
u)"
Required Retail Frontage
Small Retail Opportunities
Commercial
Mixed -Use
Multi -Family Housing
Public
Employment
Park/OpenSpa Cemetery
TABLE 3.3.- FUTURE LAND USE COMMERCIAL ACREAGES
Source: Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan (2017)
60 (« LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
The Community Commercial designation includes low -scale retail, service, and office uses located along the City's arterials and collector streets. Some of these areas are developed
as auto -oriented "strip" shopping centers while others are freestanding offices, commercial uses, or clusters of businesses intended to meet the needs of the community at large.
Typical retail uses would include supermarkets, drug stores and miscellaneous local -serving retail stores and services. Typical office commercial uses might include banks, finance,
real estate, medical and dental offices, and professional services. Typical service commercial uses might include gas stations, restaurants including fast food, used car sales, and
minor auto repair businesses.
Primary Mode
Vehicular with
access to collectors
and arterials
l Transit or
l shuttle service
Secondary Mode
Shared bike/
pedestrian facilities
2018 Correlating
• Floor Area Ratio Zoning District
(FAR)
0.30 to 0.50 B-2
• Height - Limited
Business District
1-2 stories
• Lot Area I B-3
N/A Highway
Business District
MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
2D. Public Hearing — Consideration of a reauest for Rezoning to Planned Unit
Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat
Monticello Business Center Eighth Addition for Monticello Meadows, a proposed
200-unit multi -family residential project in a B-4 (Regional Business) District.
Applicant: Baldur Real Estate, LLC
Prepared by: Northwest Associated
Meeting Date:
Council Date (pending
Consultants (NAC)
Commission action):
10/05/2021
Pending
Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building and Zoning
Official, Community & Economic Development Coordinator, Project Engineer, Fire Marshal
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: Legal Description: Outlot C, Monticello Business Center
PID:155098000030
Planning Case Number: 2021-037
Request(s): Preliminary Plat
Rezoning from B-4, Regional Commercial District to
PUD, Planned Unit Development District
Development Stage Planned Unit Development
Deadline for Decision: November 15, 2021 (60-day deadline)
January 14, 2022 (120-day deadline)
Land Use Designation: Commercial and Residential Flex
Located within the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan
Zoning Designation: B-4, Regional Commercial
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: NA
Current Site Uses: Vacant
Interim Use Permit (IUP) granted for sand/soil extraction
Surrounding Land Uses: North: Vacant Land, (B-4)
East: Mixed Residential (R-2, PUD)
1
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
South: Mid Density Residential (R-3)
West: Commercial/Vacant (B-4)
Project Description: The applicant proposes to plat the property with a single buildable
parcel on which the proposed project would be developed and
one larger outlot on which other development (as well as the
public portions of the Chelsea Commons project) would be
located. It is on the outlot area that that the current IUP for sand
extraction is located.
Location
This project site has been the subject of concept submittal review for both townhouse and
multi -family housing options over the past few months. The City Council and Planning
Commission held a joint work session on the townhouse project in late spring, leading the
applicant to consider the multi -family option. A concept meeting was held on the multi -family
concept in July. After reconsidering both alternatives, the applicant is now pursuing the 200
unit multi -family proposal.
The project consists of just under 10 acres of land to be platted from the larger, approximately
32-acre property. The entire 32-acre site is located in the southeast quadrant of the Chelsea
2
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
Commons project area. The site is bordered by Edmonson Avenue on the east. The proposed
outlot would be to the west, with the large powerline corridor to the south.
As a component of the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan (CC -SAP) district, the expectations for
development include residential land uses which embrace the Small Area Plan goals and which
are designed to make use of that project's central amenity system. It is also intended that
developments facilitate the infrastructure needs (especially stormwater capture for the lake)
and the public recreational objectives of the Chelsea Commons area, primarily connecting to
the public open spaces and trails in and around the site. Further, the Chelsea Commons plan
seeks specifically to encourage architecture, site planning, and landscape design that
incorporates the directions of the Small Area Plan objectives and policies.
Analysis of the specific land use requests is discussed below, as well as commentary on the
project's consistency with the Chelsea Commons SAP.
Land Use. The Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan (CC -SAP) anticipates and encourages higher
densities of residential uses along the east half of the district, with projected densities in the
area of 25 units per acre. Higher densities would be encouraged when they can show
consistency with the goals of the CC -SAP. At 18.7 units per acre, the proposed plan is within
the range of density allowed, and the land use is supportable under the Chelsea Commons plan.
As a multi -family site, higher density on the site would be considered. It is conceivable that the
larger open portions of the site could be reserved for additional development if warranted in
future phases.
As development projects proceed in the Chelsea Commons area, it will be critical to monitor
density (both commercial and residential). The CC -SAP relies on a baseline density to generate
the usage and revenues anticipated to support the public investments in the project area.
Ensuring that land is used efficiently would be a factor in reviewing specific development
proposals to address this aspect of the plan.
Site Planning. In the layout proposed, the two buildings have little relationship to each other,
nor to the property boundaries on the west, which form the common boundary with the
Chelsea Commons public spaces. As noted in the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan (CC -SAP),
the city's investment in the common area improvements is intended both to facilitate
development activity in the district, but also to encourage higher -end design for the private
development around the public infrastructure. One aspect of this objective is seeking
development that relates in a positive and direct way to the Chelsea Commons area.
Staff believes that orienting the buildings more efficiently along the north, west, and southerly
boundaries of the site would relate these buildings more directly to the Chelsea Commons
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
public areas, as well as provide the advantage of better preserving the east portions of the site
for additional development. As designed, there are large swaths of the site that remain
undeveloped. Given the current layout, they are unlikely to accommodate additional
development in the future due to the proposed site configuration. The applicant's site designer
has expressed concern with this concept, suggesting that the grades would be difficult, and unit
exposures to the public areas would be diminished.
From an overall site planning perspective, regardless of final orientation, staff would encourage
exploration of design improvements to the central entrance drive and its associated pedestrian
connection(s). Staff would encourage a more identifiable visual focus point between the two
building garage entrances, and then connecting to the main Commons' park area beyond.
Creating a grander sense of entry and visual impression for the entry drive can be a significant
asset for the site overall, as opposed to a utilitarian driveway.
Community Building. The community room is a strong positive amenity to the site. This
aspect of the plan provides an example of the prairie -style architectural themes
discussed below. The design of the proposed building reflects many of the noted
architectural and materials elements.
However, the applicant has noted that the specific location, along with other site
amenities including potentially a swimming pool, project site artwork, and other
elements, are being considered. These considerations will likely impact and change the
site planning submitted for this review. The Planning Commission will need to consider
specific comments on future changes to the site and building plans, and/or how the
current proposal meets the City's PUD and CC -SAP goals.
Parking. The applicants provide "underground" parking as a first level of the building,
consisting of 200 covered spaces (100 in each building), and 210 surface spaces, for a total of
410 spaces. The R-4 zoning district would require a total of 2.25 spaces per unit, 450 total
parking spaces, and a maximum uncovered parking supply of 1.1 spaces per unit. For this
project, the uncovered maximum would be 220 surface spaces. The plan meets that R-4
standard.
Based on the unit mix, the parking ratio as proposed would be approximately 1.33 spaces per
bedroom. Staff considers this area of flexibility as a reasonable accommodation, provided that
all parking is available to tenants as a part of their rent payments to ensure that the covered
parking is fully utilized.
In a meeting to review the application, the applicants suggested that they may seek additional
covered parking over the currently open spaces. Whether these structures would be attached
or detached has not yet been determined nor shown on any submittal document. Both site
4
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
location and architectural design of these accessory buildings would be considered important
elements of a Development Stage PUD review. No information is available for this option as
yet.
Site Lighting. Light pole locations are shown on the plan, but are not detailed as to
photometric, lighting design, or light pole height. No information is provided related to wall -
mounted lighting. Decorative lighting fixtures are encouraged to accommodate the CC -SAP
theme.
Site Signage. No information on site signage has been proposed with this application.
Decorative signage consistent with CC -SAP theme is encouraged.
Grading. The development's relationship to the Commons area is also a consideration in
evaluating the grading for the site. As currently designed, the under -building garages sit at an
approximate elevation of 962, 3-4 feet below existing grade. The residential units are
constructed above the garage levels, with a main -level finished floor elevation of 973. The
Commons normal lake level is designed to be at approximately 952, with a flood protection
elevation (including a normal "bounce" in the lake elevation) set for the lowest floor of
surrounding buildings of 958.
To accommodate the building grades and elevations as proposed, the grading plan fills the
surrounding site on the front entry area to accommodate the first -floor building level, then
dramatically grades down from the rear -side of the buildings to reach the existing grade in a
long, straight ramped berm across the entire extent of the building area. This design raises a
number of concerns. It makes pedestrian access from the main residential grade to the
Commons pathways more difficult to accommodate (some grades appear to exceed maximum
accessibility requirements), and results in a direct and relatively steep drop from the building to
the project boundary.
In discussing this with the project designers, they indicate an intent to modify the grading to
incorporate more naturalized grading than is shown on the current plans. This includes areas of
the east side of the site, where a geometric berm and stormwater infiltration area are shown.
(This is also discussed further in the Landscape section of the report.) Revised plans reflecting
this design have not been provided and Staff has not had an opportunity to review any
proposed changes as of the publication of the agenda packet.
Engineering staff has noted some concerns related to stormwater management, given the
layout and the fill designs. As noted above, stormwater management issues are of premium
importance, and unique to this project, given the nature of the proposed Chelsea Commons
lake construction and maintenance. The usual approach of infiltrating stormwater to the
ground or running it off to the larger stormwater system can be counter to the goals of the
5
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
Chelsea Commons project. A creative approach that captures, cleans, and directs as much
stormwater as possible is a critical component of the long-term project success. More detail is
found in the engineering department comment letter attached to this report.
Fire Access. The Fire department staff has raised concerns as to potential inaccessibility of the
rear portions of the buildings for fire -fighting purposes. They have indicated that addition of a
surrounding pathway may be a potential solution. However, the grading of the site makes this
of questionable feasibility. One option in this regard would be the potential to accommodate
fire access from the main Commons circuit and gateway paths, which could be used for
firefighting around the otherwise inaccessible portions of the buildings. This would avoid the
requirement for duplicate path/fire access road along the rear sides of the buildings —
particularly unlikely given the steep slopes designed as a part of the current grading plan.
The applicants have contested this interpretation of the fire code, and these discussions are
ongoing. The applicants have suggested that additional emergency vehicle access and turn-
around locations on a revised site plan could mitigate this issue. As with other aspects of the
project, this issue and any revised plans will require additional review.
Architecture. The Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan includes themes for both public and
private development, based on proximity to the different "biome" pools of the Commons area.
The proposed project area sits within the southern pool area, described as the "Quercus"
biome, to be dominated by Oak Savanna and prairie landscapes, and the prairie -style
architectural themes and materials.
The proposed buildings are dominated by single -plane front and rear walls, and a long mostly
uninterrupted ridge line. Variation occurs with minor gabling and at the far ends of the
structures. The applicants note that the wall plan is broken by recessed balconies for each unit,
a highly valued feature with visual advantages over projecting balcony design. It is noted that
the applicant provided an original elevation design which included the Community Building with
the first application. A revised elevation for the two primary buildings was submitted, but not
in time for review as part of this report.
Incorporation of additional prairie -style material and architectural features would be more
consistent with the Chelsea Commons SAP. Prairie style architecture is characterized by
horizontal themes, extensive eaves and overhangs and customized roof lines (often with less
slope than the City's standard, helping to emphasize the horizontally extended eaves), and
buildings that directly engage the surrounding site. Materials include extensive expanses of
natural brick, stone, stucco, and large glass wall panels. Wood is often used as an artistic
accent, and glass often includes artistic insets. Staff would encourage the applicant to consider
0
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
modification to more strongly incorporate these elements. As noted above, the community
building does a stronger job of meeting these aspects.
The proposed building utilizes metal lapped siding for all but a very small portion around the
primary entry, and the partially exposed "below grade" garage elevations utilize a masonry
veneer. Customary brick and stone requirements have not been met, particularly when
considering that both the east and west sides of this project are frontages — one to Edmonson
and one to the Chelsea Commons public amenity areas.
The CC -SAP would suggest architectural design using only limited wood (or wood substitutes
such as LP/Fiber Cement), and extensive use of materials listed above, including brick or stone
additions. Altering the building wall planes and adding significant roofline interest as a part of
those changes, would be suggested by the Chelsea Commons plan for this area. While the
balconies are recessed and attractive spaces, cantilevering them out by two feet, and using
these elements to add features of wider eaves would help address the architectural emphasis
of the CC -SAP.
Supporting the biome themes in both the public and private areas is an important and unique
aspect of the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan. The SAP plan speaks directly to this objective,
and the initial project in this area is strongly advised to address these objectives aggressively.
Landscape. As with the architectural comments above, landscape themes should demonstrate
consistency with the vision of the CC -SAP. Those themes include an extensive use of oak tree
planting in open "savanna" style clusters, as well as more dense wooded "copse" clusters,
supported by common prairie zone woody shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Large, extensive
bluegrass lawn areas as proposed in the submitted landscaping plan would be contrary to this
theme.
Instead, significant wafts of prairie grasses and shrub clusters — especially gray dogwood,
sumac, and shrub rose, would fit this theme. Similarly, the current design of a long continuous
steep slope along the rears of the buildings creates an almost structural landform, contrary to
the naturalized concepts supporting the prairie and oak savanna theme. Much more natural
contouring of the site would support the visual aspects of the site planning, as well as the
planting plan, which would benefit from both significant enhancements in both quantities and
material varieties.
Along the Edmonson Avenue frontage the submitted plan proposes a pair of geometric berms
and infiltration areas. These areas would be better designed to naturalize the slopes and
depressions and ensure that the stormwater collected here is maximized as an asset to the
lake. The engineers are encouraged to evaluate whether these basins are better situated at the
rear or west of the site.
7
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
Moreover, the land cover would be better designed for the prairie/oak savanna planting
environment, rather than the uninterrupted bluegrass lawn.
The current landscape plan focuses on a more traditional planting plan, with a regimented line
of maple trees along the parking lots, a single straight row of smaller shrubs and perennials
along the building foundation, and a few clusters of planting area adjoining the meandering
public path.
Consistent with the comments noted above, significant changes to the site landscape would be
important to integrate the project into the Chelsea Commons prairie/oak savanna theme. The
applicant has indicated that these changes could be incorporate into a subsequent plan for
review.
Access. The site gains its single and principle access from Edmonson Avenue. As noted above,
attention to the design of this central entry should be made in both the site and landscaping
plans.
The City Engineer's office will comment on the need for any traffic analysis related to turning
movements and traffic impacts on Edmonson and at the adjacent intersection.
Preliminary Plat. The parcel size is just under 10 acres, and an outlot of approximately 22 acres.
The plat is straightforward and provides the required right of way for Edmonson Avenue, per
Engineer review and comment.
Perimeter drainage and utility easements at 12' are not shown as required. This and other
easements are subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer.
Park Dedication. The Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission will be reviewing the project and
making a specific recommendation on park dedication for this project. The applicants propose,
at this stage, to pay the dedication amounts in fees, with land taken from surrounding areas for
the paths and Chelsea Commons open space.
Because the applicants are platting to the centerline of the power easement, and grading to
that edge, they will need to work with the City to accommodate the proposed Gateway Trail in
that corridor via the grading plan, as well as the appropriate stormwater basins to create the
prairie trail and rain -garden demonstration areas within that easement. Because no tree
planting is allowed under the power lines, the enhancements to the Gateway trail at ground
level are especially important.
Any easements for pathway purposes will be a discussion point as part of the PARC
recommendation.
Pedestrian Circulation. The plan shows a series of pedestrian improvements for the project,
related to the internal sidewalk access and connection to the Chelsea Commons park area. In
0
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
addition, the plan shows a meandering path along the Edmonson Avenue parkway. The
Edmonson Avenue path is required to be constructed as part of the developer's right of way
requirements for Edmonson Avenue. Connectivity to the Chelsea Commons system and the
Edmonson pathway should be reviewed by the PARC to comment on layout and design as a
part of the City's public pathway system. Connections to the Chelsea Commons park areas will
require final review for grading, accessibility and connection points.
As noted earlier, there are concerns related to the current sidewalk or pathway alignments in
terms of their compliance with accessibility standards. As the applicant had indicated an intent
to revise these pathways for accessibility and in relationship to the final community room
location, these final alignment details are not available for review at this time.
Trash/Recycling. Trash areas will be indoors, in the garage under the buildings.
Erosion Control/Drainage. The City Engineering staff has provided separate comment on
drainage and stormwater management.
Utilities. The City Engineering staff has provided separate comment on utility plans.
Phasing. The project is potentially proposed in two phases per the narrative. The northerly
building and community building would be constructed first. The project phasing will need to
be detailed in a supplementary plan.
PUD Zoning. The project requires a PUD, accomplished by establishment of a PUD Zoning
District applicable to the subject site. For Planned Unit Development, the City allows flexibility
from certain zoning standards under an analysis where the City finds that the modifications
result in an enhanced project that meets or exceeds the City's land use objectives and
applicable standards for the area.
The goals for this site relate generally to the Comprehensive Plan land use chapter and
associated elements, and more specifically, to the detailed goals and objectives identified in the
Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan. As discussed in the project analysis above, the land use
proposals are consistent with the Chelsea Commons SAP's general goals of multi -family housing
along the Edmonson Avenue exposure. However, adherence to the specifics of the CC -SAP are
subject to additional refinement in the various plan components of grading, drainage, and
stormwater management, site design, landscape treatments, public space connections, and
architecture, among others.
A PUD project must demonstrate that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and CC -SAP are well
addressed. The applicants have indicated an intent to revise plans that will provide detail in at
least some of those specific areas, but plans are not yet available to staff for updated review.
For reference in this case, PUD is being requested to:
0
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
(1) Accommodate multiple buildings on one site.
(2) Accommodate modified parking supply for multi -family residential.
The applicant has also indicated their intent to modify the name of the project from
"Monticello Meadows" as reflected on the submitted plans to "Monticello Lakes" PUD plans
should be revised to reflect that change.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Monticello Business Center Eighth
Addition.
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021-038, recommending approval of the
Preliminary Plat for Monticello Business Center Eighth Addition, based on the findings in
said resolution, with conditions as listed in Exhibit Z of the staff report.
2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021-038, recommending denial of
the Preliminary Plat for Monticello Business Center Eighth Addition, based on findings to
be identified following the public hearing.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. 2021-038, subject to additional information
from the applicant and/or staff.
Decision 2: Consideration of a Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021-039 recommending approval of the rezoning
from B-4, Regional Commercial to Monticello Lakes PUD District, based on the findings
in said resolution.
2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021-039, recommending denial of
the rezoning, based on findings to be identified following the public hearing.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. 2021-039, subject to additional information
from the applicant and/or staff.
Decision 3: Consideration of a Development Stage PUD
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021-040, recommending approval of the
Development Stage PUD for Monticello Lakes, based on the findings in said resolution,
with conditions as listed in Exhibit Z of the staff report.
2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021-040, recommending denial of
the Development Stage PUD for Monticello Lakes, based on findings to be identified
following the public hearing.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. 2021-040, subject to additional information
from the applicant and/or staff.
10
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff believes that there is a significant amount of information that the Planning Commission
may not have available for review at the public hearing. This information includes both the
recommendations of staff as well as those changes or additions as may be indicated by the
applicant. When the Planning Commission and the public are not able to review the most up to
date proposals, and those proposals have not been available to staff in time for adequate
review and comment, the Commission must speculate as to the final project, and rely on a large
number of conditions to express its recommended intent to the City Council.
In this regard, staff has provided a long list of conditions under Exhibit Z to support any
recommendation for approval. The list includes significant levels of detail to ensure that the
project will meet the objectives that the City has identified for PUD development generally, as
well as for the Chelsea Commons area specifically. Staff's recommendation is that any
recommendation for approval be accompanied by the full Exhibit Z.
With platting and planned unit development, the applicant has the final plat and final stage
PUD applications to demonstrate compliance with the conditions established by the
Commission and Council.
However, if the Commission believes that more finalized plans are necessary to make their
recommendations, a motion to table would be in order. If such a motion is made and
supported, it should be accompanied by as much detailed direction to the development team
as possible, utilizing those elements of the staff report as a base, and any others identified by
the Planning Commission in its review.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2021-038 — Preliminary Plat
B. Resolution PC-2021-039 - Rezoning to PUD
C. Resolution PC-2021-040— Development Stage PUD
D. Ordinance No. XXX, DRAFT NOT YET PREPARED
E. Aerial Image
F. Applicant Narrative
G. Preliminary Plat
H. Existing Conditions
I. PUD Site Plan
J. Preliminary Grading Plans
K. Preliminary Utility Plans
L. Building Elevations & Floor Plans, Original Application
M. Building Elevations & Floor Plans, Revised
N. Landscaping Plan
11
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
O. City Engineer's Letter, dated September 30th, 2021
P. Excerpts, Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan
Z. Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Monticello Business Center Eighth Addition Preliminary Plat
Rezoning to PUD Monticello Lakes Development Stage PUD
1. Consider revisions to the general site plan that permit the buildings to relate more
directly to each other, and to the Chelsea Commons area, including use of the central
entrance drive to create an expanded sense of entry and terminal view through the
project.
2. Explore options that would accommodate additional density on the site through
creative site planning, in support of the Chelsea Commons density goals.
3. Provide an updated site plan showing the final Community Building location, including
internal sidewalk locations, and other amenities proposed by the development team.
4. Modify site plans to encourage a more identifiable visual focus point and central
entrance drive.
5. Supplement the site plan with any proposed additional detached or attached covered
parking structures, including building materials, architecture, and other features that fit
with the required CC -SAP theming on the site.
6. Provide information on site lighting, including photometrics, wall lighting, and pole
lighting details and height. Decorative lighting fixtures are encouraged to accommodate
the CC -SAP theme.
7. Provide information on site signage. Decorative sign plans and materials are
encouraged to accommodate the CC -SAP theme.
8. Revise the proposed grading plans to accommodate the following objectives:
a. Maximize capture and pre-treatment of stormwater, directing it to other basin
locations along the powerline corridor and/or the northerly abutting gateway, as
directed by the City Engineering department.
b. Revise the berming and basin designs along the east side of the property to be more
natural in shape and form and avoiding sudden geometric piles of soil.
c. Revise the slopes on the outside exposure of the building walls to create an
undulating, natural form rather than a straight-line geometric bank, and
accommodate access from ground units to the exterior.
12
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021
9. Compliance with fire code requirements. As compliance may require, consider
integrating the Commons and Gateway pathways into the project for firefighting
enhancements, rather than adding pavement on site.
10. Revise building architecture to reflect the Chelsea Commons biome for the southern
area. Incorporate prairie -style horizontal emphasis as reflected in the Community
Building, including varying and interrupted roof planes, significant increase in the use of
stone and/or brick above the garage -level exposures, and additional glass where
practical. Consider adjustments to the balconies to cantilever a portion for visual
interest.
11. Modify the landscaping plan significantly to introduce areas of naturalized prairie
plantings and oak clusters, with particular emphasis on the outer portions of the project
exposed to the common areas of the Chelsea Commons project.
a. Landscaping treatments with the Gateway area beneath the powerline shall
demonstrate compliance with the Chelsea Commons biome concept.
12. With the modified form of the landscape, incorporate a more prairie/oak planting
palette, and minimize regimented planting patterns along the linear edges (pavement,
building, etc.) in the project.
13. Address all plat recommendations of the City Engineer.
14. Address park dedication recommendations of the Parks, Arts, and Recreation
Commission.
15. Work with the City to ensure that connections to the adjoining Gateway and Commons
area open spaces and pathways are properly placed for design, function, accessibility.
and materials. Direct connections to the Commons should consider concrete pathways.
16. Compliance with the terms of the City's engineering staff letter dated September 30tn,
2021.
17. Comments and recommendations of other staff and Planning Commission.
13
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-038
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER EIGHTH ADDITION
A MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDVISION
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to develop unplatted property along Edmonson
Avenue in the B-4, Regional Business Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to rezone the property from B-4, Regional Business to
Monticello Lakes PUD District, accommodating multi -family residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to plat said property into one
development lot and one outlot, along with public street dedication and other features,
under a PUD; and
WHEREAS, the site is guided for mixed uses under the label Commercial and Residential Flex
in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed PUD, along with the companion Plat, are consistent with the long-
term use and development of the property for industrial uses; and
WHEREAS, the plat will comply with the required policies and requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance, contingent on conditions noted in this resolution and upcoming
Final Plat review comments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 5t", 2021 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
The Preliminary Plat provides an appropriate means of furthering the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan for the site by putting the existing and proposed
improvements and parcels to a multi -family, high density residential use.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-038
2. The proposed improvements on the site under the Preliminary Plat are
consistent with the needs of the development in this location as a mixed
residential area.
3. The improvements will have expected impacts on public services, including
sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and traffic which have been planned to
serve the property for the development as proposed.
4. The development and building designs, per conditions as approved,
successfully fulfill the intent of the City's development plans and regulations.
5. The flexibility from Subdivision Regulations in the Preliminary Plat for the
project is consistent with the intent of the City's economic development
objectives, as well as with the intent of the PUD zoning regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City
Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Monticello Business Center Eighth Addition,
subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z of the staff report as follows:
Consider revisions to the general site plan that permit the buildings to relate
more directly to each other, and to the Chelsea Commons area, including use
of the central entrance drive to create an expanded sense of entry and
terminal view through the project.
Explore options that would accommodate additional density on the site
through creative site planning, in support of the Chelsea Commons density
goals.
Provide an updated site plan showing the final Community Building location,
including internal sidewalk locations, and other amenities proposed by the
development team.
4. Modify site plans to encourage a more identifiable visual focus point and
central entrance drive.
Supplement the site plan with any proposed additional detached or attached
covered parking structures, including building materials, architecture, and
other features that fit with the required CC -SAP theming on the site.
6. Provide information on site lighting, including photometrics, wall lighting,
and pole lighting details and height. Decorative lighting fixtures are
encouraged to accommodate the CC -SAP theme.
7. Provide information on site signage. Decorative sign plans and materials are
encouraged to accommodate the CC -SAP theme.
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-038
8. Revise the proposed grading plans to accommodate the following objectives:
a. Maximize capture and pre-treatment of stormwater, directing it to other
basin locations along the powerline corridor and/or the northerly
abutting gateway, as directed by the City Engineering department.
b. Revise the berming and basin designs along the east side of the property
to be more natural in shape and form and avoiding sudden geometric
piles of soil.
c. Revise the slopes on the outside exposure of the building walls to create
an undulating, natural form rather than a straight-line geometric bank,
and accommodate access from ground units to the exterior.
Compliance with fire code requirements. As compliance may require,
consider integrating the Commons and Gateway pathways into the project
for firefighting enhancements, rather than adding pavement on site.
10. Revise building architecture to reflect the Chelsea Commons biome for the
southern area. Incorporate prairie -style horizontal emphasis as reflected in
the Community Building, including varying and interrupted roof planes,
significant increase in the use of stone and/or brick above the garage -level
exposures, and additional glass where practical. Consider adjustments to the
balconies to cantilever a portion for visual interest.
11. Modify the landscaping plan significantly to introduce areas of naturalized
prairie plantings and oak clusters, with particular emphasis on the outer
portions of the project exposed to the common areas of the Chelsea
Commons project.
a. Landscaping treatments with the Gateway area beneath the powerline
shall demonstrate compliance with the Chelsea Commons biome
concept.
12. With the modified form of the landscape, incorporate a more prairie/oak
planting palette, and minimize regimented planting patterns along the linear
edges (pavement, building, etc.) in the project.
13. Address all plat recommendations of the City Engineer.
14. Address park dedication recommendations of the Parks, Arts, and Recreation
Commission.
15. Work with the City to ensure that connections to the adjoining Gateway and
Commons area open spaces and pathways are properly placed for design,
function, accessibility. and materials. Direct connections to the Commons
should consider concrete pathways.
3
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-038
16. Compliance with the terms of the City's engineering staff letter dated
September 30t", 2021.
17. Comments and recommendations of other staff and Planning Commission.
ADOPTED this 5th day of October, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Z
Paul Konsor, Chair
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
C!
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-039
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND
MAP, CREATING THE MONTICELLO LAKES PUD DISTRICT, AND REZONING THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY TO
MONTICELLO LAKES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to develop property along Edmonson Avenue, currently
zoned B-4, Regional Business District; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to plat said property into a single
development parcel and one outlot under a PUD; and
WHEREAS, the site is guided for mixed uses under the label Commercial and Residential Flex
in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the site is located in the Chelsea Commons Small Area Planning district, and that
district accommodates a mix of residential uses, with specific directions related to
architecture, site planning, landscape, and connections to public spaces; and
WHEREAS, the proposed plat, along with the companion PUD, are consistent with the long-
term use and development of the property for residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed PUD falls below the densities prescribed in the Small Area Plan,
but create positive density opportunities for realizing the objectives of the CC -SAP; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 5t", 2021 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
The Rezoning provides an appropriate means of furthering the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan for the site
by putting the existing and proposed improvements and parcels to
reasonable residential densities for the area.
The proposed improvements on the site under the PUD Zoning are consistent
with the needs of the development in this location as a mixed residential
area.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-039
3. The improvements will have expected impacts on public services, including
sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and traffic which have been planned to
serve the property for the development as proposed.
4.. The PUD flexibility for the project is consistent with the intent of the City's
economic development objectives, as well as with the intent of the PUD
zoning regulations, in support of the proposed plat.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City
Council approves the creation of the Monticello Lakes PUD District and rezoning of the
subject property to Monticello Lakes PUD District.
ADOPTED this 5t" day of October, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
IN
ATTEST:
Paul Konsor, Chair
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-040
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MONTICELLO LAKES,
A 200 UNIT MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to develop property along Edmonson Avenue, currently
zoned B-4. Regional Business District; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to rezone the property from B-4, Regional Business to
Monticello Lakes PUD District; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to plat said property into one
development lot and one outlot under a PUD; and
WHEREAS, the site is guided for mixed uses under the label Commercial and Residential Flex
in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the site is within the planning area of the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan,
which directs the site for multi -family residential uses, under a specified theme relating to
site planning, architecture, landscape features, and relationship to the Chelsea Commons
public areas; and
WHEREAS, the proposed PUD, along with the companion Plat, are consistent with the long-
term use and development of the property for residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed PUD falls below the densities prescribed in the Comprehensive
Plan, but is consistent with the general expectations for higher density property in the area;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 5t", 2021 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-040
The PUD provides an appropriate means of furthering the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan for the site
by putting the existing and proposed improvements and parcels to a high
density residential use.
The proposed improvements on the site under the PUD, as modified by the
approved conditions, are consistent with the needs of the development in
this location as a mixed residential area.
3. The improvements will have expected impacts on public services, including
sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and traffic which have been planned to
serve the property for the development as proposed.
4. The development and building designs successfully fulfill the intent of the
City's development plans and regulations.
5. The PUD flexibility for the project is consistent with the intent of the City's
economic development objectives, as well as with the intent of the PUD
zoning regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City
Council approves the Development Stage PUD for Monticello Lakes, subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit Z of the staff report as follows:
1. Consider revisions to the general site plan that permit the buildings to relate
more directly to each other, and to the Chelsea Commons area, including use
of the central entrance drive to create an expanded sense of entry and
terminal view through the project.
2. Explore options that would accommodate additional density on the site
through creative site planning, in support of the Chelsea Commons density
goals.
3. Provide an updated site plan showing the final Community Building location,
including internal sidewalk locations, and other amenities proposed by the
development team.
4. Modify site plans to encourage a more identifiable visual focus point and
central entrance drive.
5. Supplement the site plan with any proposed additional detached or attached
covered parking structures, including building materials, architecture, and
other features that fit with the required CC -SAP theming on the site.
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-040
6. Provide information on site lighting, including photometrics, wall lighting,
and pole lighting details and height. Decorative lighting fixtures are
encouraged to accommodate the CC -SAP theme.
7. Provide information on site signage. Decorative sign plans and materials are
encouraged to accommodate the CC -SAP theme.
8. Revise the proposed grading plans to accommodate the following objectives:
a. Maximize capture and pre-treatment of stormwater, directing it to other
basin locations along the powerline corridor and/or the northerly abutting
gateway, as directed by the City Engineering department.
b. Revise the berming and basin designs along the east side of the property
to be more natural in shape and form and avoiding sudden geometric piles
of soil.
c. Revise the slopes on the outside exposure of the building walls to create
an undulating, natural form rather than a straight-line geometric bank,
and accommodate access from ground units to the exterior.
9. Compliance with fire code requirements. As compliance may require,
consider integrating the Commons and Gateway pathways into the project for
firefighting enhancements, rather than adding pavement on site.
10. Revise building architecture to reflect the Chelsea Commons biome for the
southern area. Incorporate prairie -style horizontal emphasis as reflected in
the Community Building, including varying and interrupted roof planes,
significant increase in the use of stone and/or brick above the garage -level
exposures, and additional glass where practical. Consider adjustments to the
balconies to cantilever a portion for visual interest.
11. Modify the landscaping plan significantly to introduce areas of naturalized
prairie plantings and oak clusters, with particular emphasis on the outer
portions of the project exposed to the common areas of the Chelsea
Commons project.
a. Landscaping treatments with the Gateway area beneath the powerline
shall demonstrate compliance with the Chelsea Commons biome concept.
12. With the modified form of the landscape, incorporate a more prairie/oak
planting palette, and minimize regimented planting patterns along the linear
edges (pavement, building, etc.) in the project.
13. Address all plat recommendations of the City Engineer.
3
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-040
14. Address park dedication recommendations of the Parks, Arts, and Recreation
Commission.
15. Work with the City to ensure that connections to the adjoining Gateway and
Commons area open spaces and pathways are properly placed for design,
function, accessibility. and materials. Direct connections to the Commons
should consider concrete pathways.
16. Compliance with the terms of the City's engineering staff letter dated
September 30t", 2021.
17. Comments and recommendations of other staff and Planning Commission.
ADOPTED this 51" day of October, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
A
ATTEST:
Paul Konsor, Chair
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
T
3 c
3N_ 3Ab Np'ilH� �
Ft EL, D� RES �
1
N
T �
ENGINEERING
F'G_ Cubed
SURVEYING
PLANNING
September 13, 2021
City of Monticello
Attn: Angela Schumann
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Cover Letter - Applications for Rezone, PUD and Preliminary Plat - Monticello Meadow
Apartments
Dear Ms. Schumann,
Enclosed are applications for the Monticello Meadow Apartment project. The project will create
two 100 unit apartment buildings on 10.73 acres. The area of the project is currently a portion of
Outlot C, Monticello Business Center. A plat is proposed which will allow for creation of a new
parcel for the development (Monticello Business Center Eighth). This plat would be signed by
the current land owner. The remnant portion of Outlot C will become Outlot A which will be
developed at a later date.
The project will need to be approved as part of a Planned Unit Development per City Code
Chapter 2.4(0). NOTE: In the Table of Contents the Code Chapter is denoted as "O" but
references are to "P " in the text. There is not a section P so reference to Section O or P should
be considered interchangeable. Since the property is currently zoned B-4 Business District, a
rezone application is also required following Chapter 2.4(B). The property is part of the Chelsea
Commons small area plan which depicted residential uses in the area of the project. Adjacent
zoning is R-2 to the east on the east side of Edmonson Ave and R-3 to the south on the south side
of School Boulevard. Based on the style of building, we have determined that the project would
most closely match the R-4 Medium -High Density Residential District (Chapter 3.4(I). Areas of
flexibility will be with regards to reducing overall parking which is addressed in the PUD portion
of this letter.
The buildings are all three stories of living units over a parking garage. The buildings have the
same footprint for architectural plan and construction efficiency. The buildings are "L" shaped
with garage doors on both ends of the building. Garbage will be located within the building with
a separate garage door provided in each building for the refuse collection company to access the
dumpsters without blocking resident's access. The building elevation is set based on elevating
the first floor of living while minimizing the bury depth of the garage. This will require material
to be brought onto the site which can be appropriated from the "lake" project. Excess topsoil
from the site will be placed in berms along Edmonson Ave which will be shaped and planted
with a mix of trees species as part of the final landscaping plan.
A community building is located between the two apartment buildings which will house many of
the amenities such a fitness room, party room, conference room, common areas, the complex's
14070 Highway 52 Southeast, Chatfield, Minnesota 55923
Phone 507-867-1666 ♦ Fax 507-867-1665 ♦ www.ggg.to
offices and offices for residents to use. Trash receptacles will be located within the building.
Additional exterior amenities are being discussed and may include exterior recreation space, fire
pit, patios with a gazebo and could include a swimming pool or splash pad. The determined
amenities will be provided on the final plan.
Below is a summary of findings following City Code for the applications requested:
Chapter 2.4(B) - Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments
1 - Purpose and Scope - The requested map amendment is subject to the procedures of Section
2.4(P), Planned Unit Development
2 - Initiation of Proceedings - (a) This request is being initiated by the owner of the property on
behalf of the developer purchasing the property which is pursuant to Section 2.3(B),
Authority to File Applications.
3 - Application - (b)
i) Name of applicant(s) - Baldur Real Estate, LLC - Attn: Peter Stalland. Property
Owner - Occelo - Attn: Shawn Weinand
ii) Narrative explaining the request and reasons the changes area supported in the
Comprehensive Plan - The 10.7 acres parcel depicted is currently zoned B-4 Business
District. Adjacent zoning is R-2 to the east on east side of Edmonson Ave and R-3 to
the south on the south side of School Boulevard. We have determined that the project
would most closely match the R-4 Medium -High Density Residential District
(Chapter 3.4(I). The property is part of the Chelsea Commons small area plan which
depicted residential uses in the area of the project.
iii) Legal description of all property proposed for change - Lot 1, Block 1 Monticello
Business Center Eighth
iv) Existing and Proposed Land Use and Zoning Designations - Current land use if
agricultural farm field. Proposed land use is apartment development. Zoning is
currently B-4 Business District. Proposed zoning is R-4 Medium -High Density
Residential District as part of a PUD with flexibilities described in the PUD
application.
v) A map of the property - An existing conditions map is provided in addition to the
Preliminary Plat and Site Plan for the PUD.
vi) Location of text to be added, amended or deleted in the ordinance - Not applicable
City Code Title 11, Chapter 4 and Chapter 2.4(P)(9)(b) - Prelimina . Plat s�
Title 11, Chapter 4 - The City website links to codelibrary.amlegal.com which does not show a
Title 11 but does link to Title XV: Land Usage - Chapter 152 Subdivision - 152.040 Preliminary
Plat. The items listed are similar to the Preliminary Plat Checklist so we deferred to providing
the information listed on the checklist.
Chapter 2.4(0)(9)(b) - PUD Procedure - PUD Development Stage, Preliminary Plat & Rezoning
i) Initiation of Proceedings - Application is signed by seller and buyer and with within 6
months of the Concept Proposal review
ii) Application - All criteria has been met or will be met as outlined in parks 1 thru 4 of this
section of the Code.
iii) Specific PUD Development Stage, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning Submittal
Requirements - The 24 items listed are on the face of the plans submitted or within the
G-Cubed Inc., 14070 Highway 52 Southeast, Chatfield, Minnesota 55923
Phone 507-867-1666 ♦ Fax 507-867-1665 ♦ www.ggg.to
text of this letter. The PUD Checklist and Preliminary Plat Checklist were followed for
both plats and submittals.
iv) Review - Procedure of review is noted. No additional comment is required at this time.
Chapter 2.4(0) - Planned Unit Developments
1 thru 6 - Procedural requirements are noted. For Section 5 - PUD Qualifications - This PUD is
considered for land in single ownership or control with the caveat that the following
circumstance is also a valid qualification considering the Chelsea Commons plan (c) The PUD
process is desirable
7 - Expectations of a Development Seeking a Rezoning to PUD - PUD is designed to allow
flexibility from the application of standard zoning regulations to achieve a variety of public
values that will be identified for each specific PUS project. The following are components the
Monticello Meadow Apartments PUD provides the City which warrants adoption of the PUD.
a) Ensure high quality construction standards and use of high quality construction
materials. - The units being created are rental units that are higher quality than what is
generally associated with rental properties. The units and facilities will incorporate
stylish and durable finishes. A list of the products is noted in the architectural exhibits
attached to the application.
b) Promote a variety of housing styles... - There is a mix of studio, one bedroom, two
bedroom and two bedroom with den units. Roof pitches are 5:12 for the highest main
roof and vary at lower elevations to provide varying roof lines.
c) Eliminate repetition of similar housing types... - The "L" shaped building and layout with
a community building is not similar to any nearby housing types.
d) Promote aesthetically pleasing design within the neighborhood and appears attractive
and inviting from surrounding parcels - The buildings incorporate components to create a
pleasing building. The layout provides contrast from the right of way and adjoining
properties which can be landscaped to further accentuate the architecture and greenspace
provided around and in between the buildings. The main entrance and community
building will be the focal point as one enters the site by vehicle.
e) Incorporate extensive landscaping and site amenities in excess of what is required by
code - The inclusion of the community building and attached amenities will set this
project apart from other developments. The community building is over 5500 sq ft
including not only the management office but the mail room, conference room, fitness
room, party room, men's and women's bathrooms with showers, a fireplace room with
seating and tables for games and residence office space to get away and work in private.
This building will be adjacent to an outdoor feature with an outdoor fireplace and grill.
All of this is centrally located for resident's enjoyment. All of the site will be landscaped
in excess of the minimum standards with plantings and structural features that provide
undulation in an otherwise flat landscape.
f) Provide high -quality park, open space, and trail opportunities that exceed the
expectations established in the Comprehensive Plan. In concert with the Chelsea
Commons plan, the site will provide trail connections. The sidewalk required along
Edmonson Ave is proposed to meander in and out of the right of way (easement to be
provided). This provides a higher quality pedestrian walkway system with respect to
aesthetics and plantings.
g) Provide access to a convenient and efficient multi -modal transportation system to service
the daily needs of residents at peak and non peak use levels, with high connectivity to the
larger community. This component is not clearly defined at this time. As more dwelling
units are developed, additional transportation options will be realized.
G-Cubed Inc., 14070 Highway 52 Southeast, Chatfield, Minnesota 55923
Phone 507-867-1666 ♦ Fax 507-867-1665 ♦ www.ggg.to
h) Promote development that is designed to reduce initial infrastructure costs and long-term
maintenance and operation costs - The layout is an efficient use of the sewer and water
mains required to serve the units. The infrastructure is within private property so the
costs for municipal maintenance are minimal over the life of the utilities.
i) Where applicable, maximize the use of ecologically based approaches to stormwater
management, restore or enhance on -site ecological systems, and protect off -site
ecological systems including Low Impact Development practices. - The site and
surrounding lands are currently fields without any trees or ecologically sensitive or
desirable features. The soil borings were consistent in showing 1.5 feet of topsoil over
sand. The stormwater design is for the Water Quality Volume to be allowed to infiltrate
in shallow basins around the buildings with any excess runoff being collected and
conveyed via pipe and surface flows to the regional lake to the west. Some runoff will
have to be routed to the southeast as that is its current route and regrading the entire site
to drain west is not feasible. The fill required for the project will come from the lake
which will further the implementation of the regional plan.
j) Facilitate a complementary mix of lifecycle housing - The mix of units and accessibility
of the elevators and amenities will provide housing for a broad demographic of tenants.
k) Preserve and protect important ecological areas identified on the City's natural resource
inventory - Not applicable as there are no areas to be protected within the project limits.
1) Accommodate higher development intensity in areas where infrastructure and other
systems are capable of providing appropriate levels of public services, and required
lower intensity in areas where such services are inadequate, or where natural features
require protection and/or preservation - The project is within the density sought for this
site.
8 - Areas of Flexibility
a) The City may consider an increase in the density or intensity of the project, along with
related reductions in lot width and size if the PUD provides substantially more site
amenities and public values, as outlined in Section 24(P)(7), than could be achieved in a
conventional development for the applicable land use zone. No flexibility requested at
this time.
b) The City may consider flexibility with regard to land uses, setbacks, lot size, width, depth
among other zoning standards when reviewing a PUD rezoning request. Specifications
and standards for lots shall be at the discretion of City Council, and shall encourage a
desirable living or working environment which assists in achieving the goals set out for
PUDs. The only flexibility requested is a reduction in the amount of required parking.
The standards are for 2.25 parking spaces per unit. The apartments has a mix of studio,
one and two bedroom units which generally do not required more than 2.0 parking spaces
per unit. The first building and community building provides 210 parking spaces (100 in
the garage) while the second building provides 200 parking spaces (100 in the garage).
This equates to 2.05 spaces per unit.
c) The City may consider flexibility in the phasing of a PUD development. No additional
flexibility in Phasing is considered at this time. The intent is to start construction upon
approvals of the northerly building and clubhouse and build the south building based on
market need and construction timelines.
R-4 Townhouse
Density = 10 to 25 units per gross area Proposing 18.64 units per gross area
G-Cubed Inc., 14070 Highway 52 Southeast, Chatfield, Minnesota 55923
Phone 507-867-1666 ♦ Fax 507-867-1665 ♦ www.ggg.to
R-4 Medium -High Density
Minimum
Provided
Base Lot Area
30,000 sq ft
467545 sq ft (10.73 acres)
Gross Density
10 to 25 units/g. a.
18.64 units per gross area
Net lot area per du
1750 sq ft (max)
2338 sq ft
Front Setback
100 feet
140' closest to Edmonson
Corner side setback
40 feet
Not applicable - no corner lots
Interior side setback
30 feet
40' north and west, 50' south
Rear setback to building
40 feet
40' north and west, 50' south
Clear open space from R/W
60 feet
140' minimum
Clear open space from P/L
40 feet
40' minimum
Buffer Req. to Single Family C buffer
Not Applicable
Common open space per du
500 sq/du
Landscaping
2 ACV 2500 sf + 4 shrubs per 10 ft bld. perimeter. - to be provided
Parking Requirements
2.25 spaces/du (1,1)
2.05 provided (1.05 uncovered)
Architecture
20% street coverage
Roofs
5:12 pitch
5:12 odn main, varies
Unit Square Feet
900 sq ft finished
>1006 sq ft average with apartment and
corridor area summed and divided by 100 units (85,769
apartment area + 14,916 corridor)
Garages
Attached
1.0/unit Underground
Garage Setback
30 feet from ROW
Compliant
Garage Doors
Max. 16' wide to str
Compliant
Landscaping
Special features
Community building, Berming etc.
Open Space
Increase NA
Compliant
Parking
Underground
Compliant
Site Work
Decorative Paving
To be incorporated into Landscape plan
Housing for Seniors
NA
ADA compliant units are provided
Additional Items:
At this juncture, there is not a photometric lighting plan. We are working with an electrician on
the best location for street lights. There will be additional wall mounted lighting but all lighting
will be compliant with lighting standards in Section 4.4 Exterior Lighting. We are not proposing
street lighting along Edmonson. If that is a request or requirement of the City, please let us
know.
The concrete sidewalk along Edmonson is 6 feet, the concrete sidewalks inside the site are also
proposed to be 6 feet and bituminous trails are planned at 10 feet width.
If you any questions or comments, feel free to call.
Thank you,
Mark R. Welch, PE
Enclosures:
1 - Land Use Application - For Rezone, PUD and Preliminary Plat
2 - PUD and Preliminary Plat Checklists
3 - Geotechnical Report - Chosen Valley Testing
G-Cubed Inc., 14070 Highway 52 Southeast, Chatfield, Minnesota 55923
Phone 507-867-1666 ♦ Fax 507-867-1665 ♦ www.ggg.to
4 - Title Commitment - Outlot C, Monticello Business Center
5 - Preliminary Plat for Monticello Business Center Eighth
6 - Preliminary PUD Site Plan for Monticello Meadow Apartments
7 - Preliminary Architectural Renditions for Apartments and Clubhouse
8 - Preliminary Building Unit Count and Areas
9 - Preliminary Construction Plans for Public and Private Utilities
10 - Preliminary Grading Plan for Monticello Meadow Apartments
11 - Preliminary Drainage Report for Monticello Meadow Apartments
12 - Preliminary Landscape Plan
13 - Existing Conditions Map
14 - Community Rules for Apartments - Draft Version
Cc: Monticello Meadow Townhomes, LLC, Attn: Peter Stalland - buyer/developer
Ocello LLC, Attn: Shawn Weinand - Outlot C property owner/seller
G-Cubed Inc., 14070 Highway 52 Southeast, Chatfield, Minnesota 55923
Phone 507-867-1666 ♦ Fax 507-867-1665 ♦ www.ggg.to
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Monticello Meadow Townhomes, LLC a
Minnesota limited liability company, owner of the following described property:
LOT 1 BLOCK ONE, MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER EIGHTH, according to the recorded plat
thereof, on file and of record at the office of the County Recorder, Wright County,
Minnesota.
Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as MONTICELLO MEADOW TOWNHOMES and
does hereby dedicate to the public for the public use the public ways and the drainage and
utility easements as shown on this plat.
In witness whereof said Monticello Meadow Townhomes, LLC a Minnesota limited liability
company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _____ day of
------------------------,20__.
Signed: Monticello Meadow Townhomes, LLC
Peter Stalland, President
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF Wright
This instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
___________ __ ______ 20__ by Peter Stalland, President of Monticello Meadow
Townhomes, LLC a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public, ________ County, Minnesota Printed Name
My commission expires: _______________
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I Geoffrey G Griffin do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this
plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and
labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have
been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are
shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.
Dated this ____ day of __________________- 20
Geoffrey G Griffin, Land Surveyor
Minnesota Registration No. 21940
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me this ____ day of
20__, by Geoffrey G Griffin, Minnesota Registration No.
21940
Notary Public, ________ County, Minnesota Printed Name
My commission expires: _______________
This plat of MONTICELLO MEADOW TOWNHOMES was approved by the Planning Commission of
the City of Monticello, Minnesota, at a meeting thereof held the _____ day of
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 20__.
Chairperson
Secretary
This plat of MONTICELLO MEADOW TOWNHOMES was approved and accepted in compliance
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2 by the City Council of Monticello,
Minnesota, at a meeting held the _______ day of ___________- 20___.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Mayor
--------------------------- City Clerk
I hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this
plat has been reviewed and approved this _____ day of _______________________,
20-
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Wright County Surveyor
Steven A. Jobe
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes on the land
hereinbefore described on this plat and transfer entered this ______ day of
-------------,20-----
Wright county Auditior
By: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Deputy
Persuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable to the year
20_____ on the land herinbefore described have been paid this ________ day of
20
Wright County Treasurer
By: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Deputy
DATE: 6/3/2021
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED Prepared For:
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LL
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N
MARK R WELCH MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047
DATE X/X/XX REG. NO. 42736
FILE NO.: 20-408 PP
SITE ZONING INFORMATION
—CURRENT ZONING: B-4
—PROPOSED ZONING: PUD — R-3 TOWNHOMES
94 rental units in 15 buildings with one Community Building
—SITE ADDRESS: TO BE ASSIGNED
BASE SITE AREA:467,545 SO FT (10.73 ACRES)
— PROPOSED DENSITY — 8.76 UNITS/ACRE
— PROPOSED NEW IMPERVIOUS — 6.215 ACRES
— WATER QUALITY VOLUME PROPOSED ONSITE
— RATE/VOLUME CONTROL PROPOSED IN CITY LAKE OR
TEMPORARY BASIN UNDER THE OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES
TO THE SOUTH
PARKING:
—2 CAR GARAGE EACH UNIT + 2 PARKING SPACES OUTSIDE
GARAGE EACH UNIT (22' DEPTH OF SPACE)
—23 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES
—1 HANDICAP PARKING SPACE PROVIDED
—HANDICAP PARKING SPACES SHALL HAVE SIGNS SET BETWEEN
60 AND 66 INCHES ABOVE GROUND LEVEL DENOTING
"HANDICAP PARKING, VEHICLE ID REQUIRED, UP TO $200 FINE
FOR VIOLATION"
—IF SIGNAGE WOULD OBSTRUCT A CURB RAMP AND/OR
PEDESTRIAN ROUTE, THE SIGNAGE CAN BE OMITTED IF "NO
PARKING" IS PROVIDED ON THE SURFACE OF THE ACCESS
AISLE
VICINITY MAP
(NOT TO SCALE)
El
z
co
NW
1 /4
NE
1 /4
~
�
6
z
WW
o
ra
4
SCH°°L
BLS
S E
1/ 4
SW
1/4
SW 1/4 Off' SEC. 14, TWP.
121N, RGE. 25W
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
OWNER: JOHN AND MARY LUNDSTEN, 1804 HILLSIDE LANE, BUFFALO, MN 55313 1
/� /1 T A / r_— r� A : I_) r_ r_ A r� r� I I I /1 N
ZONING B `7t
I\
\J lJ I L_ \J I /—\ \� L_ U/—\ I\ �: I I\ L_ L_ I /—\ U U I I I \J I V
I I I
S89°1400W 906.10
-�
403.80 502.30
\
50
\ \ 75.00' EASEMENT
PER DOC. N0. 893122
\ \ ZONING B-4 b� LOT I
ZONING � 4 ��%\ d c6 BLOCK
\°A \ �bi
L �J/
L �J/
L �J/
L �J/
CoCID
<
�UU
0 0 0 C�
L �J/
C-)
I hereby certify that this plat of MONTICELLO MEADOW TOWNHOMES was filed in the Office
of the County Recorder for public record on this ____day of _________________-
20____, at ____o'clock __.M., and was duly recorded in Cabinet No._______, Sleeve
as Document No.
Tanya West, Wright County Recorder
14070 Hwy 52 S.E.
Chatfield, MN 55923
ENGINEERING DESIGNED
SURVEYING DRAWN
PLANNING
Ph. 507-867-1666 CHECKED
Fax 507-867-1665
www.ggg.to
MRW
9
O
Ch z O
� �S \ c b o
N Soo, �b
O PER
EASEMENT
PER DOC. N0. 893122 `
\ \ z
� \ \ \
OUTL0T A \ \ \ \
/1 I I T /1 T A \ \
\J U I L_\J I
N A/1N ITI/�r_-I /1 �I I \I N I r_-: : /`r_-N ITr_-L) F I%�I ITI I \
I L_ I \ L_ I \7 F\ F] \
\ 5�9. , \
\ 6Q6 \
50.00' EXISTING EASEMENT PER rl
0 \\ \ DOC. NO. 587953LLJ
\
10
O
00
\ 12.00' EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT100
\ \ \ ALSO
\ \ \ \ 12.00' SIDEWALK EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 1015455
W
0
O
Q
\
\
ZONING I2
U )
LIJ
<I
L -
l/ )
LIJ
- —
i i�
<
<
LI\
C �
_7
L —
L —
C�
LIJ
l
\ /
— J
LIJ
30
A30
C�
R/W
ho'l L
40.0 R/W N 89 59 31 E -!II 4� - =—_ F - 0
•I
\ \ 40.0 R/W SCHOOL BOULEVARD o
Engineer/Surveyor \ \ \
G—Cubed Inc \ \ \
14070 Hwy 52 SE \ \ \
Chatfield, MN 55923 \ \ \
507-867-1666
LEGEND
Applicant/Developer ❑ SPIKE SET \ \
Baldur Real Estate, LLC IRON PIPE WITH PLASTIC CAP \
19356 Meadowridge Trail North 0 STAMPED LS 21940 SET
Marine on St.Croix, MN 55047
651-245-7222 • FOUND MONUMENT
Fee Owner A COMPUTED POINT
Ocello, LLC
4065 Chelsea Eoa West
Monticello, MN 55362
612-867-8480
REVISED BY DATE CITY OF MONTICELLO
SUBMITTAL MRW 6/7/2021
SUBMITTAL MRW 6/16/2021 WRIGHT COUNTY
RESUBMITTAL ADB 9/13/2021
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF
THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13
50 150
GRAPHIC SCALE
\ 100 0 50 100
\
MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER EIGHTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SHEET I
OF 2 SHEETS
347.10—
\ — J — -966— FIELD EDGE
+9 .00�
+965.00 �965.0 J
\ \ \ 75.00' EASEMENT
\ \ \ \ \ PER DOC. NO. 893122
LOT 1 BLOCK 1
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 75.00' EASEMENT ~
JI \ \ \ PER DOC. NO. 587953 _
O M T
\ \\ 8\ \\\\ C6 I \ 11 T
75.00' EASEMENT \ \ \ A \ \ \ \ \ -+
p966 00
Q PER DOC. N0. 893122 \ \ ! p\\\\
jz
\ O +965-000
!� PER DOC. NO 587953\0C' /_
1
9 +966.00
\�>
OUTLOT A v { y v�v 1
16
\ \\ �p
\ \ 0 VA \
/
0
\
7. p +963. 7
\ \ \ 0
L,\� 0� VA
\ \ 0
L _� s•
—
�+
50.00' EXISTING EASEMENT PER \ �/ \ \ C '�j0 �9 DOG. NO. 587953
+962,00 A \ 0O
I
LEGEND
WATER HYDRANT & GATE VALVE
O
SANITARY MANHOLE
STORM MANHOLE & CATCHBASIN
®�
SIGNS
GAS VALVE
O
COMMUNICATIONS BOX
TREE
-
MAJOR CONTOUR
-
MINOR CONTOUR
wM
WATERMAIN
SAN
SANITARY SEWER
STORM
STORM SEWER
TEL
UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS LINE
GAS
GAS LINE
wAr
WATER SERVICE
TILE TILE —
DRAIN TILE / SUBDRAIN
n IJ I
PROPSED MAJOR CONTOUR
1�TT,
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
1�1V1
-----
EASEMENT LINE
0000000
RETAINING WALL
BUFFERYARD LINE
BITUMINOUS SURFACING
CONCRETE SURFACING
AGGREGATE SURFACING
BUILDING
BOULDER OR BIG BLOCK TRANSITION
GARDEN
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACING
PROPOSED CONCRETE SURFACING
111 C
SILT FENCE (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-01)
GL
GRADING LIMITS
X 1060.01
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
INLET BARRIER (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-05)
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
®
(PER MNDOT 3885.1 CAT. 3)
ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
(PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-06)
RIP RAP (PER MNDOT 3133D)
16"
\ \ \ \
\
\ l
12.00' EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
d�
1
\
\ \ \ 6 \ \ _ 1 2
R,
r
yI
12.00' SIDEWALK -EASEMENT PER DOC. NO 10015 PVC
l
I
--i—
e
I
8
GRAPHIC SCALE C S 6''6\ \ \�TAQVI
so 0 W 90 ISO 84 \
\
^iNl
`v�
—
l I Try
nnV
VV1 C I I
; u
MH 13-2
(IN FEET) \ \
I IN = 80 FT
\ \
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
DATE: 3/5/2 21
Prepared For:
REVISED
BY
DATE
CITY OF MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO MEADOW TOWNHOMES
SUBMITTAL
MRW
6/16/2021
SPECIFICATION, Olt REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERMSION
P ENGINEERING
DESIGNED MRW
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSION ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
SI
Monticello Mdw. Twhl ILL I\(\�`/�=F, (\I\�`/', o SURVEYING
o �� ��
DRAWN TML
WRIGHT COUNTY
EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP
THE STATE oP MIHNESOTA.
OF
19356 MEADOWRIDGE TRAIL N PLANNING
MARK R WELCH
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047 Ph. 507-867--1666
14070 Hwy 52 S.E. Fax 507-867-1665
CHECKED RM
BENCHMARK:
SHEET 1
DATE REG. No. 42736
FILE 1 20-408 BASE.DWG Chatfield, MIN 55923 ` 999A°
OF 1 SHEETS
i
N C-) C-D N I N 0 z
I N ) ��A �
AM WM AM WM WM WM WM AM WM A -IN A- WM AM WM WM ^ WM AM WM WM WM WM �M
O) WM AM
40 -----
(TDCOco
- - - - ---
-967 - g6 °6� - - -
-965 �31� - -- ---- - - 31
5 �
--- HAO ]]HAO HAO BHA HAO
Cz
BERM BERM
oCf)
---- >
248.52 LF B' pVC 0'
/
NORTH BASIN
\ W u SOUTH BASIN 8„ pVC @ 0.40% /��°OO gcl 280.82 LF
00
= I F&I 285.40 LF 8" PVC @ 0.40% F&I 285.40 LF 8" C @40% G� O °
o � O
O s aids F �Cj
i
0
W I
1 LL-
o
O= = irnSa
Ln
r 7 S
r� LEGEND
N / WATER HYDRANT & GATE VALVE
OO SANITARY MANHOLE
STORM MANHOLE & CATCHBASIN
Ln
SIGNS
Gv GAS VALVE
ITT] COMMUNICATIONS BOX
CO-) ELECTRIC POLE
l�° ' TREE POLE�WALL MOUNT LIGHT
O
O -
�� -� s as s g ��A MAJOR CONTOUR
I- / �� % /, MINOR CONTOUR
�� Off; O WM WATERMAIN
\. O SAN SANITARY SEWER
� ��- l�� _ ` % X� O � STORM SEWER
��° O OVHE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES
O�II UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINES
Q O
CL sa r s \
�6, a �° ° UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS LINE
RAILING, CHAINLINK FENCE
-_ � _� � GAS GAS LINE
° WATER SERVICE
I�
�C t�
i � Z �^ ���� �y � �� `Z�DRAIN TILE / SUBDRAIN
�! _A -]F][]--� 1 4 ��° ° PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
OC� ��OZ�� O PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
IT -------- EASEMENT LINE
f.�� i � �_ BITUMINOUS SURFACING
0
LTL
� CONCRETE SURFACING
BUILDING
�-��
LANDSCAPING
— � o0000000
I
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACING
O
•'"•.� PROPOSED CONCRETE SURFACING
I L I I --- -- ,
�gZ� :1660049to01 S
/ � O O / ' PROPOSED TREE
/ I 1 964 / / / L J SILT FENCE (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-01)
L --
��° / GRADING LIMITS
o I � II ( �° X 1060.00 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
(� cc 9 INLET BARRIER (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-05)
00 16� I Z� ° PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
I PROPOSED PUBLIC GREEN�:�PACE/PARK / ��° ° / X� (PER MNDOT 3885 CAT. 3N)
� P R 0 P 0 ° � Rs� TF�I� �o
S AND AMENITIES TO BE DET MINED / ° / / 2.0% PLATE II I PATHWAY o /
RIP RAP (PER MNDOT 3133D)
I I � /
GRAP4IC SCALE — 71
40 0/ 20 40 80 RETAINING WALL
0-) I BUFFERYARD LINE
AGGREGATE SURFACING
O (INFEET)
1 IN = 40 FT BOULDER OR BIG BLOCK TRANSITION
DATE: 3/5/2021 REVISED BY DATE CITY
OF
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, MONTICELLO E DO TOWNHOMES
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED Prepared Far: ENGINEERING MONTICELLO
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION DESIGNED MRW SUBMITTAL ADB 9/20/2021
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LL O O SURVEYING ' GH TCOUNTY PRELIMINARY PUD SITE PLAN
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF \\�v/_DRAWN ADB G G JL� 1
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 19356 MEADOWRIDGE TRAIL N PLANNING
MARK R WELCH MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047 Ph. 507-867-1666 CHECKED MRW BENCHMARK:
42736 14070 Hwy 52 S.E. Fax 507-867-1665 SHEET 1
DATE REG. NO. FILE NO.: 20-408 BASE.DWG Chatfield, MN 55923 WWW.ggg.to
OF 1 SHEETS
N
AM
1 Al
_a
r �, ra ik� � • �� � �'Jt �! �:n
970 969•
T7• o72-
• J
• . •
• • BE1 I
WM WM WM
WM WM
967 —
9-6.8=
�I
�1
WM
WM
WM
WM
M
WM
WM
'I-,971 971 969 971 ". 0 - Q�I�- --
0 969�68 I
966�
967 O F
u�
�v �` — �- PVC ® 0.4
NORTH BA0 9+75.00 SIN 0 F&I$• Fc� �O - - - - - - - - .
C0 s SOUTH BASIN (0 I o
0o oo 2 a o VC Q. cfl _ co
rn o a' o
J o g6 0 N 6 pi
'`� cv X
F& 285 46r LF 8" P .40% N c° 6l rn ?O n S \ ° 0—
I 01.00% 9 1.00% .F&I 285.40E 8 C a,\ N ) 1 O �� _06
fo co 0) X \ o /
LO
_ 0' 968
C7 00
I -; j N 00 I (00
I I �i 1 001P., 1.00 rn / ( 00 OOP rn LOo
O
Q o Q � 2.0 o �'II ON
I (0o o— — o o I —N.
o ;� q 9 69 � 09
_ X 1.12�i 0 rn
< CID z X
CV popO Op �
I � 9 � � ° I 1
f14
U o / fop` «' ( g 1 ��° o LEGEND
co �CC r
O ��
9�\ WATER HYDRANT &GATE VALVE
`, �• O OS SANITARY MANHOLE
1.00%
s,00 X N ® STORM MANHOLE & CATCHBASIN
�, / 9�g \ 9 p o �� O SIGNS
N
I q o I Z.0 Q X S 7 �� �� O GAS VALVE
o O cr ID COMMUNICATIONS BOX
I 04 o \
CV o
u ^C 0 �`� � C'0� O O
O
C') 2. % 0% `Z / TREE
ko �V O MAJOR CONTOUR
r� co = � O _ MINOR CONTOUR
o �j �� O _Wm WATERMAIN
' • N 9> �` SAN SANITARY SEWER
� � ao ,n �� C `Z` �O � � STORM SEWER
Q �I b\ \ \ \ O / UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS LINE
00
�� O RAILING, CHAINLINK FENCE
0 0 % ao`l� �� GAS GAS LINE
o ` dpb WATER SERVICE
DRAIN TILE / SUBDRAIN
J — ° PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
CID - , 7X (��. �` / PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
00 V C1 iT c� I 1 O�`� ' p �O o \ — — — — - EASEMENT LINE
I' o n i N `- g �� \ BITUMINOUS SURFACING
Ln
LA
�� ` F_ � \ � CONCRETE SURFACING
[V_
-J ✓ ��
�° \ \ ` F� BUILDING
•Z` ° -
vvvovvo
LANDSCAPING
ovoovoo
I°'\11 co co / �° O / PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACING
\ 971 971 PROPOSED CONCRETE SURFACING
I I �
969 + �° O /\n\// PROPOSED TREE
O /
I^ ` 964 / O — SILT FENCE (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-01)
967 6 �� GL GRADING LIMITS
X 1060.00 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
GI \ IS8N9PIf O
I\ II I \ a? 1 �° O INLET BARRIER (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-05)
C I 96\ / \ / A
.ram PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
J.
�J II J I O(PER MNDOT 3885 CAT. 3N)
X R@0RO56RS�9�TM9A_WIIWANCE
1 \ \ PUBLIC GRE� N`°'PAGE PARK ` '� ° Q - ` - DLS�fBE PLATE 7-06
PROPOSED P � � I � � � �� ° / )
PATHWAYS AND AMENITIES TO BE DET MINED / l O /I �� / J RIP RAP (PER MNDOT 3133D)
\ I \ o i o GRAPW SCALE
40 0 20 40 80
� RETAINING WALL
\ co I� I J J / / O / BUFFERYARD LINE
00
,` \ �� ° �O O (IN FEET) AGGREGATE SURFACING
II I / � / � �� / 1 [N=40 FT � J BOULDER OR BIG BLOCK TRANSITION
0
DATE: 6/3/2021 REVISED BY DATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTICELLO MEADOW APARTMENTS
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED Prepared For: BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ENGINEERING DESIGNED MRW PRELIMINARY ADB 9/13/2021
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LL O O SURVEYING SUBMITTAL ADB 9/20/2021 WRIGHT COUNTY GRADING PLAN
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF � DRAWN ADB
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N PLANNING
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047 Ph. 507-867-1666
MARK R WELCH 14070 Hwy 52 S.E. Fax 507-867-1665 CHECKED MRW BENCHMARK: SHEET 1
DATE X/X/XX REG. NO. 42736 WWW ggg to TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF
FILE NO.: 20-408 PP Chatfield, MN 55923 THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13 OF 4 SHEETS
/
S8901
9 99 W'-
906---(-10
I
2-
- - _ -
-962-
- 777771
968
g- --- ----
0
row
-
o
Q
D DBE
961 - - - -962-
,�
-
_
-
- -
-
--
C
I
\ c�_
%E
C
X962.00
Jillc
A F'�-
��
6:
C
GRAPHIC SCALE
G L C SC
�.
1
�,
UNIT APAF\ ��
4
30 0 15 30
60
G ^
L 0
.A
-
\
i
Q i -
-
FI
L �
9 3.
I I
z
( IN FEET)
/
_
-
-AL�-0
o
96 . 33
1 IN = 30 FT
71
;.966. 71
I I
i
2.00%
2.00%
;:967. 0p 967.40
I
>
w
I p
E
J
c c c
b�
pales
o
°
96 .3
968.920
Q0
1 .00
2 00 9
60LL-
2.0 %
.82 J
I
1 4 7
�1
11
972.60
- -
0
=:;X�%7.-58 00 8.00 9
r
C N
/
C
/
1
/
16 spcces
0
0
N
-2.00%
\
\
%
2. 0
967.94 %
J
I
97 89
�
w
�1
V
0
o
`\
r
0.51%
2. %
t4-) coo
�
o
o_-
o U 2.00% o
O
N
CD
N
l�
I
2.5 _°
�'
66 9
CID m
Ld
LEGEND
OS
WATER HYDRANT & GATE VALVE
SANITARY MANHOLE
I
c
OD �
STORM MANHOLE & CATCHBASIN
V��
i J
N
�
`
I�
�
z
5T°P-
D4GAS
SIGNS
VALVE
Q
969•
FF
ln
IF IE��I
`
0
I
O
COMMUNICATIONS BOX
o 0 0
00% o
� �
�/�
V 1
� I
rn
<
h✓
1
.>�
N
0.07
o 0
�-
t"
� �
I
�
I
-
TREE
MAJOR CONTOUR
MINOR CONTOUR
L
`
w
I
I
WM
WATERMAIN
o
SAN
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
3.3 N
965. 966. 9
8
I
C
] u l
I
4.27%
XX 6
I
I
UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS LINE
1 .00 a
II
I
I
RAILING, CHAINLINK FENCE
-9
96
6844
GAS
GAS LINE
WATER SERVICE
II
I
TILE
DRAIN TILE / SUBDRAIN
F-I
�I
II
I' o U?
9 5
rn
1
0
- - - - - - - -
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
10.0
`
II
965.76
75
EASEMENT LINE
BITUMINOUS SURFACING
\
3 38%
o
I
}
CONCRETE SURFACING
H
--J
\
BUILDING
I-y �{
_
o0000000
o000000o
LANDSCAPING
-
-
L J
I----�
�//�� �I
V 1
o
_ X961. 9<962.49
2 4
X9
.38/
X965.61
-
X. 0.50
a-
:�
PROPOSEDBITUMINOUS SURFACING
r n
_�%
I
1 +0
1
0
00
0
L`I
�
PROPOSED CONCRETE SURFACING
1 60
I�
1'LL-
00
1 0
r
963 2
X96 .2
J
-1
g
PROPOSED TREE
0
6.0 % ---
966.
966.3
+
�
^
I 2
u R5.71 O0
m
GL
SILT FENCE (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-01)
GRADING LIMITS
X
i
9 6.
- +
m coX
/
1060.00
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
w
p-�
X9n__ 00
(.0 oCO,
\
�
I
��
INLET BARRIER (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-05)
\
X9 .0 X9b
967.60
�
0')
J
��
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
(PER MNDOT 3885 CAT. 3N)
966.99
X 10\6 0
R80RO(56PsSR0TT VM[RANCE
(TFWQFJYH.SW8E PLATE 7-06)
6 .23
RIP RAP (PER MNDOT 3133D)
96 .41
�*,,�►��
��
•25
,�
j
969.0
968•7
RETAINING WALL
956.0
�
I�
C�
�`
ff'
11N�
BUFFERYARD LINE
AGGREGATE SURFACING
A1°
O
68.12
cm
BOULDER OR BIG BLOCK TRANSITION
\
(ZI
v
I
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
DATE: 6/3/2021
Prepared Far:
REVISED
BY
DATE
CITY OF MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO MEADOW APARTMENTS
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
Monticello
Mdw. Twhm. LL
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
DESIGNED
MRW
PRELIMINARY
ADB
9 13 2021
/ /
/�1 IllAND
IICO�JNTYPROFESSIONAL
W
GR'A I� I N G
PLAN
SUBMITTAL
ADB
9/20/2021�IU
ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N
I I J I O
���
ODRAWN
PLANNING
ADB
T�
JL 0.I �.1 JJJLLL JJJLLL JL
MARK R WELCH
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047
14070 Hwy 52 S.E.
Ph. 507-867-1666
Fax 507-867-1665
CHECKED
MRW
BENCHMARK:
c
DATE x/x/xx REG. NO. 42736
FILE NO.: 20-408
PP
Chatfield, MN 55923
www ggg to
TOP
THE
NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD
INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON
300' WEST OF
AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13
►JHEET
OF 4 SHEETS
102, 111111121MIFINNIN
CP
T
�s �o
c��
A k
L
n i
\ / O
O
`L OO
GRAPHIC SCALE
30 0 15 30 60
( IN FEET)
1IN=30FT
'k
19
\9
9 � \
6d,
1
0
y \ LEGEND
Da WATER HYDRANT & GATE VALVE
\ \\ OS SANITARY MANHOLE
lifil STORM MANHOLE & CATCHBASIN
\ SIGNS
D4 GAS VALVE
0 ° \ O COMMUNICATIONS BOX
v� \
TREE
MAJOR CONTOUR
MINOR CONTOUR
\ WM WATERMAIN
\ SAN SANITARY SEWER
\ STORM SEWER
�h \ UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS LINE
\ RAILING, CHAINLINK FENCE
\ GAS GAS LINE
WATER SERVICE
— TILE DRAIN TILE / SUBDRAIN
\ PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
\ \ - — — — — — — - EASEMENT LINE
BITUMINOUS SURFACING
N11
O \ CONCRETE SURFACING
BUILDING
vvvvvvvv
,y°°��°°� LANDSCAPING
vvvvvvvv
V I T
/ < 11 PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACING
-CP
�rL
- PROPOSED CONCRETE SURFACING
0.29% �'� PROPOSED TREE
j�. LC SILT FENCE (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-01)
LIMITS
"I J
-I' � � Qo GL X 1060.00 EXISGRADTING SPOT ELEVATION
\ o o -�- �� INLET BARRIER (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-05)
uc ' PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
\1 (PER MNDOT 3885 CAT. 3N)
X 10\6 0 R80ROG6PSSR0TTE VMrR ANCE
969 2.OQ% (9WQaM.SW8E PLATE 7-06)
J \
�6 \ RIP RAP (PER MNDOT 3133D)
� 968 \
967
\ RETAINING WALL
BUFFERYARD LINE
HAO �HAO �HAO �HAO �HAO �HAO �HAO HAO �HAO H1�0 �HAO �HAO—\—SHAO �HAO o HAO -=T-�HAO HAO HAO -]HAO 'BHA
AGGREGATE SURFACING
HAO HAO HAO HAO HAO HAO HAO HAO HAO HAS? ------IHAO ---IHAO —\--IHAO --IHAO HAO --IHAO AO A �A4 HAO --IHAO ------3HAO HAO ------IHAO �HAO
BOULDER OR BIG BLOCK TRANSITION fiA� �A� �A� ------3HAO ------3HAO -----3HAO ------3HAO -------IHAO ------IHAO ------3HAO -----3HAO ------3HAO ------3HAO
�HAO �HAO �HAO �HAO BHA
HAO �HAO �HAO �HAO �HAO �HAO �HAO �HAO �HAO HAO
DATE: 6/3/2021 REVISED BY DATE
SPECIFICATION,
OR REP TWASAN, CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTICELLO MEADOWAPARTMENTS
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED Prepared For: ENGINEERING PRELIMINARY ADB 9 13 2021
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION DESIGNED MRW / /
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LL o\ SURVEYING SUBMITTAL ADB 9/20/2021 RIGHT COUNTY
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF I I J I \ DRAWN ADB GRADING PLAN
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N �� PLANNING
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047 Ph. 507-867-1666
MARK R WELCH 14070 Hwy 52 S.E. Fax 507-867-1665 CHECKED MRW BENCHMARK: ►J
DATE X/x/xx REG. Na. 42736 www ggg to TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF SHEET
FILE NO.: 20-408 PP Chatfield, MN 55923 THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13 OF 4 SHEETS
I\
O
�
o000
96,
9
0
0 0 \
0 0
� I
p ce*
1.99%
0
N1\
o1b
01 2.00% O 00(0
°
I a °
° N o \28 s cces ��°
I 0
cv cN I 9 f O
cV I ro 6� '� • 1.
2.00 0 +0,0 2.00%
0 26 spac s oo'` o
0\ 2. 0% O 2.0
L l
I #
GENERAL EROSION CONTROL AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1) PLACE MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND WHERE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER, AT TOE OF FILL SLOPES AND MAINTAIN UNTIL TURF HAS
BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED. (INSTALLATION OF SILT FENCE MUST TAKE PLACE PRIOR TO DISTURBING THE WATERSHED). INSTALL AND MAINTAIN INLET PROTECTION AT
ALL CATCHBASINS AND INLETS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AND IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM OF THE PROJECT.
2) CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES USED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO CONTROL SEDIMENT
FROM LEAVING SITE PER ROCHESTER STD. PLATE 7-06, CLOSE OTHER ENTRANCES WITH SILT FENCE.
3) REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL AND ORGANIC MATERIAL. STOCKPILE IN APPROVED LOCATIONS ON —SITE. PROVIDE PERIMETER CONTROL AROUND ALL STOCKPILES. PROVIDE
TEMPORARY COVER IF STOCKPILE WILL BE INPLACE MORE THAN 14 DAYS.
4) ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ON SITE AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER OR HAULED TO AN APPROVED LOCATION. ANY TEMPORARY STOCKPILES
SHALL HAVE SILT FENCE INSTALLED AROUND THE DOWN SLOPE EDGE TO PREVENT DOWNSTREAM SEDIMENTATION. TEMPORARY COVER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED
AFTER 14 DAYS.
5) ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THAT PORTION OF THE SITE HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED.
6) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUTINELY INSPECT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER A
RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN 24 HOURS. ALL INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONDUCTED DURING CONSTRUCTION MUST BE RECORDED IN
WRITING.
7) THIS PROJECT DOES REQUIRE AN NPDES PERMIT BASED ON AREA DISTURBED AND DOES REQUIRE A PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/TREATMENT
DUE TO THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACING BEING MORE THAN ONE ACRE. A SWPPP HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL BE PART OF
THESE PLANS. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BEYOND WHAT MAY BE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN OR WITHIN THE SWPPP SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IF GRADING CAUSES
EROSION NOT CONTAINED BY MEASURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN.
8) RESPREAD TOPSOIL (4" MIN.), FERTILIZE, SEED, & DISK ANCHOR MULCH ALL DISTURBED AREAS. SOD OR SEED WITH MNDOT MIXTURE 25-131 WITH THE FOLLOWING
ADDITIONS.
FERTILIZER SHALL BE 24-12-24 AND BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 300 LBS/ACRE.
MIXTURE 25-131 SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 220 LBS/ACRE.
MIXTURE 33-261 SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 35 LBS/ACRES. (STORMWATER FACILITIES)
MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 2 TONS/ACRE.
*THE SEASON FOR SEEDING SHALL BE FROM APRIL 1ST — JUNE 1ST AND JULY 20TH — SEPTEMBER 20TH, AND AS DORMANT SEEDING AFTER NOV. 1ST. ONLY
TEMPORARY SEEDING WILL BE ALLOWED SEPT. 20TH — NOV. 1ST) (REFERENCE MNDOT SEEDING MANUAL FOR ADDITIONAL SEEDING INFORMATION)
9) TEMPORARY SEED WITH MNDOT MIX 22-111 (MAY 1ST THRU AUGUST 1ST) OR MNDOT MIX 22-112 (AUGUST 1ST THRU OCTOBER 1ST) AT A RATE OF 100LB/ACRE.
INCLUDING DISK ANCHORED MULCH ON ALL SLOPES GREATER THAN 200' OR 5%.
10) PER CURRENT MPCA REQUIREMENTS. CONCRETE WASHOUTS, WHICH PROHIBIT WASHOUT LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES FROM CONTACTING THE GROUND AND ENTERING
THE GROUNDWATER, MAY BE; APPROVED FACILITIES OFFSITE, PORTABLE ONSITE FACILITIES, OR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED ONSITE. ON SITE CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES
SHALL HAVE A LEAK —PROOF, IMPERMEABLE LINER AND FOLLOW THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL PROCESSES AS RECOMMENDED ON THE MPCA
WEBSITE (HTTP: //WWW.PCA.STATE.MN.US/PUBLICATIONS/WQ—STOM2-24.PDF).
11) OWNER HAS BEEN MADE AWARE THAT THERE ARE DESIGN SLOPES LESS THAN 2% AND ACCEPTS ANY ISSUES THAT MAY RESULT FROM THIS DESIGN.
12) DITCHES WITHIN 200' OF SURFACE WATER OR PROPERTY LINE STABILIZED IN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTION.
13) SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4:1 AND 4:1 SLOPES LONGER THAN 30' ARE SEEDED AND PROTECTED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS OR SODDED AND STAKED.
BLANKET CATEGORY PER MNDOT 3885. SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4:1 ARE STABLE FROM LAND —SLIDING AND SURFACE EROSION.
14) MINIMIZE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OVER UNPAVED AREAS OF THE SITE.
15) FINAL GRADING OF THE INFILTRATION BASINS SHALL BE COMPLETED AFTER MASS GRADING UPSTREAM IS COMPLETE AND STABILIZED.
16) GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS — THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR
CONSTRUCTION" SUBJECT TO ANY AMENDMENTS & THEN 2018 EDITION OF THE "STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATIONS" AS PER THE CITY ENGINEER'S ASSOCIATION
OF MINNESOTA SHALL GOVERN, ALONG WITH ANY DESIGN CRITERIA LOCATED WITHIN THE OLMSTED COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
WITHIN THIS PLAN.
Specifications in Monticello
17) GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS — THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO STANDARD DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" SUBJECT TO ANY AMENDMENTS. ALONG WITH ANY DESIGN
CRITERIA LOCATED WITHIN THE WRIGHT COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED WITHIN THIS PLAN.
18) CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL UTILITY CONNECTION PERMITS FROM THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
ABBREVIATIONS DEFINED:
HP: HIGH POINT
LP: LOW POINT
EO: EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
IMPAIRED/SPECIAL WATERS WITHIN ONE MILE:
NONE
OWNER
MONTICELLO MEADOW TOWNHOME LLC
19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047
ENGINEER & SURVEYOR
G—CUBED INC.
14070 H WY. 52 SE
CHATFIELD, MN 55923
markw@ggg.to
LEGEND
WATER HYDRANT & GATE VALVE
OS SANITARY MANHOLE
O lifil STORM MANHOLE & CATCHBASIN
STOP SIGNS
D4 GAS VALVE
ITT] COMMUNICATIONS BOX
TREE
MAJOR CONTOUR
MINOR CONTOUR
WM WATERMAIN
SAN SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
El r,
GAS
TILE
PROJECT CALCULATIONS:
TOTAL PROJECT AREA: X.XX ACRES
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA: X.XX ACRES
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS: X.XX ACRES
NEW IMPERVIOUS: X.XX ACRES 0
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS: X.XX ACRES
WETLANDS: X.XX ACRES
RIGHT OF WAY: X.XX ACRES
GL
X 1060.00
C
R�xI
X �06Q.00
2.060
UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS LINE
RAILING, CHAINLINK FENCE
GAS LINE
WATER SERVICE
DRAIN TILE / SUBDRAIN
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
EASEMENT LINE
BITUMINOUS SURFACING
CONCRETE SURFACING
BUILDING
LANDSCAPING
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACING
PROPOSED CONCRETE SURFACING
PROPOSED TREE
SILT FENCE (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-01)
GRADING LIMITS
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
INLET BARRIER (PER ROCH. STD. PLATE 7-05)
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
(PER MNDOT 3885 CAT. 3N)
R80ROG6PSSR0TTE VMrR ANCE
(9WQaM.SW8E PLATE 7-06)
G.F.: GARAGE FLOOR RIP RAP (PER MNDOT 3133D)
F.F.: FIRST FLOOR
RETAINING WALL
BUFFERYARD LINE
AGGREGATE SURFACING
DATE: 6/3/2021 REVISED BY DATE
�I APARTMENTS
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, CITY �JL M0 TIC�IJL0 M0l TIC]�]�L0 MJLJAI� �W SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED Prepared Far: ENGINEERING PRELIMINARY ADB 9 13 2021
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION DESIGNED MRW / /
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LLC o SURVEYING SUBMITTAL ADB 9/20/2021 WDL,,IGHT
COUNTYGTjLPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF I I J I O O DRAWN ADB AD I N G
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N ��� PLANNING
MARK R WELCH
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047 Ph. 507-867-1666 14070 Hwy 52 S.E. Fax 507-867-1665 CHECKED MRW BENCHMARK:
►J
DATE x/x/xx REG. NO. 42736 www ggg to TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF SHEET 4
FILE NO.: 20-408 PP Chatfield, MN 55923 THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13 OF 4 SHEETS
WARNING
BEFORE DIGGING CALL GOPHER
STATE ONE CALL FOR LOCATIONS.
DIAL — 1-800-252-1166
REQUIRED BY LAW
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
MARK R WELCH
DATE X/X/XX REG. NO. 42736
DATE: 6/3/2021
Prepared For:
Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LL
19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047
FILE NO.: 20-408 PP
�-la,) i��YY��111�111� ��11�1��11�
14070 Hwy 52 S.E.
Chatfield, MN 55923
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
PLANNING
Ph. 507-867-1666
Fax 507-867-1665
www.ggg.to
DESIGNED MRW
DRAWN ADB
CHECKED MRW
REVISED
PRELIMINARY
SUBMITTAL
SHEET
SHEET
SHEET
SHEET
SHEET
APPROVED BY
CITY ENGINEER
APPROVED BY
XXXXX
SHEET INDEX
1 TITLE SHEET, SHEET INDEX &
2 UTILITY SCHEDULES & NOTES,
3 STREET PLAN & PROFILE FOR
4-6 PLAN & PROFILE FOR PRIVATE
G1- GX GRADING & EROSION CONTROL
BY ATE
0e 1
9'°,"°„ CITY OF MONTICELLO
/20/2021 WRIGHT COUNTY
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF
THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13
VICINITY MAP
DETAILS & TYPICAL
ENTRANCE ROAD
UTILITIES
PLAN
VICINITY MAP
DATE
DATE
SECTIONS
T, 121 N,, R. 25 W., SEC. 14
NOT TO SCALE"
1, 94
CHELSEA ROAD
DUNDAS ROAD
PROJECT
MONTICELLO MEADOW APARTMENTS
TITLE SHEET
SHEET 1
OF 6 SHEETS
WARNING
BEFORE DIGGING CALL GOPHER
STATE ONE CALL FOR LOCATIONS.
DIAL — 1-800-252-1166
REQUIRED BY LAW
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
MARK R WELCH
DATE X/X/XX REG. NO. 42736
STORM SCHEDULE
WATERMAIN SCHEDULE
SANITARY SCHEDULE
SERVICE SCHEDULE
DATE: 6/3/2021
Prepared For:
Monticello Mdw. Twhm, LL
19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047
FILE NO.: 20-408 PP
rr� rz��
��X-���ubed
14070 Hwy 52 S.E.
Chatfield, MIN 55923
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
PLANNING
Ph. 50T867-1666
Fax 507-867-1665
www.ggg.to
GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS
— THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER
STANDARD DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE MOST RECENT
EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
'STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" SUBJECT TO ANY
AMENDMENTS. ALONG WITH ANY DESIGN CRITERIA LOCATED WITHIN
THE OLMSTED COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. UNLESS OTHERWISE
SPECIFIED WITHIN THIS PLAN.
— CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL UTILITY CONNECTION PERMITS
FROM THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
v
REVISED I BY I DATE
DESIGNED MRW I PRELIMINARY I ADB 9/13/2021
SUBMITTAL I ADB I9/20/2021
DRAWN ADB
CHECKED MRW
EAST
B618
C&G
6' 12'
THRU LANE
I I
2.0%
MATCH EXISTING
ROADWAY PAVEMENT
SECTION
EDMONSON AVE NE TYPICAL SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTICELLO MEADOW APARTMENTS
WRIGHT COUNTY NOTES, TYPICALS, & SECTIONS
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF
THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13
SHEET 2
OF 6 SHEETS
WARNING
BEFORE DIGGING CALL GOPHER
STATE ONE CALL FOR LOCATIONS.
DIAL — 1-800-252-1166
REQUIRED BY LAW
965
RI
O
O
0
L0
+
07
10
III 0
+
CDN
10-00 11+00
O
0
C�C:
U
o I i
00 10+00 9+75
J
W �
Lfj
O
t +
0)
0_
m
� O
O
�l-
N
0
0
rn
P:
12+46.
i
J
Li
J
w
F-1/5
E]
LO
+
N
0_
� 1 8
0
0
rn
P:
12+46.
i
J
Li
J
w
F-1/5
E]
LO
+
N
0_
� 1 8
O
X 00�
W
9+50
10+00
10+50
11+00
11+50
12+00
970
965
••@
5
X D X W
W a_ LJ W
12+50 12+57.61
V a
E
R
T
I a
C
A
L
S 0
C
A
L
E N
HORIZONTAL SCALE
10 0 5 10 20
DATE: 6/3/2021 REVISED BY DATE
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,1'CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTICELLO MEADOW AP
��������
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED Prepared For: ENGINEERING
DESIGNED MRW PRELIMINARY ADB 9/13/2021
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LL ubed-
SURVEYING DRAWN ADB SUBMITTAL ADB 9/20/2021 WRIG�H[T COUNTY PLAN & PROFILE FOR UTILITIES
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N PLANNING
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047 Ph. 507-867-1666
MARK R WELCH CHECKED MRW BENCHMARK:
4070 Hwy 52 S.E. Fax 507-867-1665 SHEET 3
REG. N0. DATE X/X/XX 42736 wwwgggto TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF
FILE NO.: 20-408 PP Chatfield, MN 55923 THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13 OF 6 SHEETS
I (') /
1211%1
11%_F
,(=I
Z// .
DIAL - 1-800-25 -
IRI�Q
HAO HAO BHA O
1
BH 0 BHAO
1 ��lA-IC
AO
BHAO BHAO-
/ O �O
��l ° �1�
HAO
/ o
�Hl �E1
Ln
L�J LW
I—
u�
LL1
u
Z
W
0
=
0
g"
2
/
pVC 0.40%
14+00 /
/
o
-- ---
13+00 ��°
+ - - - - --------------------
��� 00
�O
N
o o
L
0
- - - - - - - - - -
F&I 84.53
12+00 /
- -
LF 8" PVC @ 6.56%
/
ti
11 +00
L_LJ
J
Z
-1
z
U
0
LJZ
/i
-
L LI Cr
9J
LLJ
°
MH
4 - TYPE 3
\
965
ST
:15+33.05 OFF:
0.00'T
Apartment
Sanitar
960
11 8 7)
W M pR�
�
A
BUILD:
N
S
E
13.30
8" INV IN: 951.6
" INV OUT:951.65
MH
ST
Ap
RIM
BUI
N
5 - TYPE 3
:12+84.53 OFF:0.00'T
rtment Sanitary
959.86
D: 9.22
" INV IN:950.66
F 1
8 DIP W M
P
IVA
INV OUT:
F
1 8 DIP W M
RIVATE
V
R
955
F&I 248.5
A
L
LF 8 PVC @(40%
PRIVATE
Q
A
L
E N
950
10
HORIZO14TAL
0
SCALE
s 10 20
945
94
.42 94
.42 W/M 94
.42
F&/ 2, S,3 �F
94
.62 94
.62 SAN 94162
p�C
® 6 S69
P R
940
M H 6 - TYP
3
STA:10+00.0
OFF:0.00'T
Apartment Sanitary
RIM: 936.52
4.52
N 8" INV IN:
935
32.00
938.01
W/M 938.01
938.01
W/M 938.01
938.01
W/M 938.01
938.01
W/M 938.01
938.01
W/M 938.01
938.01
W/M 938.01
938.01
W/M 938.01
938.01
W/M 938.01
938.01
W/M 938.01
938.01
W/M 938.01
9
1 W/M
93
7.21 SAN 93 7.21
93 7.21
SAN 93 7.21
93
7.21
SAN 93 7.21
93 7.21
SAN 93
7.21 93 7.21
SAN 93
7.21 93 7.21
SAN 93 7.21
93 7.21
SAN 93 7.21
93 7.21
SAN 93 7.21
93 7.21
SAN 93 7.21
93 7.21
SAN 93 7.21
93 7.21
SAN
�
r7
Cp
r7
CO
CO CO
CO
X
W
r7
O
CO
O)
(Y
CL
00
00
j
Ln
��
N r j
LO O
0)
X
J
N
M
r j �
CO '6
M CO
a_
N
0)
N
CO
r7
r7
r j
CO
0)
X
J
0)
c.0
nj N
CO rrj
M O
0 d7
O_
N
I`
N
CO
CO
r j
CO
M
X
W
O
O
r j
CO
0)
(Y
a_
Co
C�j
O
d7
N
N
ro
CO
N
m
CO
M
X
W
O
r7
CO
0)
O'
IZ
O
O
O)
N
2 N
N O
CD 0)
X
J
Ln
I� r\
Co
CO
0) �
O' O
IZ
00
r- O
CO
7
CO
X
J
CO
O
0)
�{
0)
Ln
X
L LJ
00
I�
G' 0)
�
O
O
m
aj
�
0)
X
J
r7
Cp
M
O
O
O
O
M
X
J
Ln
�
G'
QO
0)
Lq
N
Cfl
d7
X
J
�
X
L.J
X
0_ L.J
0_
15+50
15+00
14+50
14+00
13+50
13+00 12+50
12+00 11+50
11+00
10+50
10+00 9+75
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DATE: 6/3/2021
Prepared Far:
Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LL
19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N
ubed-
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
PLANNING
DESIGNED MRW
DRAWN ADB
REVISED
BY
DATE
CITY OF MONTICELLO
U�l
WIRIGHT COUNTY
�
l� �/ I�I�
M O I \\T T I C E L L O MEAD O W A T ARTMENTS
PLAN & PIR"OFILE FO-IR" UTILITIE
1 S
PRELIMINARY
ADB
9/13/2021
SUBMITTAL
ADB
9/20/2021
MARK R WELCH
REG. N0. DATE x/x/xx 42736
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047
FILE NO.: 20-408 PP
4070 Hwy 52 S.E.
Chatfield, MN 55923
Ph. 507-867-1666
Fax 507-867-1665
WWW gggto
CHECKED MRW
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF
THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13
SHEET 4
OF 6 SHEETS
WARNING
BEFORE DIGGING CALL GOPHER
I
STATE ONE CALL FOR LOCATIONS.
DIAL - 1-800-252-1166 I
o
I
RE Y L W
\IVI
I
+
I
I
BERML-)L-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P: 9+75.00
H BASIN
1+00
6. 5
O
n/
-�
12+00
+
SOUTH BASIN
00
-
/
_N
@ 0. 40%
a
280.B2
„ PVC
�F S
,
12
F &I
yYo
6
1 7+00
N
=
F&I 285.
.
0 LF 8" PVC @
40%
=
� g+00
21 +00
20+00
19+00
G
/
o
r
I
O
�
Go
r
ND
Y
IL
BP: 9+50.00 r11/
IL
0
V-
STA 20+99.27
OFF:0.00'T
MH 3
- TYPE 3
R
Apartment S
nitary
STA:1
+13.87 OFF:O.
0'T
J N
M
4 - TY
RIM:965.67
Apartment
RIM:
Sanitary
6.05
a
ST
:15+33.
BUILD:
11.78
BUILD:'
I
1
L^
A p
artment
S 8"
INV OUT:953.91
_
N 8" INV
IN:952.77
s
BUILD:
13.3
F&I 8
S 8 INV
OUT:952.77
A
L
N
„
8 INV IN
D
P W M
PRIV
TE
�E
F&I
=
S
" INV 0
��
x0
1 P E
�� 20
8 DIP
W M PRI
F&I 8 DIP
W M PRIVATE
F
1 8 DIP W M
PRIVATE
F�
�
q
E
F&I 285.
0 LF 8 PVC @
0.407.
PRIVAT
F&I
280.82 LF
8 P
C@
0.40% P
I VATE
952.81
W/M 952.81
952.81
W/M 952.81
952.81
W/M 952.81
952.81
W/M 952.81
952.81
W/M 95
.81 952.81
W/M
952.81
952.81
W/M
952.01
SAN 952.01
952.01
SAN 952.01
952.01
SAN 952.01
952.01
SAN 952.01
952.01
SAN 952.01
952.01
SAN
952.01
952.01
SAN
94
.42 W/M 94
.42
94
.42 W/M 94
.42 94
.42 W/M
94
.42
94
.42 W/M
94
.42 94
.42 W/M
94
.42 94
.42 W/M 94
.42
94
.62 SAN 94
.62
94
.62 SAN 94
.62 94
.62 SAN
94
.62
94
.62 SAN
94
.62 94
.62 SAN
94
.62 94
.62 SAN 94
.62
00
000
r-1
r1-
Nn
Ln(-o
co
N
LnN
a-)o0
Ln
L
0000
r- Ln
�
ACC•
�Ln
�
O 00N
ooa')
N
-
��
��
N
(_0
Ln
-4-
O
000
Ln
N
r00)
co
r0
�n
Ln
-4-��
I�r�
Co
(DO
CO
Co
0 �
c0
(0O
�
in QD
n
d)
�
L6
CO N
L6
c0
O
N
c0 Ln
4
c0 ro
Ln
Ln
Co0
4
c0
r7
Co
CO o0
N
cD
cD
Lfj
CD cD
cD
Ln
(0
cD
Ln CD
cD
LO
co
cD Lfj
cD
cD
cD
�j
CD
co
c0
cD
CD
(0
V) c0
cD
cD
cD
Ln CD
Co
O
C6 cD
cD vj
Ln
(D
0)
O
(D
0)
X
O
O
O
07
X
O (D(D
OEM
X
O
(D
OM
(D
O
X
O (D
OM
(D
X
O
(D
OM
(D
O
X
O (.0QD
OEM
0)
X
O (D(D
OEM
X
O
(D
OM
(D
X
O
(D
OM
(D
X
a'
(D
Oa7
(0 O
O (D
Orn
(D
X
W
lY
IZ
W
IZ
W
Q:�*
a-
W
IZ
LLJ
IZ
W
lZ
LLJ
a_
W
C�
a-
W
IZ
W
IZ
LLJ
X
W
tY
IZ
21 +00
20+50
20+00 19+50
19+00
18+50
18+00
17+50 17+00
16+50
16+00
15+50
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
DATE: 6/3/2021
Prepared Far:
REVISED
BY
DATE
CITY
OF MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO
MEADOW
T
AP�����I\ TSPECIFICATION,
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT AM A DULY LICENSED
Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LL
��\
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
DESIGNED
MRW
PRELIMINARY
ADB
9/13/2021
WRIGHT COUNTY
1�
SUBMITTAL
ADB
9/20/2021
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
19356 MEADOW RIDGE
TRAIL N
�
O O
PLANNING
DRAWN
ADB
l �
PLAN
1 ��
I�
& PROFILE
I
FOR UTILITIES
MARK R WELCH
MARINE ON ST. CROIX,
MN 55047
4070 Hwy 52 S.E.
Ph. 507-867-1666
Fax 507-867-1665
CHECKED
MRW
BENCHMARK:
SHEET 5
REG. NO. DATE x/x/xx 42736
Chatfield, MN 55923
WWW gggto
TOP NUT HYDRANT
ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF
OF 6 SHEETS
FILE NO.: 20-408 PP
THE INTERSECTION
WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13
ARNIDIGGING
AL
G
P ERE
CALL
F
0
L
C TIONS.
-800-2
2-
16
BY LAW
23 00�
6'
w
970
965
MH 1 - TYPE 3
ST :23+84.66 OFF:0.00'T
Apartment Sanitary
RIM 966.05
BUILD: 11.02
S 8" INV OUT:955. 5
960
F&I 285.40 LF 8" PVC ® 0.40%
s��pps �z
22+00
i
i
F&I 8 DIP W m r-"
F&I 8 IP W M PRIVA E
955 o PRIVATE
950
95 .81 W/M 95 .81 95 .81 W/M 95 .81 95 .81 W/M 95 .81 95 .81 W/M 95 .81
95 .01 SAN 95 .01 95 .01 SAN 95 .01 95 .01 SAN 95 .01 95 .01 SAN 95 .01
930 _
� CO N N ;1-0 Co
O Y M� 11� 00 0V� r7 O Ln Lnro Ln OLn�r7
Ca 0 0 O O L6 O O L6 O
C7 a_ Cn a- CD Cfl 0) d7 CD CD 07 07 Co CD a0 d7 Co CD O 0-)
X X O� X O_ ())0-)X D' 0)U) X� 0)0-) X D'
W Li W a_ W a_ W a_ W a_
24+09.66 24+00 23+50 23+00 22+50 22+00
DATE: 6/3/2021
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED Prepared For: ENGINEERING
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ��\
AND THAT AM A DULY LICENSED Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LL O O SURVEYING
rr
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF �
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N PLANNING
MARK R WELCH MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047
Ph. 507-867-1666
x/x/xx 42736 14070 Hwy 52 S.E. Fax 507-867-1665
DATE REG. NO. FILE NO.: 20-408 PP Chatfield, MN 55923 www.ggg.to
Nawk
NORTH BASIN
951.81 W/M 951.81
95 .01 SAN 95 .01
r�
00
O
r7Ln
N
CD
CD
0)
0-)
X
D
W
21 +50
DESIGNED
MRW
DRAWN
CHECKED
ADB
MRW
N
21 +00
J� l
M H 2 - TYP 3
STA:20+99. 7 OFF:0.00'T
Apartment S nitary
RIM:965.67
BUILD: 11.78
S 8" INV OU :953.91
F&I 8 DIP W M PRIV TF
+00
20+00
0I
1 72+00
F&I 285.40 L1 8" PVC 40%
Zbt)-JU LF 8'- PVC ®10.4( PRIVAT
95
.81 W/M 95
.81 95
.81 W/M 95
.81 95
.81 W/M 95
.81 95
.81 W/M 95
.81
95
.01 SAN 95
.01 95
.01 SAN 95
.01 95
.01 SAN 95
.01 95
.01 SAN 95
.01
O
00
Ln
O
M
00
00
O
00
"o I-
r- N
rrl 00
N Ln
N Ln
Ln 0-)
I- Ln�
OO
O 00�
O O
O�
Lx�
L6
�j
I- O
O
O O
O
Ln O
O
an O
O
Cp
CD 07
07 O
CD a-)
M CD
CD a-)
07 Co
CD d7
07
0)
OF) X
D' 0)0-)
X
D' 0)0-)
X
D' (M07)
X
D'
W
a_
W
O_
W
a-
W
O_
21 +00 20+50 20+00 19+50
REVISED BY DATE CITY OF MONTICELLO
PRELIMINARY ADB 9/13/2021
SUBMITTAL ADB 9/20/2021 WIRIGHT COUNTY
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF
THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13
19+00
951.81 W/M 951.81
95 .01 SAN 95 .01
LO
O
O
LO
d7
CD
, j
Ln O
(.D
Co
CD 0)
07
O
O X
D'
W
a_
19+00
v�
E
R
T
I N
C
A
L�
C
A
L
E a
RIVATcE)15 10 20
951.81 W/M 951.81
95 .01 SAN 95 .01
SOUT
.4
r
Co
1
MH
STA:
Apar
RIM:
BUIL
951.81 W/M
95 .01 SAN
Co
O
00
N N
-
I�
N
O
N
L6
O O
CD L6
CO
O
O O
O Co
O
O X
a�
a7
Lli
D
n1oNTIcELLo MEADOW AIP'AIR"'ITMENTS
PLAN & PxOFtLE FO-IR" UTILITIES
SHEET 6
OF 6 SHEETS
F
N G
G G ALL GOPHER
CA FOR LOCATIONS
80—252-1166B LAW
0)
1g+OD „
/ Ls,
0 20+00
X
0.40%
5 ao �F a
0)
N�Sd� Nl�oN
-- 9
- 1 +0
0
1 46 2+00 g�1 9
N
g, 3 9? 0
N
a_9� 9�2
g' 1
g6g
g6-7----
969
�97
0 �g68
.C-1
r-
CIO
LO
C6
i� LO
AEA
AEI -
BP' + WM
/
/
/ o
wM
V a
E
R
T
I a
C
A
00
C�0 j
Co
O_ o7O
a_
(0
-t
"t �
Lo (.000
(0 o-)
X
W
O
-It 0-)
Ln
j
0-) CD
� 0-)C7)
W
N
O Ln
Ln
Ln Co
(0 0-)
X
W
N
Ln 00
Ln
CO j
0-)OO
� OO
a_
00 (0
"t 1-6
Lo C0
0')
X
W
O 00
LC) Lc)Ln
L0 �j
0)OO
� OO
a_
00
00 Ln
�
Ln CD
07
X
W
CO
Ln 00
L6 (.C)
(0�j
d7 CD
� OO
a_
00
CO
Ln
(0
ti•�I
L0
Co
X
W
12+46.25 12+00 11 +50 11 +00
10+50
965
O
C)
C0
c0
O
C0 O
O Co
Cn
C6
m
X
W
a_ W
W
10+00 9+75
L
S 0
C
A
L
E N
HORIZONTAL SCALE
10 0 5 10 20
L�1
0
0
rn
0
0
+
N
f
c0
rn
9 75
1
10+00 0
11+00
J
W
,
v
O
Ln
O
N
Ln
L�
O
W
N
Ln
In
m
W
Co
O
00
Ln
O
O
Ln
c0
m
W
O
Ln
co
m
W
00
O
00
Ln
O
CO
Ln
Ln
O
O
W
CO
In
Ln
O
m
W
Co
CO
0
00
Ln
0
O
—
LO
O
M
W
O
—
LC)
C0
O
W
O
co
O
O
W
11+50
11 +00
10+50
N •
O�
O
d7
W
10+00 9+75
DATE: 6/3/2021 REVISED BY DATE TI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, OF MONTICELLO
MEADOW
�A�T�\ �E \ TTS
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED Prepared For: ENGINEERING CJJLMONTICELLO l�JL 1V�
DESIGNED MRW PRELIMINARY ADB 9/13/2021
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LL O��\ O SURVEYING DRAWN ADB SUBMITTAL ADB 9/20/2021
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF W-R.IGHT C OUNTY PLAN & PIROFILE FO-IR" UTILITIES
�
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N PLANNING
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047 Ph. 507-867-1666
MARK R WELCH CHECKED MRW BENCHMARK:
4070 Hwy 52 S.E. Fax 507-867-1665 SHEET 7
DATE X/X/XX REG. N0. 42736 WWW gggto TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF
FILE NO.: 20-408 PP Chatfield, MN 55923 THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13 OF 8 SHEETS
F
ARNIN DIGGING CALL GOPHER
E CALL FOR LOCATIONS.-800-252-1166
BY LAW
W
I
10.04
L21:1 O
O
CD /
1 60 5 00 14 00
LO
�J
+ 0
W
965
961
X
W
p � Y
1
I
Lj
I
IJ 0 0
+
+ N
O
m
10-� 00 � 11
q-
@ C
U
I � I
13+OOI / 12+00 11 00 00 10+00 9 075
p
LO
m
LL- o
N
1
O
(D
+
t � �
A. 46 25
V a
E
R
T
I a
C
A
L
S03
C
A
L
E N
HORIZONTAL SCALE
ZZ-------
W
N N O
CO CO I r)
CO CO
d7 O
X O
W W
d7
p T
cD
CO CO
(D O
0 X
W
O
00
C0 —
co CO
O CD
O
W
O
7 �
Co CD
CD O
p X12�
W
r-
O ��
Cp O
cD
Q) CD
0-)
a_
(D
O
O c0
O CD
CD O
0) X10�
W
O
O N
Cp O
cD
Q) O
O
a_
N O
O cD
CD CD
CO O
0) X10�
W
O
Cp
co Cp
Q) CD
O
a_
O
CD O
CD d7
p XQ:�
W
r
O O
CD
O CD
0-)
W
-d-
O Lo
O cD
CD Q)
M X
W
O�
Ln O
c0 of
Q) cD
0)
d7
00
p �
Ln CD
Cfl O
0-) XQ�
Ld
a7
00 CD
Ln
CD L6
O (D
O7
a_
r7
CD 00
L i
Uf CD
CD O
O) X10�
W
K)
00 p�
0 ��
cD Lrj
Q) (D
O7
a_
00
O r-
L i
L6 CD
CO O
O) X10�
W
00
r- O
0 ��
cD Lrj
Q) O
07
a_
1`7
O
I f)
Ln CD
CO O
C) X12�
W
rr)
r- 00
Ln O
co
Q) O
0-)0')
a_
r7
Ln
(D L i
LD CD
CO O
X12�
W
rr) N
In
0 L i
co CD
Q) O
X
a_ W
I��1z�1
965
N
co
Q)
a_
14+50 14+00 13+50 13+00 12+50 12+00 11 +50 11 +00 10+50 10+00 9+75
DATE: 6/3/2021 REVISED BY DATE THEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, OF MONTICELLO
��Ir APA-`TME \TTS
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED Prepared Far:ENGINEERING CJJLMONTICELLO I� I� ley
DESIGNED MRW PRELIMINARY ADB 9/13/2021
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Monticello Mdw. Twhm. LL ubed-
SURVEYING DRAWN ADB SUBMITTAL ADB 9/20/2021 WIRIG H T COUNTY PLAN & PIROFILE FO-IR" UTILITIES
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 19356 MEADOW RIDGE TRAIL N PLANNING
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047 Ph. 507-867-1666
MARK R WELCH CHECKED MRW BENCHMARK:
4070 Hwy 52 S.E. Fax 507-867-1665 SHEET 8
DATE X/X/XX REG. NO. 42736 wwwgggto TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF
FILE NO.: 20-408 PP Chatfield, MN 55923 THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13 OF 8 SHEETS
A2.1
3
A2.1 1
4
A2.1
2 A2.1
Fr
-MAIN LEVEL
1 /16" = V-0"
MAIN FLOOR APARTMENT
A1.00
architecture
+ design group
A2.1
3
r
1 SECOND LEVEL
16
SECOND FLOOR APARTMENT
Al. 11
architecture
+ design group
A2.1
3
4
-THIRD LEVEL
1 /16" = V-0"
2 < A2.1
THIRD FLOOR
Al. 12
architecture
+ design group
00
00
74
0
w
00
00
N
00
N
44
0
0
0
50 S 52
I I I
70' - 0"
53 54 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
I I I I I I I I I
342' - 3 5/8"
11' - 4 7/8"
F'"
PARKING GARAGE 9 X 20 UNITS
1 /16" = 1'-0"
PARKING GARAGE
Al .13
architecture
+ design group
C
c
C
O
1
N
M
STUDIO- 476 SF
1 /4" = 1'-0"
18'-0"
36'-6" i
i
i
c
or" 4 V "
ONE BEDROOM- 730 SF
1/4" = 1'-0"
V V — V
ol
10' - 7 1 /2" 5 1 /4" 9' - 0 7/8"
6' - 0 1 /8" 9' - 1 1 /2"
00
1
ti
0
0
0
0
M
I
0
1
O
I
(14
1
O
I
J
N
O
1
O
CV
1
i.9
11' - 8 1 /8" 10'- 4 7/8"
10'- 10 1 /8"
13' - 4 1 /4"
a rch itectu re
+ design group
TWO BEDROOM- 1,028 SF
1 /4" = 1'-0"
TWO BEDROOM & DEN- 1,125 SF
1 /4" = 1'-0"
UNIT PLANS
Al .15
68' - 5 3/8"
9
CLUB HOUSE OPTION
1 /8" = V-0"
CLUB HOUSE PLAN
Al .32
architecture
+ design group
FIk
j7
.1mi g E
1M w INII ME =�m
rp smil mil Ell mill.im! I ILI 11olk, mil 1 _11111, .!:III a
I ____1 �
M1 �m
M M_ m M1I III
"111"Ell 71"Emn "NEI m u _ � h� ■� 1�1 - 111 �
E Ell :1],
rip: U 11:111
, r-P
a 11:1111 _1101 I An 11 NEI It, lul..", In
mill
k - hm
0' UH �hsl� �I Emil
„ � oil
ME on a m
mil
Ell � n ti H.Ot ��n - ILI Uipj n �r- n [EHISM-_ Ei �., Hmv
i ■ice �
S- IIII 8 III. IN 111 111Ul _11114
� r n11 _ Kul�1x11Hm�mm1[_I�1. � o [MIN___11RL lwlfm mf
aIn RIL— 111 a ■, m ■, n H Solor 9 aIN 11171_�Ml IS imm-1 ME 1111111 'm N�Ml mm 1M■;m 0. 0 _111M
aw a a
iIOR ELEVATION 100 UNIT BUILD
w
1W
a
`r
■
a y i
owl
tile pp
r ■�■ ME �1
11 NINE
-■ 11 "milli 11111011 �11 _
v.
�li I*. F.
iATIONS AIC
1W
a
`r
■
a y i
owl
tile pp
r ■�■ ME �1
11 NINE
-■ 11 "milli 11111011 �11 _
v.
�li I*. F.
iATIONS AIC
architecture
+ design group
ILLUSTRATIONS A3.0
STUDIO
TWO BE
/DE
I A
1
61�
\W
ONE BEDROOM
TWO BEDROOM
-1
k�il
architecture
+ design group
PROPOSED APARTMENT HOMES
MONTECELLO, MINNESOTA
Area Level Units Area (sf/unit) Totals(sf)
Garage 0 1 36,751 36,751
Garbage and Recycling 0 1 838 838
Net / Gross
Total Floor 0 37,589
Studio
1
3
476
1,428
One Bedroom
1
12
730
8,760
Two Bedroom
1
14
1,028
14,392
Two Bedroom & Den
1
3
1,125
3,375
Corridor
1
1
5,816
5,816
Net / Gross
1
645
Total Floor Area
1
34,416
Studio
2
5
476
2,380
One Bedroom
2
12
730
8,760
Two Bedroom
2
14
1,028
14,392
Two Bedroom & Den
2
3
1,125
3,375
Corridor
2
1
4,550
4,550
Net / Gross
2
959
Total Floor
2
34,416
Studio
3
5
476
2,380
One Bedroom
3
12
730
8,760
Two Bedroom
3
14
1,028
14,392
Two Bedroom & Den
3
3
1,125
3,375
Corridor
3
1
4,550
4,550
Net / Gross
3
959
Total Floor
3
34,416
Total Apartment Area 85,769
Total Corridor Area 14,916
Floors 1 - 3 103,248
Total Construction Area 140,837
Studio
13
476
6,188
One Bedroom
36
730
26,280
Two Bedroom
42
1,028
43,176
Two Bedroom & Den
9
1,125
10,125
Total Apartments
100
85,769
UNIT MIX:
UNIT TYPE 1ST
STUDIO 3
ONE BED 12
TWO BED 14
TWO BD/DEN 3
TOTAL
2ND 3RD
TOTAL
15
36
42
9
MAIN LEVEL
1/16 = 1 0
MAIN FLOOR APARTMENT
PAl
architecture
+design group
SECOND LEVEL
1 /16" = V-0"
SECOND FLOOR APARTMENT
PA2
architecture
+ design group
-THIRD LEVEL
1 /16" = V-0"
THIRD FLOOR
PA3
architecture
+ design group
o i-
00
00
N
80
N
50 51 52
I I
70' - 0"
53 54 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
I I I I I I I I I
342' - 3 5/8"
11' - 4 7/8"
r
PARKING GARAGE 9 X 20 UNITS
1 /16" = 1'-0"
PARKING GARAGE
architecture
+design group
C
C
O
N
Ce)
y1
■
18'-0"
-STUDIO- 476 SF
1/4" = 1'-O"
36' - 6"
1 /l' 7 1 /rlii C i /A -I ()- 0 rO/AI- CI /1 1 /rlii r)' C 7/AC i /A -I C' -4 -4 IA -I
I
7C, ii"
N
M
00
M
N
N
N
O
N
O
Cb
-ONE BEDROOM- 730 SF
1/4" = 1'-O"
10' - 7 1 /2" 5 1/4" 9' - 0 7/8"
6' - 0 1 /8" 9' - 1 1 /2"
CD
O °
0 °0
0
O
O
C?
�
O
F�
Tij
00
r-
N
J
O
it
N
O
(D
O
CV
CO
11 ' - 8 1 /8" 10'- 4 7/8"
10'- 10 1 /8"
13' - 4 1/4"
architecture
+design group
-TWO BEDROOM- 1,028 SF
1/4" = 1'-O"
-TWO BEDROOM & DEN- 1,125 SF
1/4" = 1'-O"
UNIT PLANS
00
LO
00
(0
S7 4 (°
M
EO
N
4'- 4 5/8"
22' - 8 3/4"
FITNESS
YOGA
15' - 8 3/4"
O
■
n
62' - 0 1 /8"
S7
1
50' - 11 "
ENTRY
�10
I \
\ I
STORAGE
GARBAGE
RECYCLING
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I —
I I I
1 I I
\ I
\ I I
----5
6' - 4 1 /8"
20' - 0 7/8"
STO
O
0
x
39' - 3 3/8"
OFFICE OFFICE
CONFERENCE
RESIDENCE
OFFICE SPACE
MOVIE
PARTY
H.
6' - 9 3/8"
/
a)
co
0
r-
co
izz
3 S7
-CLUB HOUSE
1/4" = 1'-0"
❑a a
22' - 1 7/8" 17' - 0 1 /2"
CLUBHOUSE PLAN
PA7
architecture
+design group
-L
ILI ■ �1 ■ 11 ■_ 11 ■_■l 11 ■■ ■_ =_
__ ice■ = I=li = __ ice■ � � i=■ - Ul 11 11 I■I 11 __ 11I■, ■ m I■1 Ell■=11 ■,I ■ 11 I■1 11 II■1 11 ■ 11=
FBI11 11 �� ■■'11■� ■� ■ Ell =11 =11= - 11 ■ - 11 ■ ��
■I =_ICI = =I - �I _ I I■1 - I■11 III _ _
11011111
� _ - -_ - � _ =IIIII
=11 0JE - 11 ■_ __�� ____11 _ =11— _11 11 _ �11=11
-- a a - INE
_E - - __
■ Ell- __ ■ ■_■■ _r ■IIIII _ _,,,
=11 0 [ 11 =11 ill 11=-11 �1�■ =11®�
■ III ■ - �-_ _AN81,EumlllI■I. .o_1.� L— �0 _ �� __ 11 ._ ■� _ _ 11
_ = IIIIItLOME=== = = Ell I�■ = 11 1= __ ■■ 11 11=111 11 11= 11 0 �, _ _ �� _L
-■_ -_ -
■ ■ ■ ■= ■ ■ ■ ■ �, ■■ e ■ 1■■■■N
NONNON
NON
NON
NONNON
NONNON
Il ■I�� —11 ■■ 11 ■�I =11 I■1 11=■NONNON 11 �I 11NNO
= II NON11=_0 ■I u �I®I 11= �� ■ . .
IIIIMENEM
IN
NON
- — -- ■ ■ -, �■�� ■nn= �n
'11 11 11 11 11 11 ■■1 1�■ 11 11= 11 0 [ — = 11 11 11
�I III I■I �I - 9�1 �I I�� I■■11 =IIII■1= II®I
WIN-
ImAj
- -
a Ili 0 a ■II■ 0 a11 11=11 _ _ ��_ =IIII
II I�i II IJI■ I�i I�_I■_ I�i �I I L■ �
NON
NON
=11 �11 0 11 _■ �� ■ 'ID 11 -_ 11 _11==11 -_ =11 ■_, 11 ■=11 -°
■ I I■I - - I _ _ �I■III ■ I■I _ -_-_ ��II_ _ =1■I -- �I - -I I■1 �I�I I N�� _ • .
HEmAo 0 11 L, -�� I 0 _ ■■,��.�i 11 I■� 11=HK ,i�i� _ F771� -11=■ 11 =11■ L. 11 11 UI I�*i 11 a J
off
0
rA
r;
33" FES 17-1
INV: 954.42
BASIN BOTTOM 953.0
\ O
\ @ W
Parking
@
Lawn
I
50.00' /W Lawn
7 1
C
11111111111 IMF
7
Vt�00
Walk
f
Parking
Lawn
O❑
❑o
❑O
Lawn
O Walk
�J
rtmen S
Entry
Lawn
❑O
Lawn
s
a
�s
Parking
o❑
Lawn
O
I SIP", I
Parking
101
Lawn
Lawn
Lawn
L
O o
Lawn
=
O O
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 0 25 50
( IN FEET)
IIN=SOFT
Walk
6.00'
Lawn
100
EDMONSON AVE NE
Lawn
ENINg/la, EPINgla,
t �51 W�
Lawn
Walk
21 a eS
Parking
MMMo
,-A
r•:+w�.I:i:.3
Fence
Parking
1221 Jai
Lawn
L----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---
Walk
Engineering: ■
G-Cubed Inc.
285 Westview Dr. West St. Paul, MN 55118 Monticello
796-300-1213 An
Daniel Tilsen, Lead Design Project Manager OakTr'ee Design
651-283-7546 Site Planning and Landscape Design:
raura: ro ,mh oun ao ns, mvne ro onw wuv� wir a Toa
djtilsen@gmail.com ..
Jeff Weber -Landscape Designer MNLA AS LA
Geoffrey G. Griffin, Surveyor 9665 Howard Lake Dr. NE. Forest Lake, MN 55025 ■ ■ ■ , , �„ + " �tlP WM6 n"'�'°
507-867-1666, ex 102 651-260-6206jgwl@comcast.net Ia,r , ,/r nRox wus, •/rase"Rgeoffg@ggg.toreliminary
Mark Welch Engineer
u.� wl y9 ppp
ng
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared IIeMLY Tilsm No wYEn PvcwExr av wvn °,o,,�y ypyEp ppQ.
507-867-1666 ex 105 by me or under supervision and I am duly licensed Professional vn rt'ro mn �+ ■
n.Hnxc rrt n r.msAxr � scvsY m m,mn
markw@ggg.to SHRUB DETAIL
Drawn:dff Weber
City of Monticello Wright County
x wu nanw�Y K,u rawwa.
• osa[ ,IFi mm /Io sows m Yp18 MFR 1ETMINtlIL
Developer: Monticello Meadows Town Homes, LLC Drawn:JeffWeber s rwiaawvawnwvmarrtxaoa.
K.Peter Salland, Esq. DECIDUOUS TREE DETAIL
19356 Meadowridge Trail N., Marine Mn. 55047 Revised By Date BENCHMARK:
Cell: 651-245-7222 TOP NUT HYDRANT ON SCHOOL BOULEVARD 300' WEST OF
Office 651-433-0155 THE INTERSECTION WITH EDMONSON AVENUE NE, ELEV:965.13
Peterstalland@hotmail.com
(3
Lawn
Walk
@ Lawn ° .. @
Material List
Symbol
Plant Name
Latin Name
Size
Number
0
Red Maple (Native Blvd Tree)
Acer rubrum 'Autumn Radiance'
2 1/2" Dia.
27
Crimson Spire Oak
Quercus robur x alba 'Crimschmidt'
2" Dia
27
Maple Matador
Acer x freemanii 'Ballston'
2" Dia
34
Norway Pine (Mn State Tree)
Pinus resinosa
6' tall
40
00
Broadmoor Juniper (Evergreen Shrub)
Juniperus Sabina 'Broadmoor'
#3
270
Viburnum'Blue Muffin'
Physcocarpus opulifolius'Monio'
#3
40
Hydrangea Quickfire
Hydrangea paniculata'Bulk'
#3
104
00
Spirea Golden
Spirea x'Goldmound'
#3
101
Ci
Alpine Currant (Decid Shrub)
Ribes alpinum
#3
200
Daylilly (Mixed Colors)
Hemerocallis varieties
#1
1 64
Eldorado Feather Reed Grass
Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Eldorado'
#1
28
Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass
Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Karl Foerster'
1#1
1 73
Sheet 12 I
2
0
U
z
w
m
U)
00
0
M
0
0
a
LO
z
J
0
a
a
w
z
z
0
M
ILL!
F-
D
w
D
z
w
a
a
z
w
x
0
wsb
September 30, 2021
Matt Leonard
City Engineer/Public Works Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Monticello Meadows Apartments
Preliminary Plat, PUD, & Plan Review
City Project No. 2021-037
WSB Project No. R-017894-000
Dear Mr. Leonard:
We have reviewed the Preliminary Plat, PUD, and site plans dated September 16, 2021. The
applicant proposes to two separate 100-unit apartment buildings on a site with approximately
10.8 acres.
The engineering plans and documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of
Monticello's general engineering and stormwater treatment standards. We offer the following
comments regarding these matters.
General & Preliminary Plat
1. A more detailed review of the development plans will be conducted when the applicant
submits a complete set of civil plans and a stormwater management report.
2. The City has prepared a Small Area Plan for the Chelsea Commons area improvements
that includes a large stormwater ponding area, a network of trails/access, and other
improvements adjacent to or within the applicant's property. See additional comments
from City staff pertaining to what the expectations are for the applicant relating to these
improvements.
If the City proceeds with the Chelsea Commons area improvements, grading and other
improvements may need to occur within the applicant's property to achieve the City's
vision. Provide permanent and/or temporary easements for this proposed work.
3. On the plat, show and note drainage and utility easements.
4. With Final Plat submittals include the following:
a. An existing conditions/demolition plan that includes the impacts related to the
proposed utility connections in Edmonson Avenue and School Boulevard. Label
existing utilities pipe sizes and material types and include hatching/notes for
removals of all existing improvements (structures, curb, bituminous, concrete
aprons, fences, etc.) proposed to be impacted with the project.
b. Include all applicable water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer City standard detail
plates. Provide typical section/detail for stormwater improvements, infiltration
K:\017894-000\Admin\Docs\2021-09-17 Submittal\_2021-09-30 LTR Monticello Meadows Apt - WSB Plan Review.docx
Monticello Meadow Apartments — WSB Engineering Plan Review
September 30, 2021
Page 2
basin, and control structures. Include typical street/parking lot pavement
section(s).
Erosion/sediment control plans and SWPPP sheets.
Site Plan (Utility Set — Sheets 3 — 8)
5. Streets and utilities shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City Subdivision
Ordinances and the City's General Specifications and Standard Details Plates for Street
and Utility Construction.
6. The applicant has shown a network of pedestrian path connections on the concept plan.
Extend the trail along Edmonson Avenue south to School Boulevard. There is an existing
pedestrian path located on the north side of Farmstead Drive east of Edmonson Avenue;
a connection to Edmondson Avenue on the north side of the site access should be
provided.
7. It is not clear on the plan whether concrete curb and gutter is proposed around the
perimeter of the parking lot and access drives. Provide more detail on future plan
submittals.
8. The Chelsea Commons area improvement project proposed by the City includes the
widening and reconstruction of Edmonson Avenue to include a center left turn lane. The
applicant is proposing to widen Edmonson Avenue, confirm this meets the geometric
requirements of this improvement.
Utility Plans (Utility Set — Sheets 3 — 8)
9. Streets and utilities shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City Subdivision
Ordinances and the City's General Specifications and Standard Details Plates for Street
and Utility Construction.
10. With final construction plans, provide confirmation of MDH (watermain) and MPCA
(sanitary sewer) plan review and permitting.
11. With final plat submittals add the following notes:
a. The City will not be responsible for any additional costs incurred that is
associated with variations in the utility as -built elevations. These elevations shall
be verified in the field prior to construction.
b. The plans shall comply with the requirements in the City General Specifications
on the Cover Sheet.
c. The City specifications require that sanitary sewer and storm sewer require
televising. Video files shall be provided to the City for review.
12. The City's building department will review required fire hydrant location(s) and
emergency vehicle access/circulation. Fire truck circulation will need to accommodate
the City's ladder truck, provide an exhibit showing turning movements.
13. Watermain looping will be required through the site to provide adequate fire flow supply.
Additional utility stubs to adjacent properties may also be required to accommodate
future looping connections. The applicant has provided preliminary watermain and
sanitary sewer plans showing a connection to the existing systems on School Boulevard
Monticello Meadow Apartments — WSB Engineering Plan Review
September 30, 2021
Page 3
to the south, Edmonson Boulevard to the east, and an extension north to the northerly
property line. The applicant does not need to extend water or sewer main to the northerly
property line; the northerly extension from the looping connection at the main driveway
entrance can be utilized for building services and/or hydrants.
14. With final plat submittal, provide the following:
a. Provide an overall utility plan sheet.
b. Complete water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer profiles.
c. Include crossing locations of utilities in profiles.
d. Add notes at each pertinent crossing to the effect of "Maintain 18" Separation,
Install 4" Rigid Insulation".
e. Provide water and sanitary sewer service locations to each lot along with
standard elevation information.
f. Label all watermain fittings and connections to existing infrastructure.
g. Private utility conduit crossings shall be shown for the joint trench. This will be
coordinated with the City and private utility companies prior to construction
commencing.
h. If dewatering is anticipated, provide a dewatering plan.
i. Note the material grade of the water and sanitary sewer pipe (CL52, SDR 35,
SDR 26, etc).
Grading, Erosion Control, & SWPPP (Grading Set — Sheets 1 — 4)
15. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided
with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to
construction commencing.
16. A more detailed review of erosion/sediment control plans will be conducted with future
submittals (final plat). Provide a SWPPP meeting the requirements on the Minnesota
Construction Storm Water General Permit.
17. The City has prepared a Small Area Plan for the Chelsea Commons area improvements
that includes a large stormwater ponding area, a network of trails/access, and other
improvements adjacent to or within the applicant's property. Grading of the proposed site
will need to provide more detail meeting the intent of the City's vision and small area
plan.
18. Maximum slopes of 4:1 are allowed per City Design Guidelines. Current plans are
showing 6:1 or greater, but not all slope areas are labeled. Revise grading to meet the
4:1 slope requirement where applicable or provide additional information on site
constraints and proposed stabilization measures. Provide more slope arrows/percent
grades for grading along public boulevard areas to verify that there is a minimum of 4%
grade from the right of way to back of curb. Vegetated swales shall have a minimum
grade of 2.0%.
19. Show all storm sewer maintenance access routes for structures outside of public right of
way, add a note saying that "maintenance access shall be a minimum of 12-feet wide
with 10% max side slopes" to the grading plan.
20. With future submittals, review the profile grading of the trail to confirm it meets typical
ADA standards.
Monticello Meadow Apartments — WSB Engineering Plan Review
September 30, 2021
Page 4
Storm Sewer & Stormwater Management
21. Because of the adjacent Chelsea Commons Pond project this project will only be
required to meet 50% of water quality credit and abstraction volume. The rest of the
water quality will be met within the Chelsea Commons pond. During the interim
conditions a temporary infiltration will need to be provided onsite to treat the excess
storm water until Chelsea Commons pond is completed.
22. Include abstraction volume onsite for future widening of Edmonson Road and turn lane
improvements. Additional impervious area shall be accounted for with this project.
Update impervious surface calculation to include all proposed impervious surfaces
related to this project.
23. The minimum FFE for this site is 958.0 based on Chelsea Commons stormwater
management analysis. This includes meeting the required freeboard. Please provide
final FFE elevations in relation to the adjacent Chelsea Ponds.
24. Provide modeling information for each individual infiltration bmp with drainage areas to
each. Provide boundaries and drainage areas on plan to show drainage. Show time of
draw down for each basin.
25. Pretreatment, in the form of ponds, forebays, filter strips, or other approved methods,
shall be provided for all infiltration areas. Pretreatment upstream of volume management
practices is a key element in the long-term viability of infiltration areas per city design
guidelines.
26. At least two feet of vertical separation is required from an area's emergency overflow
elevation to the lowest opening of a building. In areas where this separation is not or
cannot be provided, additional analysis is required showing that the 100-year back-to-
back storm event does not affect adjacent homes. Complete.
27. Per city design guidelines Two feet of free board is required to adjacent buildings, provide
additional information to include adjacent low openings Complete.
28. Show maintenance routes and access to all stormwater BMP's.
29. Provide HWL elevations for all stormwater BMP's.
30. Show EOF's for all basins as well as any low points in the development inside and
outside of the roadway.
31. Explain interim conditions for stormwater management until large regional pond is
created with Chelsea Commons. Modeling should be provided showing all conditions,
including interim to show how run off will be handled during all stages of the project.
32. One catch basin on Edmonson road is being provided, look into other locations to extend
the storm sewer to catch and direct as much water as possible into the future Chelsea
Commons regional pond. There are south of the driveway is an additional location a
catch basin should be explored to try and capture more runoff.
33. Look at alternatives to ribbon curb to ensure that water is directed to the storm sewer and
available for collection in Chelsea Pond.
Monticello Meadow Apartments — WSB Engineering Plan Review
September 30, 2021
Page 5
34. Provide actual HydroCAD model in future submittals so we can verify all modeling
information was entered correctly.
35. Include detailed profiles on the grading plan of each infiltration area.
36. Provide information on all storm sewer structures and pipes. Narrative references pipe
sizing information. Please provide calcs.
37. Provide additional information on storm sewer and how drainage will be reaching the two
infiltration basins. Currently grades show slop away from the North basin towards the
building. Provide clear information on how the basins will be receiving water, pre-
treatment, and information on outlet structures.
38. The development will need to maintain existing flow rates for the 2-year, 10-year, and
100-yr rainfall events. Provide calculations for rate control for each drainage area leaving
the site, including interim conditions before all storage offsite has been built.
39. Refer to the City design guidelines for storm sewer requirements on sizing, slope, and
maximum spacing.
40. The new site will need to provide onsite volume control for runoff of 1.1" over the new
impervious area, Pre-treatment measures are required prior to discharging to the volume
control BMPs. If the volume control requirement is met, the water quality control standard
shall be considered satisfied. Complete.
41. An operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater BMPs is required and should be
submitted with the stormwater management report for review.
Traffic & Access
42. Based on the proposed site plan the anticipated traffic generation would be 1088 vehicle
per day(vpd), 72 AM peak hour trips and 88 PM peak hour trips, assuming 200 apartment
units on the site. The traffic generation would increase from the original townhome
proposal by 356 daily trips, 26 AM peak hour trips and 32 PM peak hour trips.
43. The proposed access to the site is located on Edmonson Avenue at Farmstead Drive,
approximately 900 ft north of School Boulevard. The existing width of Farmstead Drive is
38 ft. The plan shows a 24 ft width on the proposed Site access road approaching
Edmondson Avenue. The width of the access road should be widened from Edmonson
Avenue to the first circulation driveway, to match the existing Farmstead Avenue width.
44. Currently there are no turn lanes provided on Edmonson Avenue at the Farmstead
Drive/Site access driveway. As part of the Chelsea Commons area improvement project
a Traffic Study was completed with a recommendation to include a center left turn lane
along Edmonson Avenue between Chelsea Road and School Boulevard.
With the additional trips generated by the proposed apartment project and as surrounding
development increases in the future, a southbound right turn lane into the site driveway
may need to be considered. It appears there is already a 50' section of half right of way
for the westerly portion of Edmonson corridor which would accommodate a future turn
lane, if needed.
Monticello Meadow Apartments — WSB Engineering Plan Review
September 30, 2021
Page 6
45. A sight line analysis should be completed at the proposed site access/driveway. Provide
a detail/exhibit with considerations for landscaping, monument sign(s) or other features
that could limit sight distances.
46. An existing pedestrian path is provided on the north side of Farmstead Drive. A
connection to Edmonson Avenue on the north side of the site access road should be
included to match the existing pedestrian path on Farmstead Drive.
Wetland & Environmental
47. The site is outside of the DWSMA and is not subject to requirements of the City's
Wellhead Protection Plan.
48. The air photos show a wetland signature just north of School Boulevard and one to the
west of the project. This likely is a stormwater pond built when the road was built.
However, the applicant should submit a Level 1 Desktop Delineation or other wetland
review to provide documentation about the natural or incidental status of wetlands within
the project area. This will allow the proper review and paperwork to be completed for the
site to meet WCA rules.
Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Feel free
to contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or comments regarding the engineering
review.
Sincerely,
WSB
�Z-�
James L. Stremel, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
A
oA
d %
IV:
zr
V�
Ic
•
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 2021
CHELSEA COMMONS DESIGN GOALS
A series of goals arose in response to the design challenges. They built on the early principles and evolved
as new technical and policy information emerged. The following goals directly support the project vision
and further guided ongoing design and policy work.
• Chelsea Commons is a joint public -private venture. It is designed to enhance valuable commercial
development potential and integrate a variety of residential opportunities surrounding a significant
public space, including a usable water feature and a variety of upland spaces.
• Residents, business owners, and employees may experience Chelsea Commons as a complete
environment in which they can live, work, and recreate. The Commons is also envisioned as a place
that invites all members of the Monticello community and beyond to patronize its businesses and
enjoy its open space features, both active and passive.
• Chelsea Commons will present a distinct set of amenities within Monticello's larger park system,
and the design will seek connectivity with the City's other assets. Chelsea Commons will also relate
actively to the existing and future surrounding land use neighborhoods.
• At the nearly 100-acre Chelsea Commons, a wide range of uses are supported and encouraged.
Mixed use is most likely to be seen in the horizontal layout of interrelated uses, rather than vertical
mixed -use buildings, although such buildings would be welcomed. In concept, the Commons area
anticipates commercial land uses to the west and north, transitioning to a mix of residential living
environments to the east and south.
• To achieve the vision of an exceptional development area, the City will consider higher intensity
land usage in parts of the project than that commonly applied under the City's zoning or related
ordinances, most often in conjunction with execution of desired amenities. Moreover, the higher
intensity of land usage will have the beneficial effect of helping realize the feasibility of the
amenities planned for the public spaces.
• Chelsea Commons is envisioned to host a variety of housing: affordable options, modest -cost
options, and luxury homes, in a variety of configurations of density, massing, and ownership.
• To support the mixed -use neighborhood, desired commercial uses are those that promote high
levels of employment and consist of or support hospitality and recreational uses. These include
restaurants and entertainment venues. Due to the extensive exposure of the commercial buildings
in the Commons area, business building design and use will present a public face in all directions,
with attention to architectural opportunities presented by the service portions of the buildings.
• A unique transitional landscaping model reflecting Minnesota's biomes will guide the public and
private spaces and their landscape design. Art, signage, architecture and other design elements are
encouraged to reflect the biome construct.
• Paramount will be the intention and ability to both value and take advantage of the public space
investments that comprise the central focus of Chelsea Commons' design.
PUBLIC MEETINGS & WORKSHOPS
• October 21, 2019 — Joint City Council and Planning Commission
Overview of Chelsea Commons Area & Concept Workshop
• November 23, 2020 — City Council (Regular Meeting)
Consideration of Authorization of Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan
• January 13t", 2021 — Joint City Council and Economic Development Authority
Small Area Plan Kick -Off Workshop
• January 28t", 2021— Joint Planning Commission and Parks, Arts & Recreation Commission
Small Area Plan Kick -Off Workshop
• March 811 2021 — Joint City Council, Economic Development Authority, Planning Commission and
Parks, Arts & Recreation Commission
Chelsea Commons Three Conceptual Layouts Design Workshop
• April 28th 2021 -Joint City Council, Economic Development Authority, Planning Commission and
Parks, Arts & Recreation Commission
Site Tours — Maple Grove: Central Park, Edina: Centennial Lakes, Blaine: The Lakes
• May 4t", 2021 -Joint City Council, Economic Development Authority, Planning Commission and
Parks, Arts & Recreation Commission
Chelsea Commons Preferred Concept, Standards and Naming Workshop
• June 2"a 2021 — Parks, Arts & Recreation Commission
Chelsea Commons Design & Vignettes
• June 23ra 2021— Joint City Council and Planning Commission
Chelsea Commons Traffic Analysis Workshop
• August St", 2021 -Joint City Council, Economic Development Authority, Planning Commission and
Parks, Arts & Recreation Commission
Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan Overview Workshop
• September 71", 2021 — Planning Commission (regular meeting)
Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan Adoption Recommendation — Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Public Hearing
141 Page
Lake Use
During workshops, stakeholders indicated clear intention that visitors should be able to experience and
interact with the water. Key to enhancing the value created by the lake amenity is its use. This goes
beyond mere visual attraction.
The principle of lake use is that while its visual attributes should enhance the land uses around it, the
public should be able to physically use the water amenity through paddleboats, kayaks, and possibly,
fishing. The pathways, bridges and other infrastructure should be designed to further encourage this
visual and actual connection to the water.
Water quality, as discussed above, is a central imperative for this use. In addition, planning for the
infrastructure and services for these amenities will be important through staffing, equipment, and related
budgeting.
�_ - -
. 1R_
M�_'
Public and Private Design
m,k
High -end performance standards in both public and private building and site design are expected
throughout Chelsea Commons.
A critical aspect of furthering the "biome" themed design for Chelsea Commons will be choosing building,
site, landform and architecture which reflect each pool theme. Aspects of public design will include
pathway materials, landscape elements, building design, and especially, lake -edge access components that
complement the theme of each pool area.
For private development around the Commons, similar aspects of materials, architecture, and landscape
elements can reinforce the themes. It is an expectation that private development will value its location
within the Chelsea Commons planning area and respond with elements that support the individual and
overall theming.
The City will use consistency with these design principles as a component of its land use review for private
development.
221 Page
Public Access
Access to the public space requires particular attention, as the bulk of the space is interior to the planning
area and likely screened from the view of passing traffic on the external collector roadways. This is
compounded by the design elements that intentionally create intimacy within the space itself, including
the depression of the lake surface below the surrounding development area by 8 to 10 feet.
�,",F�:
i
Design
Cross
Section
As such, the design focuses on a number of public space elements leading from the external roadway
system into the public space area and two primary edge public exposures. The first of these exposures is a
gateway plaza space at the prominent entry intersection location of Chelsea Road and Cedar Street. This
plaza will be designed to announce and identify the Commons area and create a gathering space for
pedestrians and bicyclists to enter the interior of the site. It will also utilize the design elements common
to the district, including lighting, signing, seating, etc.
The second public exposure is the most prominent and will rely on the City's landholding along Cedar
Street. This location will serve as the primary public gathering space for the Commons as well as provide
ample visitor parking to support four -season outdoor and indoor recreation opportunities.
Pavilion
The indoor space is programmed to include a pavilion building to hold event gatherings, with a target size
of up to 300 persons as well as various outdoor spaces. The parkland created on this property would also
be programmed for other uses and serve as a trailhead for the pathway system.
Direct access to the lake would be a central component of this area, and direct lake use would focus on
this space as a staging area. Watercraft rental, fishing dock location, and similar features would be
facilitated here. The City would likely establish some storage and maintenance staff in this location.
The concept plan envisions that the pavilion building could be constructed as a two -level "walk -out"
structure, with a portion of the lower level serving as the maintenance/storage component of the
structure, with external access to the land and pathway system. The upper level of the building would
have primary access from the main parking facility levels and include both indoor and outdoor overlook
spaces.
Gateways
The master plan identifies a series of primary and secondary gateway locations around the project area,
providing access to the adjoining private development areas as well as the surrounding public street
system. In addition to the primary Gateway Plaza at Chelsea and Cedar, Gateways are located along
Edmonson, School, and Cedar. Gateway identification and phasing will coincide with development.
Primary Gateways are envisioned as a first -order system that create wider public pathway connections.
They include both contoured landforms and access to public and shared parking areas at the perimeter of
the district.
Secondary Gateways may be narrower and more utilitarian, providing safe and well -lit access points, but
may have more limited use or function. The exception to the dimensional limitation would be the gateway
located within the power line corridor that extends into the site from the southeast near the corner of
School and Edmonson.
This corridor, given the width of the power line easement, would accommodate both pathway and
naturalized stormwater retention, in addition to other potential features such as rain -garden
demonstration/education, prairie plant restoration, and pollinator garden development.
Because tree planting is limited in this area, the biome's focus would be on the ground planting plane, and
the pathway through the area would provide, via boardwalk where appropriate, direct contact with the
unique planting features of this section. Because this gateway includes connection to the School
Boulevard pathway and is near to the Monticello Schools campus, coordination with the School District
may enhance opportunities for public education.
Pathway System
Corresponding to the central pond amenity is the encircling pathway system. This pathway is a critical
design element of the Plan. The pathways create an opportunity for discovery and exploration of the
entirety of the neighborhood. Throughout Chelsea Commons, it is expected that both the central pathway
system around the pond and its series of connecting pathways will be designed with attention to variation
in material, grade, widths and other elements which respond to the user's sensory experience. This
variety will be applicable in both public and private spaces. Landscaping accompanying these pathways
should be carefully planned and executed to maximize the aesthetics and vistas to the lake and other Plan
amenities.
The Plan anticipates that the pathway systems will serve pedestrians only, with numerous opportunities
for those entering the Chelsea Commons area to park their bicycles.
231 Page
Public and Private Space Intersection
The intersection between public and private spaces will be critical within the project area. The expected
density of development and use levels for the public portions of the Commons area require thoughtful
transition. With high intensity uses on both sides of the public -private boundary, conflicts can arise if
these areas are not considered.
In that regard, the basic design of the public space is intended to create a lake level, and associated public
pathway and other high -use spaces, which would be generally 8 to 10 feet below the finished floor
elevation of the adjoining private land. This grade difference is envisioned to be supplemented with a
combination of retaining walls and landscaping that creates a visual barrier between the paths and any
first -floor residences, but which is also designed to retain views of the water surfaces from those
residential buildings.
By cutting the grade into the adjoining slopes, most residential views should extend over the paths to the
water surface, while minimizing views of the land itself. As such, residential buildings should be able to
design a reasonable level of privacy into their structures, while capitalizing on proximity to the public
amenities. Private landscaping will augment the public installations to help create this separation.
On the commercial side, it will be presumed that privacy is less of a factor, and that most business entities
will choose a location in Chelsea Commons precisely for the exceptional exposure. To capitalize on this,
the Plan envisions that many such business developments will utilize lower -level building space, in a "walk-
out" fashion with primary access to Cedar Street above, and additional lower -level access to the public
spaces below.
PLAN EVOLUTION
As the project design evolved, engagement with the property owners in the project area created a new
opportunity. One of the primary landowners in the central portion of the study area indicated a
willingness to convey his land to the City, rather than hold it further for development. As these discussions
progressed, it was evident that certain elements of the layout could change to take better advantage of a
revised ownership pattern.
The most prominent of these was the location of the primary City park property — the "commons" of
Chelsea Commons. In this initial scheme, the City park was located on current City -owned land along
Cedar Street, north of Dundas. The primary driver of this location was the City's ownership, and an
interest in maximizing private use of the then privately -owned property in the study area.
With the City's pending purchase of the middle 35-acre area, relocating the City park area south of the
self -storage facility along Cedar street created several new opportunities, including:
• Relocating the created hill to the self -storage business boundary and utilizing that feature as a
screening element between the public/private spaces and self -storage use;
• Transferring the pavilion building to a place adjacent to the south bridge, at the junction of the
central and south pools (see the biome discussions below);
• Utilizing the powerline corridor that crosses the area for parking supply to serve both commercial
uses south of the line and public uses north of the line — particularly as developed uses under the
powerline are not feasible;
• Relocating development opportunity from this south area north to the City's current 5-acre parcel
with more prominent exposure and access;
• Providing a commercial connection and "landing zone" for the Promenade pathway that leads
from the Chelsea/Cedar Plaza into the commons area proper.
In addition, the stormwater analysis yielded information on the depths and elevations required to achieve
the desired lake effect. This required a different design strategy for incorporation of the previously
constructed pond at Deephaven. The existing pond now becomes a feature of character reflecting the
North pool's theme.
The revised master plan takes advantage of these changes, reorienting the elements noted above, but
retaining the primary biome organization from north to south.
24 1
L
7-7777
Ll vu
L
�Z7
llffllal,"5. I
el
�LE h I I A Ir I 1 1, 111 , ri I K1
n
%L'L IrH4ff?ti
r
I i -- - - . C
L
21
� if +r ',r .`',�
25 1 P a g le
RESIDENTIAL USES
Relationship to Lake I Orientation I Density
In Chelsea Commons, the City intends to capitalize on the opportunity to create a signature neighborhood
with diverse residential environments. The residential uses will differ in density, building design, private
amenities, cost, and rental -ownership tenure. Planned Unit Development will be an important tool for
implementation of residential design consistent with the Plan.
Common to each of the residential projects in the area will be utilization of the Commons' lake feature and
its open space/pathway system. With the use of the Commons serving as private and public space, both
physical and visual access to the lake will be a vital aspect of site and space planning.
Residential developments will be required to design their projects to take advantage of views of the lake
and garden areas and to maintain views for other projects in the district. As a principle common to the
built environment throughout Chelsea Commons, a high standard of architectural detail and material
quality will be expected. Connectivity to the central lake pathway system will be required. Residential
properties will be expected to include structured parking in the sale and/or rental of the individual units,
to ensure full utilization. On -street parking will not be available for overflow residential parking.
Densities that range up to 30 units per acre and higher are anticipated in residential areas. Support for
the higher densities will be attended by consistency with the goals of the Chelsea Commons Small Area
Plan, incorporation of the public/private development patterns identified in the Plan, and willingness to
provide access, cross parking, pathway connections, site development, and related improvements that
further the goals of the project.
281 Page
UNIFYING DESIGN ELEMENTS & CONTRIBUTIONS
PARKING AND SHARED/JOINT PARKIN(
Vehicular parking is critical to successful business and residential communities, as well as maximizing the
intensity of uses around the public areas. Attention to adequate and convenient parking will be
examined closely as a factor in site planning review. It is emphasized, however, that overparking—
particularly surface parking lots — will need to be minimized using shared parking areas wherever
practicable, and extensive reliance on covered parking, a requirement in residential projects, and
encouraged on commercial sites.
Common parking areas that can be managed cooperatively are encouraged and will result in greater
density allowances. In all areas, both residential and commercial, the City will seek underground, under -
building, and/orshared structured parking to minimize the areas of the development properties devoted
to automobile surface parking. For some, this will entail cross access and parking agreements (especially
in the commercial zones), and in others, this will include flexibility as to parking design and investment in
structured parking that fulfills these objectives.
Sustainability measures, including electric vehicle charging stations, are further encouraged.
CONSOLIDATED SIGNAGE
The City will develop a signage system for Chelsea Commons, including identification and wayfinding.
Private development in the district will be encouraged to incorporate elements of that system into its
wayfinding and identification packages. This policy is not intended to create a single communication
theme for all occupants of the district, and artistic variation is supported. However, particularly where
private communication intersects with public uses or spaces, adherence to the City's design will be
important. Signage throughout the area may incorporate signage elements specific to its biome.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND MATERIALS
A diverse architectural environment is encouraged in the Commons. The Plan anticipates that building
and/or site development will draw from design themes reflective of the biome environment. Individual
development design may choose other options but will be expected to respect the neighborhood in which
it is located.
However, it will be critical that all development, regardless of use, will incorporate high quality materials,
creative architectural choices, and close attention to all aspects of the building and site being built upon.
High quality building materials that consist significantly of masonry, glass, and similar materials. In
commercial development, lapped siding will be expected to be used in tightly limited exposures and
primarily when designed to mimic wood finishes. Wall articulation, ornamental features, roofline variation,
extensive window coverage, and four-sided architecture all are examples of the high expectations for
development in the district. It is recommended that the City utilize PUD zoning to identify and encourage
architectural character. Project design should be prepared to be reviewed as to its ability to conform to
this expectation.
ART
Monticello is investing in a culture of creativity which encourages art in all forms —visual, literary,
performance, and more. The integration of art throughout the public and private spaces of Chelsea
Commons will enhance the central amenities and experience of all who live, work, and visit. Art will
encourage exploration and enrich the space. Consistent with its other public improvement and park
projects, the City will seek to incorporate art into both the built and programmed Chelsea Commons
environment.
LIGHTING
The City will establish a common public lighting plan and design
for Chelsea Commons. The plan will incorporate potential
opportunities for unique branding of the area, but also with
attention to existing lighting used in nearby areas. Lighting will
include both pedestrian and general surface scale conditions.
Private lighting is encouraged to reflect the styles and themes
used in the public realm. Because Chelsea Commons is a mixed -
use area of higher intensity land uses, attention must be paid to
respecting adjoining land uses with the control of glare, light
spread, and ambient light, balancing that with safety and need.
Ailk k111YA'lW_MI-1
Access to the Commons land uses may occur from several points
M
of entry surrounding the project area. In addition, the City plans an Entry Plaza at the corner of Cedar
Street and Chelsea Road, creating a visual announcement of the district, along with access to its pedestrian
and bicycle visitors. The plaza will serve as an initial gathering space, as well as a prominent wayfinding
marker for passers-by on these two major roadways.
Elements of the Entry Plaza may be mirrored in other entry points, as well as used as common thematic
aspects of other public and private improvements. The plan of the Entry Plaza should introduce, and then
allow repetition of, the public spaces that comprise the district, to avoid the appearance of private -only
improvements.
LANDSCAPING
Both public and private landscaping elements are expected to reflect the biome model for Chelsea
Commons. Landscaping is discussed in detail on page X through X.
301 Page
LANDSCAPING I BIOME FORM
South Pool I "Quercus'
References: Prairie/Oak Savannah
The south pool, nicknamed "Quercus" for "Oak", would consist primarily of plant themes from
southern Minnesota, dominated by prairie and Oak Savannah open woodlands.
Naturalized ground covers would include prairie spaces and "raingarden" stormwater spaces.
Because a large portion of the southeast corner of the project site is impacted by the overhead
electric transmission lines, this area would be well served by this planting scheme, where larger
trees are not permitted within the easement area.
In other areas, grasses, native forbs, and Oak plantings would dominate.
For buildings in the private development and public areas both, the plan encourages the
extensive use of "prairie school" architectural themes, both in building design and site
amenities. The Pavilion building is anticipated with this design style to set the direction.
The Quercus zone of prairie grasses and forbs, wet prairies, wildflower pollinators, raingarden
storm basins, and gentler slopes, reflects the biome that dominates much of Minnesota south
of Monticello. The design accommodates two large access points, one from the dominant
commercial zones to the south of the project area, and one that follows the powerline
easement from the southeast corner of site, at Edmonson and School Boulevard, northwesterly
across the site.
Because large plantings or structure are not permitted in the powerline easement areas, the
project design takes advantage by focusing and highlighting elements that fit within this
constraint. As discussed in the Big Woods section, the Pavilion sits at the boundary of these
two zones, and parking that will serve large events, there, and that can be shared with
adjoining commercial uses, fills much of the west side of the area.
In the southeast, a linear pathway system winds through alternating areas of gentle mounds
and shallow basins, each of which serve to provide a variety of Quercus zone plant associations
— wildflower spaces create zones for pollinator habitat, wet prairie detention areas help both
filter stormwater and create basins show off wet, or "mesic" prairie plantings, as well as the
opportunity for such elements as raingarden demonstration projects. The pathway wanders as
a paved surface on dry land and converts to boardwalk in places as it passes through the wet
zones.
The design requires attention to demands of the powerline structures, a condition of powerline
usage. The intent is to retrain the visual attention to the surface landscape and build
appreciation for the landform, minimizing focus on the overhead lines. At the path meets the
lakefront, its spills overflows into the lake through a limestone cascade under a grated cover.
J
00
view Pc
ra Trai -
cc jqr
11rit 71
ti•
V{
y
+� 5 AL
.1 P. y
, ` Pine grass
ti4 �d forts
s
J
P1Z,
s�
w..:..-�
� L. L 1- Z
r
�T1 AA st
371 Page
_,l ,�'` South Pool / Quercas Biome
The stone material reflects the stone dominant in much of south — and especially southeastern -
Minnesota.
Overstory plantings would be dominated by Oak — predominately white and bur oaks common to the
"Quercus" zone landscape. Shoreline development is largely naturalized and interspersed with limestone
boulders.
Although not exclusive to the Quercus biome, Edmonson Avenue (or "Parkway") is highlighted here to
emphasize its development as a parkway design. The accompanying traffic study envisions development
of roundabout intersection controls at both School Boulevard on the south, and Chelsea Road on the
north. Edmonson Parkway itself would be designed to be a "three -lane" facility, with a center left turn
lane, one lane of traffic in each direction, and a row of on -street public parking along the west boundary of
the roadway.
On both sides of the parkway would be extensive planting, with the dominant and larger plantings along
the west side of the right of way, adjoining the Chelsea Commons area. To the east, a pathway would
follow in the right of way, and plantings would be required to be lower materials, due to a separate
overhead powerline in that right of way.
The project design envisions a shifting of the roadway to the east side of the centerline, to provide a larger
and wider boulevard space for an extensive pathway system and large plantings complementing the access
points into the public sites along the powerline from School Boulevard, the Major Gateway generally
across from Golden Eagle Lane, and the Gateway access that follows the existing Dundas Road location.
As noted previously an additional small parking facility is provided at the Major Gateway access point. The
on -street parking will provide parking access to visitors for daily use or supply major event parking for the
area as well. One consideration for construction and operational planning would be the potential for the
south bridge to be constructed in a manner that can accommodate public works utility vehicles that are
stored and used on the site. This would add efficiency for internal maintenance access throughout the
facility.
381 Page
0
0
vw WM WM WM WM VIM WM —-
WM V* WM I F6W vw WM WM WM vw Ift W.M -- -
WM
WM WM
MyM
WM WM
967
—
—
EDMOHSON AVE HE
_ EDMONSON AVE HE
— — -- -
-967—
— —
— — —
— -
—_ — —
— — — - --- -- ---
— — — - --
—
— — —
-
— ---
—
— — — 965
131
py6, 965 131 31 l3
—
131 --- -131 -- - -- —
_ ----
—
— 1
- —
— T l31
/
co
HAO 0
HAO
/ �9s
/ / BERM b
BERM
s
e
Ip y�
,gas tl �
I
I
I
O
I
�
POOL
pp,,
Roo
I
N`
M
.. J
\
LEGEND
\ /
\
D4
®�
®T
WATER HYDRANT &GATE VALVE
SANITARY MANHOLE
STORM MANHOLE & CATCHBASIN
I
r
SIGNS
_
\
M
O*
GAS VALVE
COMMUNICATIONS BOX
1
o ,0,
ELECTRIC POLE
LIGHT POLE/WALL MOUNT UGHT
TREE
MAJOR CONTOUR
MINOR CONTOUR
• Ol
/ \
\
WTI
SAN
OVHE
WATERMAIN
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
\
\
O
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINES
�i " °" `-'
\ �i�
��
GAS —
UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS LINE
RAILING, CHAINLINK FENCE
GAS LINE
f^
M1�j �,5•ti
WATER SERVICE
TILE
\
,��
?
Y7
_ __ _ _
-fiI Ir1 �T
I
07 \
�� ��
p --------
DRAIN / SUBDRAIN
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
EASEMENT LINE
\
C.
BITUMINOUS SURFACING
'�
/
C
CONCRETE SURFACING
�
+ I
_ _
�CI
�0
�j
/ \
BUILDING
\ w
II 11
I _ _
J
/�j"�a�p
/
�
LANDSCAPING
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACING
\
2 9' 9 z L 110 0 9� 0 0 0 S
/ �O O
� � O
1 /
/ /'
`
�
PROPOSED CONCRETE SURFACING
PROPOSED TREE
964
( u 1
O
O
SILT FENCE (PER STD. PLATE 6006)
X 1,"0.00
GRADING LIMITS
� /
X 10.00%
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
PROPOSED SLOPE
\
III 196j� I
I
I II I I /
\
N PAGE
\ PROPOSED PUBLIC GREEN E/PARK
PR
AMENITIES TO ( BE DET
/ ✓ p'O� /
MINED / /o
(PER MNDOT 3665PROP D NCAON,L BLANKET
ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
(PER STD. PLATE 6002 & 3)
III III
\
PATHWAYS AND
r ��/I�'
RIP RAP (PER STD. PLATE 4OD9)
GRAP16C SCALE
\
�` \
40 0/ 20 40
\
eD pppppppCpp
RETAINING WALL
rn g6�
�O (IN FEET)
BUFFERYARD LINE
AGGREGATE SURFACING
1IN=40FT
BOULDER OR BIG BLOCK TRANSITION
I HEREBY CERTFY THAT THIS PLAN,
DATE: 3 5 2021
Prepared For:
P
REVISED
BY
DATE
CITY OF MONTICELLO
MONTICELLO
MEADOW TOWNHOMES
SUBMITTAL
ADB
9/20/2021
SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME UNDER MY DIRECT
]]
/�v� /�v� ENGINEERING
�� ]] ����
DESIGNED MRW
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
R THE LAWS
PROFESSION ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF
Monticello
Mdw. Twhm. LL
I\(\�`/�=F,
(\I\�`/', o SURVEYING
o
��
DRAWN ADB
WRIGHT COUNTY
PRELIMINARY
PUD
SITE PLAN
THE STATE OF
THE srATE oP MINNESOTA.
19356 MEADOWRIDGE TRAIL N PLANNING
MARK R WELCH
42]3fi
MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MN 55047
Ph. 507-867--1666
14070 Hwy 52 S.E. Fax 507-867-1665
CHECKED MRW
BENCHMARK:
SHEET 1
DATE REG. No.
FILE NO.: 20-408 BASE.DWG Chatfield, MN 55923 `""Wt°
OF 1 SHEETS
-CLUB HOUSE
1/8" = 1'-0"
CLUBHOUSE PLAN
"M,
architecture
+ design group
� ����_ u� Sul_ �n� ■nN�, E111 11 M I M- 1111111 SIM 1111117III N NEI N NEI E NEI
0
u�
ILI 17-11 �.:ui 1:11] 1
11 Ell Imil a
EIN mil I Isil I Nis I I Ell I.
to
11 � ":1:11Hui., l�l �1 Ill 1�11 �.� 1� ul� 1�1E—ul.
n■n� I� II_ii - nl,_,,-�nrn��,. IIn�-. �uwEl_ ��■1 -1► � „�
nj n o, sl� '�N:.-n�,- E :11111� 111111 ME � :01 01111
�s,- MR nre
a a 01 ul 1111L
ILI 1. jul !LII 0.101.11 WL N L ftl
Ellloll-- a �i ILI1-��� �lul_IE1111:1:111iff—limill!,,swillull-wL—IN11-tINN
mail*.,- �
11 0 _ � Ill , ILI 111 - 111 i�t III Ful � MI � 1111
ININE11
Sm
a C�_'•�tul
SEE
is o�,___�n11 0 0 -0 1 WIN_. Iiniffouto0 _.�I[Vii--if gulgwl�-Inl��,__EF1111HIM11-Inlir":
a.
El E INNINI., u111x1ffiI--q1 all NEI
a ilia Nail, slins"I In. 1811H I&J III ILI
L-E. . --- .*L=.
111111 ME INS ISM
n 7in a o n �, _ n o a �, I o n n a 1 � n n � =I
Lai
iIOR ELEVATION 100 UNIT BUILDING PAS
I
GARAGE FRONT ELEVATION
1 /4„ = 1'-01
1
EXTERIOR GARAGES
1/411 = 1'-0"
NMMT.'�eu
; EXTERIOR GARAGES
PAl 0
architecture
+ design group
ENTRY OF CLUBHOUSE
1 /16" = 1'-0"
PATIO ELEVATION
1 /16" = 1'-0"
SIDE ELEVATION
1 /16" = 1'-0"
SIDE ENTRY ELEVATION
1 /16" = 1'-0"
VERALL MAIN
LEVEL
100'-0"
OVERALL MAIN
LEVEL
100' - 00"
CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS
S7
architecture
+ design group
r •r �
f
'50 Mfkrffjl�.
L�
AftV. mmm..
A i� �y Ate' � ...
a 6w -
�~ 00
If.¢_
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/21
2E. Public Hearing —Consideration of request for a Corrective Amendment to the City
of Monticello Official Zoning Map for Shoreland Overlay District Boundaries.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Prepared by: Community Development
Meeting Date:
Council Date (pending
Director
Commission action):
10/05/21
10/25/21
Additional Analysis by: City Engineer, Consulting Planner
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Decision: Corrective Amendment to the City of Monticello Official Zoning Map for Shoreland
Overlay District Boundaries
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021-041 recommending approval of a_Corrective
Amendment to the City of Monticello Official Zoning Map for Shoreland Overlay District
Boundaries.
2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2021-041, based on findings to be
made by the Planning Commission following the public hearing.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2021-041, pending additional information
from Staff or the applicant.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Properties: Legal Description: NA, applies to Shoreland Overlay District
Planning Case Number: 2021-039
Request(s): Amendment to Official Zoning Map
Deadline for Decision: NA
NA
Land Use Designation: NA
Zoning Designation: Shoreland Overlay District
1
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/21
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: Shoreland Overlay District
Current Site Uses: NA
Surrounding Land Uses: NA
Project Description: The request is to correct the Official Zoning Map for the Shoreland
Overlay District consistent with the State of Minnesota Public
Waters Inventory and Wright County Shoreland and Ditch
mapping.
ANALYSIS:
The city also adopts the companion map illustrating Floodplain, Shoreland and Mississippi Wild
Scenic and Recreation Area Overlay district boundaries when adopting the Official Zoning Map
each year.
An amendment to the Official Zoning Map is requested to correct the boundaries of the
Shoreland Overlay District within the city. The correction removes a portion of land area from
the Shoreland Overlay District in the northwest area of the city.
For that portion of the proposed map correction located with the city, an existing ditch system
was incorrectly identified as Otter Creek in the Otter Creek Business Park area along Chelsea
Road. The City recently worked with Wright County on improvements in this area and learned
that the waterway running through the business park is actually part of a Wright County ditch
system for drainage and not part of what is considered Otter Creek. Otter Creek's public water
limits are defined by the State of Minnesota's public waters inventory. These geographic limits
lie south and east of the Bertram Chain of Lakes and then north of CSAH 75.
The map has been corrected to accurately illustrate the limits of Shoreland designation per the
Public Waters Inventory and Wright County mapping.
As the city reviewed the Public Waters Inventory and Wright County mapping, it was also found
that a waterway running through an agricultural area north of CSAH 39 is also not a Shoreland-
designated water. Rather, it is a wetland feature as shown on the National Wetland Inventory
and would instead be protected under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA).
It should be noted that as a component of the City's Official Zoning Map, the Shoreland Overlay
District mapping and text apply only to land located within the city's corporate boundaries as
shown on the map. The land area outside of the municipal boundary is under the jurisdiction of
Wright County until annexation as allowed and is only shown as an area reference. This area is
therefore outside the city's jurisdiction and it was corrected for reference only.
2
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/21
Staff did discuss the proposed correction with the DNR, provided the proposed mapping, and
informed them of the date of the hearing. As the text of the ordinance was not proposed the
amendment no certification review was deemed required by the DNR. The City's zoning
ordinance specifically references the Public Waters Inventory and Wright County mapping for
code compliance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the corrective map amendment for the Shoreland Overlay
District. The corrective amendment will allow the city to apply the appropriate zoning and land
use management tools to these waterways.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2021-041
B. Ordinance No. 7XX, Draft
C. Current Official Zoning Map - Shoreland/Floodplain/MWSRR
D. Proposed Official Zoning Map — Shoreland/Floodplain/MWSRR
E. Wright County Beacon Map, Ditch and Shoreland
F. City Data Link, National Wetland Inventory Mapping
G. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Excerpts
H. Public Waters Inventory
3
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-041
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CORRECTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the requirements and intent of the Shoreland regulations
statutes and rules; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the official Shoreland District mapping of Wright County
and the Public Water Inventory of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to revise the boundaries of the Official Zoning Map to correct the
boundaries of the Shoreland Overlay District consistent with the official mapping of Wright
County and the Public Water Inventory of the State of Minnesota
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance protects shorelands in
accordance with Shoreland objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 5t", 2021 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and requirements of
both the State of Minnesota Shoreland Management Act and the regulations as
determined by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
2. The proposed amendment continues the City's policy of both protecting
shorelands as a vital natural resource and as an economic development asset.
3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the plans and policies as stated in
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City
Council approve a corrective amendment to the City of Monticello Official Zoning Map for
Shoreland Overlay District boundaries.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-041
ADOPTED this 51" day of October, 2021 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
A
ATTEST:
Paul Konsor, Chair
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
2
ORDINANCE NO.7XX
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELL0 HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. The zoning map amendments attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit "A" are adopted as the Official Zoning Map under Title 10, Section 3.1
of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Monticello.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its
passage and publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by
Council. Copies of the complete Zoning Ordinance are available online and
at Monticello City Hall upon request.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATIONBYthe Monticello City Council this 1 Ith
day of October, 2021.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rachel Leonard, City Administrator
VOTING IN FAVOR:
VOTING IN OPPOSITION:
ORDINANCE NO.7XX
EXHIBIT "A"
Corrective amendment to the boundaries of the Shoreland Overlay District within the
City of Monticello.
I fJ
(N,,Beacon Wright County, MN
ti
129THftNW 2r7TH 5T NE3' .. T:...'..
19'9Ty S7 fVET '' 75
-
39 NW ar ti. rn
�.
fw j m I 39 NE :<<-
Silver Creek T,^ipl ¢ yam, 39'
Ix ¢
Y
mLL
101S�ST NW �o�N Illy-}Iiticella:TYvp
a i ' 100TH ST NE
97TH ST NW 97TH 5rT.1V.
90TH S Tj NW ', �' Y
90TH ST NE ,� o
.. � ,w •. ! � r f �
w a
> U
w _ n• Q
w ¢ ¢
¢ $07H sT NE
onto car
3,497 ft s w W _
Date created: 9/17/2021
Last Data Uploaded: 9/17/20218:15:21 AM
Developed bywj LSchneider
Gf O5PATIAL
�STIVE 25 urIF1sI NE
8srk s r NE z
THSTNE w
Q
w
1 17a;
W
Y pitr i? 33 ¢ y w
�► J} � ...
� R_ 9DTH 5T-NE
z
1 �
s� DEER-ST
�� J�SN NFL z,3
z
LU
C7q ` Q
1 ;; BOTH ST NE, J -�
e=• —3Al"
Overview
Legend
Roads
— CSAHCL
— CTYCL
— MUNICL
— PRIVATECL
— TWPCL
Highways
Interstate
— State Hwy
US Hwy
City/Township Limits
c
t
Ditches (County)
Open
Tile
ShorelanclArea
Subject Area - National Wetland Inventory
T Ii— ' • —- '; q •rye
a. r
-
s
t -
Ilk
i
i
y�
National Wetlands Ind
• � � j ii �f t
- r �
CITV OF
Monticello
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 3.7 Overlay Zoning Districts
Subsection (F) Shoreland District
responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use
and development of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and
enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural
environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters
and related land resources. This responsibility is hereby recognized by the
City of Monticello.
(2) General Provisions
(a) Jurisdiction
(i) The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the shorelands of the
public water bodies as classified in Section 3.7(F)(4) of this ordinance.
(ii) Shoreland shall include all land within 1,000 feet of the Ordinary High
Water Level (OHWL) of a lake and 300 feet of a river and its designated
floodplain as depicted on the City of Monticello's Official Zoning Map.
(iii) Pursuant to Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, no lake,
pond, or flowage less than 10 acres in size in municipalities or 25 acres in
size in unincorporated areas need be regulated in a local government's
shoreland regulations. A body of water created by a private user where
there was no previous shoreland may, at the discretion of the governing
body, be exempt from this ordinance.
(b) Compliance
The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots; the use,
size, type and location of structures on lots; the installation and maintenance
of water supply and waste treatment systems, the grading and filling of any
shoreland area; the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the subdivision of
land shall be in full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other
applicable regulations.
(c) Enforcement
The Community Development Department is responsible for the
administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Any violation of the
provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements
(including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection
with grants of permits, variances or conditional uses) shall be subject to the
remedies and penalties outlined in Section 7.6 of this ordinance.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 183
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 3.7 Overlay Zoning Districts
Subsection (F) Shoreland District
(ii) Conditions attached to conditional use permits
The Community Development Department, upon consideration of the
criteria listed above and the purposes of this ordinance, shall attach such
conditions to the issuance of the conditional use permits as it deems
necessary to fulfill the purposes of this ordinance. Such conditions may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Increased setbacks from the ordinary high water level;
2. Limitations on the natural vegetation to be removed or the
requirement that additional vegetation be planted; and
3. Special provisions for the location, design, and use of structures,
sewage treatment systems, watercraft launching and docking areas,
and vehicle parking areas.
(iii) Notification Procedures
1. A copy of the notice for the public hearing(s) to consider a
conditional use permit must be sent to the Commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources or the commissioner's designated
representative and postmarked at least ten days before the hearings.
2. A copy of all decisions granting a conditional use permit subject to
shoreland regulations shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner
of the Department of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such
action.
(e) Proposed Shoreland District Amendments and PUDs
(i) Notification Required
The Community Development Department shall submit to the
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (or the
commissioner's designated representative), a copy of any application for a
zoning amendment to Section 3.7(F), or an application for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) within the shoreland district for certification. The
materials shall be sent so as to be received by the Commissioner at least
30 days prior to such hearing or meeting to consider such action. The
notice of application shall include a copy of the proposed ordinances or
amendment, or a copy of the proposed Planned Unit Development along
with a description of the request.
(ii) Notification of final decision
The Community Development Department shall notify the Commissioner
of the Department of Natural Resources of its final decision on the
proposed action within ten days of the decision.
Page 186 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 3.7 Overlay Zoning Districts
Subsection (F) Shoreland District
(iii) Effective date of decision
The ordinance amendment or PUD becomes effective upon the happening
of any of the following events, whichever first occurs:
1. The final decision taken by the city has previously received
certification of approval from the Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources.
2. The city receives certification of approval from the Commissioner of
the Department of Natural Resources after its final decision.
3. Thirty days have elapsed from the day the Commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources received notice of the final
decision, and the city has received from the Commissioner neither
certification of approval nor notice of non -approval.
4. The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources certifies
his approval within 30 days after conducting a public hearing.
(iv) Hearing after non -approval
In case the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources gives
notice of non -approval of an ordinance amendment or PUD, either the
applicant or Community Development Department may, within 30 days
of said notice, file with the Commissioner a demand for a hearing. If the
demand for a hearing is not made within 30 days, the notice of non -
approval becomes final.
1. The hearing shall be held within 60 days of the demand and after at
least two weeks' published notice.
2. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Minn. Stats. §
103G.311, subds. 2, 6 and 7.
3. The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources shall
either certify his approval or disapproval of the proposed action
within 30 days of the hearing.
(4) Shoreland Classification System and Land Use Districts
(a) Shoreland Classification System
The public waters of the City of Monticello have been classified below
consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3300,
and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Wright County, Minnesota. The
Mississippi River is regulated by Section 3.7(E) Wild and Scenic Recreational
River District.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 187
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 3.7 Overlay Zoning Districts
Subsection (F) Shoreland District
(i) The shoreland area for the water bodies listed in subsections (ii) and (iii)
below shall be as defined in this ordinance and as shown on the Official
Zoning Map.
(ii) Lakes
1. Natural Environment Lakes
a. Mud Lake (DNR ID: 86-68 P)
2. Recreational Development Lakes — RESERVED
3. General Development Lakes
a. Pelican Lake (DNR ID: 86-31 P)
b. Long Lake (DNR ID: 86-69 P)
c. Slough Lake (DNR ID: 86-78 P)
(iii) Rivers and Streams
1. Remote Rivers — RESERVED
2. Forested Rivers — RESERVED
3. Transition Rivers — RESERVED
4. Agricultural Rivers — RESERVED
5. Tributary streams
a. Otter Creek
All protected watercourses in the City of Monticello shown on the
Protected Waters Inventory Map for Wright County, a copy of which
is hereby adopted by reference, that are not given a classification in
Items 1 through 6 above shall be considered "Tributary streams."
(b) Land Use District Descriptions
(i) Criteria For Designation
The land use districts in subsection (ii) below and the delineation of a
land use district's boundaries on the Official Zoning Map, must be
consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive
land use plan.
(ii) Land Use in Shoreland Areas
Land uses on parcels within the shoreland district shall be regulated by
the underlying zoning district or by Table 3-23 below, whichever is more
restrictive.
Page 188 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.391, Subd. 1, the Commissioner of Natural
Resources hereby publishes the final inventory of Protected (i.e. Public) Waters and Wetlands
for Wright County. This list is to be used in conjunction with the Protected Waters and Wetlands
Map prepared for Wright County. Copies of the final map and list are available for inspection at
the following state and county offices:
DNR Regional Office, Brainerd
DNR Area Office, St. Cloud
Wright SWCD
Wright County Auditor
Dated• 1 S STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
JOSEPH N. ALEXANDER, Commissioner
• �.� _._ of aJ
From
To
Name
Section
Township Range Section
Township
Range
Unnamed to SC
21(Basin
121
26
4(Basin
121
26
233)
139)
*Otter Creek (OC)
18(Basin
121
25
17(Basin
121
25
66)
69)
3(RR)
121
25
3
121
25
Unnamed to MR
27(Twp.Rd)121
24
18
121
23
Unnamed to MR
36(Basin
121
24
17
121
23
25)
Crow River (CR)
30
119
24
36
121
23
Unnamed to CR
10
120
24
13
120
24
North Fork Crow River
31
120
28
30
119
24
(NFCR)
*Sucker Creek (ScC)
27
119
28
18
119
27
Unnamed to Cokato Lake
21
119
28
15(Basin
119
28
263)
Unnamed to ScC
36(Basin
119
28
26
119
28
250)
Unnamed to NFCR
21
119
27
10
119
27
Unnamed to NFCR
22
120
27
6
119
26
Unnamed to Unnamed
26
120
27
2
119
27
*Twelve Mile Creek
3(Basin
118
27
21
119
26
199)
Unnamed to NFCR
35
119
26
22
119
26
Unnamed to NFCR
1(Basin
119
26
13
119
26
90)
*Unnamed to Unnamed
15
119
26
15
119
26
11
119
26
12
119
26
Mill Creek
18(Basin
120
26
25(Basin
120
26
120)
90)
Unnamed to Buffalo Lake
28
120
25
30(Basin
120
25
90)
Frederick Creek
5(Basin
119
25
13
119
26
49)
Unnamed to Mary Lake
33
120
25
5(Basin
119
25
49)
Unnamed to NFCR
26
118
26
12(Basin
118
26
85)
6
118
25
32
119
25
Unnamed to Unnamed
21
118
26
21
118
26
23
118
26
23
118
26
Unnamed to Unnamed
15
118
26
13
118
26
Page 7
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/21
3A. Consideration of Administrative Subdivision and Administrative Lot Combination for
two parcels located in the Central Community District, General Sub -District.
Applicant: Mosbart Properties, LLC
Prepared by: Northwest Associated
Meeting Date:
Council Date (pending
Consultants (NAC)
Commission action):
10/05/21
10/25/21
Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building and Zoning
Official, Community & Economic Development Coordinator, Project Engineer
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision: Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision of an existing parcel and
concurrent lot combination in an adjustment to an existing lot line.
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021- 042, recommending approval of the simple
subdivision and concurrent lot combination, based on findings in said resolution, and
the conditions of approval as required in the ordinance and in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2021-042, based on findings to be
made by the Planning Commission following the public hearing.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. 2021-042, pending additional information
from Staff or the applicant.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Properties: Applicant's Parcel (213 Third Street East):
Lot 2, except the westerly 10 feet thereof, and Lot 3, Block D,
Monticello Original Plat
PID: 155-010-069020
Parcel to Receive Land Convevance (250 Broadwav East):
Lengthy legal
PID: 155-010-069080 (part)
Planning Case Number: 2021-034
1
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/21
Request(s): Administrative Subdivision and Lot Combination
Deadline for Decision: October 23, 2021 (60-day deadline)
December 22, 2021 (120-day deadline)
Land Use Designation: Downtown Mixed Use
Zoning Designation: Central Community District
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: NA
Current Site Uses: Vacant and Commercial (a portion of the applicant's parcel is
devoted to parking for abutting funeral home use)
Surrounding Land Uses: North: Commercial
East: Single Family Residential
South: Single family Residential
West: Commercial
Project Description: The applicant's property (213 Third Street East) measures
approximately 20,000 square feet in size and is primarily vacant.
The subject site is bordered on the north by the Peterson-
Grimsmo Funeral Home (250 Broadway EastJ. A portion of the
funeral home's parking lot encroaches upon the extreme
northeast corner of the subject site. The applicant wishes to split
the parcel such that the area devoted to parking can be conveyed
to the abutting funeral home. Specifically, a 1,672 square foot
parcel of land is proposed to be created and conveyed to the
neighboring funeral home.
ANALYSIS:
Procedural Requirements. The Subdivision Ordinance, in Section 11-1-7, provides for simple
subdivision of lots that are currently platted and do not create more than one new building lot.
The Ordinance allows for such "simple subdivisions" to proceed without requiring a full plat or
the normal public hearing requirements that larger subdivisions entail.
Such subdivisions result in a "metes and bounds" description, essentially describing parts of the
underlying platted lots. Occasionally, the County Recorder determines that the new
descriptions are not recordable. While staff does not anticipate that likelihood in this case, if
2
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/21
that were to occur, a plat would be required, and the applicants would need to reapply for a
platted subdivision.
Survey. While the submitted survey illustrates the "parking area parcel" which is to be
conveyed to the funeral home, the boundaries of the applicant's existing parcel and the funeral
home parcel are not illustrated. As a condition of simple subdivision and lot combination
approval, the submitted survey should be revised to include the boundaries of the legal
description of the applicant's existing parcel and the existing funeral home parcel.
Configuration of Parcel to be Conveyed. The applicant wishes to create and convey a 1,672
square foot parcel of land which measures 22 feet in width and 76 feet in depth. While such
parcel generally overlays the parking lot encroachment area, it fails to recognize and meet
applicable parking lot setback requirements. Moreover, the subdivided portion would still
result in a small portion of the parking lot curb to encroach into the remainder of the property.
As a condition of simple subdivision and lot combination approval, the parcel to be conveyed to
the funeral home should be expanded in size such that the curb of the parking lot shall not be
closer than six feet to any lot line (as measured from the lot line to the face of the curb).
Lot Area Requirements. In consideration of the proposed lot split, a determination should be
made that such subdivision will not result in the creation of a nonconforming lot.
The subject sites are zoned CCD and are considered to be located in the "General CCD" sub-
district. There are no minimum lot areas or widths in the CCD and therefore both the proposed
subdivision and combination would be considered compliant.
It is noted that the subdivision and combination will result in a unique lot shape for both
resulting parcels. The applicant is advised as a conditions of the approval that any future
development on either parcel will be subject to required setbacks from the proposed property
lines.
Grading, Drainage and Utilities. No concerns were evident as a result of the review of the
proposal. As noted, the parking area is currently surrounded by curb and the recommendation
is to include the full curb line within the proposed area to be subdivided.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is supportive of the purpose and process of the subdivision and recommends approval of
the subdivision and concurrent lot combination. However, the proposed plan does not
accomplish the removal of the encroachment and would continue to leave both an actual
physical and setback encroachment on the residual parcel. As such, staff's recommendation is
based the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, and on findings that the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not impact requirements of the Zoning
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/21
Ordinance for either subject property, as well as compliance with the conditions identified in
Exhibit Z.
SUPPORTING DATA
A.
Resolution PC-2021-042
B.
Aerial Image
C.
Applicant Narrative
D.
Certificate of Survey
Z.
Conditions of Approval
4
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/21
EXHIBIT Z
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION AND LOT COMBINATION
213 THIRD STREET EAST (PID: 155-010-069020)
250 BROADWAY EAST (PID: 155-010-069080)
1. The submitted survey shall be expanded to include the legal description of the
applicant's existing parcel and the existing funeral home parcel.
2. The parcel to be conveyed to the funeral home property shall be expanded in size such
that the curb of the parking lot shall not be closer than six feet to any lot line (as
measured from the lot line to the face of the curb).
3. The subdivision shall be processed and recorded concurrently with the subdivided
portion's combination with the adjoining funeral home property.
4. In the event the County rejects the descriptions of the metes and bounds subdivision,
the applicant shall re -apply and utilize a formal plat process.
5. Any future development on either parcel will be subject to required setbacks from the
proposed property lines.
6. Compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer as identified.
5
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-042
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
THE MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 213 3RD STREET EAST AND
CONCURRENT LOT COMBINATION WITH 250 BROADWAY STREET EAST
PID NOS. 155010069020 and 155010069080
WHEREAS, the owners of adjoining parcels consisting of the Parcel Identification number
listed above seek a subdivision and lot combination; and
WHEREAS, the subject property being subdivided is undeveloped, and the property to
which the remnant parcel will be combined is developed as a commercial funeral services
facility; and
WHEREAS, the applicants propose to subdivide the subject vacant property into two lots for
the purpose of transferring a portion of such lot to the commercial parcel as a part of its
surfaced parking lot; and
WHEREAS, the commercial owner would concurrently join the newly subdivided portion
holding the parking area with the remainder of its occupied parcel; and
WHEREAS, the subdivision and combination would result in the removal of the commercial
property's parking lot encroachment from the vacant parcel; and
WHEREAS, the proposed lots will continue to meet the applicable zoning requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision and combination qualifies for a simple subdivision
process under the terms of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the matter at its regular meeting on
October 51", 2021, and the applicant and members of the public were provided the
opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-042
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the intent of the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed subdivision creates lots that meet the requirements of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance conditions.
3. The proposed subdivision and combination qualifies as a "simple subdivision" under
the terms of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance for purposes of processing.
4. The proposed subdivision and combination removes encroachments and non-
conforming conditions.
5. The proposed subdivision will not create undue burdens on public systems, including
streets and utilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the proposed subdivision is hereby recommended for approval, subject to
the conditions found in Exhibit Z and as listed below:
1. The submitted survey shall be expanded to include the legal description of the
applicant's existing parcel and the existing funeral home parcel.
2. The parcel to be conveyed to the funeral home property shall be expanded in size
such that the curb of the parking lot shall not be closer than six feet to any lot line
(as measured from the lot line to the face of the curb).
3. The subdivision shall be processed and recorded concurrently with the subdivided
portion's combination with the adjoining funeral home property.
4. In the event the County rejects the descriptions of the metes and bounds
subdivision, the applicant shall re -apply and utilize a formal plat process.
5. Any future development on either parcel will be subject to required setbacks from
the proposed property lines.
6. Compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer as identified.
ADOPTED this 5t" day of October, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-042
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
MI -
ATTEST:
Paul Konsor, Chair
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Request for Subdivision and Combination I Mosbart Properties
Lengthy Legals,155010069020 1155010069080
Created by: City of Monticello
r
1550100 7010
75; 155010067060
� 155010067100
� 15501 D
o�
aRo�D�
15501006913.0
s ,
Ok
s l
15501QQ69Q1Q
15501006908D
155010069011
155010069020 155010068041
y
a4
155010069041
15501006 010
3
Ro sTFTw15501006800
155010071 0
55010071060
F e
67 ft
LAND USE APPLICATION ATTACHMENT
PARCEL SUBDIVISON
Seller: Mosbart Properties, LLC
Legal of Parcel sold: Lot 3, Block D, MONTICELLO, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Wright County, Minnesota, except the Southeast 22.00 feet of
Northeast 76.00 feet thereof.
I D: R 155-010-069020
Address & Phone #: 305 Cedar Street, Suite 201, Monticello, MN 55362 / (612) 483-4801
Buyer: Target Properties, LLC
Legal of Parcel Purchasing: Lots 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and the Easterly half of Lot 12 and the Southeast
22.00 feet of the Northeast 76.00 feet of Lot 3, Block D, Monticello,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota
except the Southwesterly 75.00 feet of said lots 4 and 5.
ID: R155-010-069080
Address & Phone #: 1122 Scarborough Lane, Woodbury, MN 55125 / (612) 600-6521
WAIVER REQUEST (ESCROW FEE)
The applicant purchased this property from the City of Monticello on 6/7/2000 at which time it was
unknown by the applicant that the City Parking lot encroached onto the Lot 3, Block D. This fact was
only discovered when the city removed the remaining garage on the property approximately one year
after applicant purchased the property from the City. At that time, Rick Wolfsteller (City Administrator)
indicated that this encroachment would be corrected by the city. The applicant continued to allow the
city to use the full parking lot on the basis that the city would correct the problem. Applicant and Target
Properties, LLC now want to correct this problem so that a future owner of Lot 3, Block D and Target
Properties, LLC have a clearly defined lot line. Therefore, the applicant requests waiver of any and all
fees associated with this application.
TAYLOR LAND SURVEYORS, INC.
213 W BROAD WA Y P. 0. BOX 179
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
PHONE # 763-295-3388 FAX f 763-295-3408
11
/ 00
1`0
10
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR
BOB MOSFORD
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60 90
DENOTES:
o• IRON MONUMENT FOUND
IRON MONUMENT SET & CAPPED RLS 15233
^� PARKING LOT
The Southeast 22.00 feet of the Northeast 76.00 feet of Lot 3, Block D, MONTICELLO,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota as measured at a
4
right angle to the southeast and northeast lines of said Lot 3.
1 c�
PROPERTY AREA 1672 SQ. FT.
ONLY EASEMENTS ON RECORD PLAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY UNLESS
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION OF OTHER EASEMENTS OF RECORD ARE
PROVIDED TO US.
SUBJECT TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD IF ANY,
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM DULY REGISTERED
LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
A--- --=-- -----------------------------
NNIS V.TAYLOR RE - NO. 233 DATE
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/21
3B. Consideration to appoint a Planning Commissioner to serve on the Chelsea Commons
Professional Engineering, Park & Open Space Planning and Landscape Architecture
Services proposal review team.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
On September 27t", the City Council acted to adopt the Chelsea Commons Small Area
Plan (SAP). Moving into implementation of the SAP, the City Council also authorized the
release of a request for proposal for services related to the first set of improvements at
Chelsea Commons.
The Request for Proposal focuses on the completion of the first stage of the central
system of public spaces and amenities. These improvements are intended to encourage
and accelerate private development, and to create a strong sense of place for the
community.
The Planning Commission is asked to continue their role in review of the project,
appointing a representative to the team that will review the proposal responses.
Council, PARC, staff and community members at -large will also serve on the team.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Motion to appoint Commissioner to serve on the proposal
review team for the Chelsea Commons Professional Engineering, Park & Open Space
Planning and Landscape Architecture Services project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Commission's continued involvement as the Chelsea Commons SAP is
implemented. Staff defers to the Commission on appointments.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. City Council Agenda Item, September 271", 2021
City Council Agenda: 09/27/2021
4C. Consideration to authorize a Request for Proposal for Professional Engineering,
Landscape Architecture, and Park & Open Space Planning services for the Chelsea
Commons area.
Prepared by:
Meeting Date:
® Regular Agenda Item
Community Development Director
9/27/21
❑ Consent Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Finance Director, Parks & Recreation
City Administrator
Director, City Engineer/Public Works
Director, Economic Development
Manager
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to authorize a Request for Proposal for Professional Engineering, Landscape
Architecture, and Park & Open Space Planning services for the Chelsea Commons area.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
November 9, 2020: Authorization to proceed with a Small Area Plan of the Chelsea Commons
Area with a not to exceed budget of $45,000.
April 12, 2021: Authorization to complete a financial and traffic analysis for Chelsea
Commons at an additional $18,000.
April 26, 2021: Authorization to $83,793 in project funding for the Chelsea Commons
Small Area Plan Stormwater & Grading Plan
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan (SAP) identifies a series of implementation measures to
accomplish the Plan vision. Pending adoption of the SAP, the first proposed implementation
step includes:
• Confirmation/organization of the area's core improvements and phasing
• Preparation of construction plans for the desired initial series of public improvements
• Bidding and construction management for the initial series of public improvements
A Request for Proposal has been prepared focusing on the completion of the first stage of the
central system of public spaces and amenities as outlined above. Consistent with the Plan,
these improvements are intended to encourage and accelerate private development as well as
create a strong sense of place for the community.
City Council Agenda: 09/27/2021
The Request for Proposal is broken into two primary project phases. The first prioritizes the
completion of a construction -level mass grading plan for the full Chelsea Commons site. The
detailed construction grading plan is necessary to transition the excavation of materials
currently occurring on site toward the desired finish grades throughout the project. It is also
required to complete site grading in accordance with the preliminary plan developed with the
Small Area Plan.
The second proposal phase requires the completion of plans and specifications for the
installation of the "Baseline" set of improvements desired by the City. The second phase will be
focused on the amenities of the Chelsea Commons project, including the public park, pond
pathway system, bridges, gateways and other key vignette areas. Landscape architecture and
open space design will be key to this project component. To arrive at the Baseline
improvements for construction plans, the RFP specifies that the selected consultant will work
through engagement and plan definition exercises with policymakers and the public.
The RFP is structured to include the management of the bidding and construction processes for
both phases to provide for implementation of construction activities consistent with the Plan
and design work.
The proposed RFP schedule is as follows:
September 27, 2021:
Approval of RFP
September 28, 2021:
Posting of RFP
October 22, 2021:
Proposals Due
October 25- 28, 2021:
Proposal Review
November 1-4:
Consultant Interviews
November 22, 2021:
Contract Award Consideration
The Request for Proposal represents a significant commitment to implementation of physical
improvements at Chelsea Commons.
I. Budget Impact: There is no cost associated with the posting of the RFP. Pending
contract award, the costs for the final scope of services is proposed to be paid from the
Capital Projects Fund.
II. Staff Workload Impact: City engineering and community development staff will be
involved in managing and evaluating the proposal responses. Staff time is anticipated at
20-30 hours for managing the proposal process through consultant selection and
contract development for Council consideration.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: The completion of the implementation steps for the
Chelsea Commons area is consistent with the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan as identified
City Council Agenda: 09/27/2021
in the Commercial/Residential Flex District planning. Chelsea Commons is also
specifically identified as a future Community Park in the Parks chapter of the Plan.
Further, the Council has identified the development of Chelsea Commons area as
a strategic priority.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommends approval of the Request for Proposal. The RFP outlines the necessary
steps for conversion of the current site excavation into the physical site amenities envisioned
by the Small Area Plan. The proposed scope of work also facilitates the completion of the
detailed construction -level planning, bidding, and construction management necessary to
complete the Baseline site amenities envisioned by the Plan and confirmed through this
process.
SUPPORTING DATA
• Request for Proposal
CITY OF
--,AM�flo
onti
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING, PARK & OPEN SPACE
PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SERVICES
MONTICELLO CHELSEA COMMONS
PLANS & IMPROVEMENTS
DUE 11:30 AM I OCTOBER 22, 2021
SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION & PROJECT OVERVIEW
Contract Administration
All persons or firms downloading this RFP are requested to register their name and
email address by sending an email to hayden.stensgard@ci.monticello.mn.us. Any
revisions or corrections to this RFP, after it has been advertised, will be communicated
to those registered RFP holders. Failure to register your contact information is at your
own risk. A proposal will not be considered if it fails to include all requested information
as detailed in this original RFP and any subsequent modifications.
Acceptance of Proposal Contents
The contents of this RFP will be included as part of the contractual obligations if a
contract ensues. All information in the proposal is subject to disclosure under the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 — Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act.
Project Vision and Overview
"Chelsea Commons" is the reimagining of a prominent land area in the core of
Monticello. Chelsea Commons will be an exceptional neighborhood in which to live,
work and play. The 100-acre Chelsea Commons project area combines a varied mix of
commercial services, residential living opportunities, and public open space amenities.
Chelsea Commons is centered on a significant recreational water feature and
surrounded by a series of interconnected public spaces for discovery. Chelsea
Commons is intended to inspire remarkable private development that values and builds
on these distinctive public areas. Chelsea Commons will be a magnet for the Monticello
community and beyond.
Request for Proposals
Chelsea Commons I Plans & Improvements Page 2 of 10
The City of Monticello has prepared a prior Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan and other
planning initiatives and documents which will serve as foundation for the construction
level plans and specifications requested within this document. In addition to the Small
Area Plan, the city has completed:
• Preliminary Engineering Analysis — Grading, Earthwork & Stormwater
Management Analysis
• Traffic Impact Study
• Financial Impact Analysis
The City intends to retain a professional consulting firm to provide the professional
engineering, park planning and landscape architecture services needed to successfully
implement the design and construction of the proposed "Chelsea Commons".
Improvements
The improvements to be undertaken with this project are to be consistent with the
"Chelsea Commons" Small Area Plan, including landscaping theme; public pathways and
open space; preliminary grading, earthwork and stormwater management plan; and
roadway reconfiguration plan. Construction will occur in multiple phases, with grading
and removals expected to begin in spring 2022. To reduce costs the city plans to utilize
the site as a borrow pit and allow contractors to remove material from the ponds in the
2021, 2022 and 2023 construction seasons if needed.
The initial series of public improvements are anticipated to be prepared and constructed
in two phases. The consultant is expected to provide engineering and planning services,
as well as plans and specification bid documents, and bidding and construction
management for the two phases of improvements as follows:
Phase I: Bid date — March 1st, 2022
• Mass site grading (less material to be exported per above) to allow for building
pad development and temporary stormwater pond construction.
o Mass grading to also include grading of other city owned properties
which requires additional fill material. One of the sites, 203 Chelsea
Road, is the intended location of a future municipal water treatment
plant. The other site is located in the Otter Creek Industrial Park and it is
unknown at this time if any fill material is required. If fill material is
required that would be included in this phase of the project.
• Site grading to include grading of the proposed pathway network and other park
amenities.
• Removal of a portion of Dundas Road from Edmonson Avenue to the Storagel-ink
Monticello entrance.
Request for Proposals
Chelsea Commons I Plans & Improvements
--------------------------
Page 3 of 10
• Relocation of public utilities associated with the Dundas Road removal and
coordination with private utility relocation.
• Installation of stormwater infrastructure necessary to support development
occurring prior to the construction of Phase II. Infrastructure to be deigned to
support the central lakes/stormwater pond to avoid any removals in Phase II.
• Confirmation of length, width, area, quantity, etc. for all planned public
improvements.
Phase II: Bid date anticipated -January 15th, 2023
• Design and installation of central lake/stormwater pond feature with clay liner.
• Design and installation of baseline pathway network around the central
lakes/stormwater pond, including multiple surface treatments, grades and
widths as described in the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan; plan for
connectivity to the larger community pathway system and adjacent streets.
• Design and installation of irrigation re -use system throughout public spaces and
integrated into the central lakes/stormwater pond feature.
• Installation of water augmentation system in support of the central
lakes/stormwater pond.
• Installation of aeration system in support of the central lakes/stormwater pond.
• Installation of public parking lot near primary City open space/park.
• Installation of a lighting system.
• Installation of utility conduit throughout public spaces.
• Construction design of public park along Cedar Street.
• Construction design of landscape architecture throughout public spaces,
including:
o Adherence to the biome theme of the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan
o Location, species, quantity, size
o Detailed planting specifications
o Creation of unifying project elements
o Identification of coordinated wayfinding sign system locations
o Recommendations for reconstruction of Edmonson Avenue with
boulevard and corridor treatments
o Recommendations for roundabout center design and adjacent corridor
enhancements (Cedar, School, Chelsea)
o Recommendations for private area landscaping treatments
• Consideration for the location and integration of public art in all forms — visual,
performing, etc.
• Address accessibility needs and requirements in all plans and identify any
architectural, transportation, communication, or service barriers that may limit
the use of the park.
• Installation of other components identified following the Baseline improvement
evaluation and confirmation exercise.
Request for Proposals
Chelsea Commons I Plans & Improvements
--------------------------
Page 4 of 10
The Capital Improvement Plan estimate for total investment of this portion of the
project (design, construction, testing, etc.) is approximately $11,872,500.
SECTION 2: OVERALL SCOPE OF SERVICES
A team of consultants may partner to provide a comprehensive proposal as outlined. If
the proposal includes the services of multiple firms, one consulting firm must be
identified as lead and primary contact and a clear delineation of scope services for each
firm identified.
The services required of the Consultant(s) are anticipated to be provided beginning in
November 2021 and ending when the warranty inspection for the constructed
improvements has been completed for each of the two phases. The following are
general work tasks and deliverables that shall be included in the Consultants' scope for
each of Phase I and II:
1. Topographic survey of the full Chelsea Commons site
2. Coordination and meetings with city staff and boards
a. Detailed staff and project scoping meeting: may require two sessions
b. Project team/staff coordination meetings at regular intervals
i. Meeting summaries to be provided
c. (3) PARC meetings
d. (3) City Council meetings
e. (2) Joint PARC/Planning Commission/City Council meeting
3. Detailed project timeline with meeting and deliverable dates
4. Project evaluation & recommendation
a. Evaluate the proposed Baseline, Good and Great improvement
scenarios identified in the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan.
Provide recommendation and rationale for a specific set of Baseline,
Good and Great improvements based on the final project design for
landscaping, parks, pathways and open space
b. Provide additional recommendations, plans and cost estimates which
may result from the planning and public engagement exercise
Public involvement and meetings
a. Public engagement activities directed at visual and design preference
components of the plan (Note: These engagements are intended to
further define design aspects of the implemented plan, and are not a
revision of the SAP design theme itself.)
b. (1) public open house corresponding to Phase II for the final
landscaping, park, pathway and open space plans
c. Project on a page graphic/text piece describing the project vision and
implementation
Request for Proposals
Chelsea Commons I Plans & Improvements Page 5 of 10
--------------------------
d. Project webcam installation and coordination
e. Two 3-D project visualizations: one of the Baseline condition and the
second of the area at full build -out
f. Clearly detail any additional public engagement activity
recommended and include task assignment responsibility (City or
consultant)
6. Design, including Plans and Specifications for Phase 1 and 2 of the project in
accordance with City standards and as outlined in Section I: Improvements.
a. AutoCAD and GIS files for all plans, multiple layers anticipated
7. Contract bidding, award, and records management for both phases of the
project.
8. Permitting submission and management for both Phases.
9. Construction inspection, staking and management services.
10. Warranty inspection.
11. Develop exhibits and assistance with administering contracts for borrow
material removal.
The City requires the consultant to have a Project Manager assigned to coordinate
throughout the plan development and construction process and a full-time project
inspector on -site during all work.
To achieve consistency with the vision established by the Chelsea Commons Small Area
Plan, proposing firms shall include consultation with Northwest Associated Consultants
(NAC). Northwest Associated Consultants has provided the City with an estimate of
time and hourly rate for this collaboration, which will be budgeted separately. This
amount shall not be included in the consultants not to exceed fee for the project.
All permits and other regulatory review fees shall be paid by the engineering consultant
and will be reimbursed by the City. These costs shall not be included in the consultants
not to exceed fee for the project but shall be itemized within the proposal for project
estimation purposes.
SECTION 3: PROPOSALS
The proposal shall contain the information summarized below. Additional information
is allowable if directly relevant to the proposed project.
Proposal Format
The submittal should follow the Table of Contents listed below:
Request for Proposals
Chelsea Commons I Plans & Improvements
--------------------------
1 . General Information
2. Project Understanding
3. Project Approach
4. Proposed Project Team and Experience
5. Comparable Project References
6. Schedule
7. Any Additional Information as Needed
8. Total Consultant Cost by Phase
9. Insurance Certificate
A brief description of each section is included below.
1. General Information
Page 6 of 10
General information and a brief history of the Consultant's firm. Include similar
information on key subconsultants, if any, proposed for the project.
2. Proiect Understanding
A summary of the Consultant's understanding of the work.
3. Proiect Approach
Provide specific approaches, methods, and assumptions that will be utilized to
accomplish the development of this project, including each work phase. Include
details about the Consultant's approach to coordinating a public process.
4. Proposed Proiect Team and Experience
■ Identify the key project team members and describe their specific roles on the
project. Include key team members from sub -consultant firms if any.
■ Describe relevant experience and provide information on at least three (3)
reference projects completed in the last ten (10) years. Provide personal
references and contact information.
■ Include one -page resumes only for key members of the project team.
5. Comparable Proiect References
■ Provide summary information on the consultant's experience with comparable
projects.
■ Include specific descriptions of proposed team members' roles on reference
projects.
■ Provide a contact name and information for each comparable project.
6. Schedule
A proposed schedule from project initiation to final completion of construction. The
schedule should include a listing of key tasks within each phase, key milestones and
approximate dates, and deliverables.
Request for Proposals
Chelsea Commons I Plans & Improvements
--------------------------
Phase 1
60% plans: January 15, 2022
90% plans: February 15, 2022
Phase 2
60% plans: October 15, 2022
90% plans: December 15, 2022
Page 7 of 10
7. Additional Information
Include any other information that is believed to be pertinent, but not specifically
requested elsewhere in this RFP.
8. Total Consultant Cost
Proposal costs should be itemized as follows:
1. Proposed costs for each component scope of work for the project as listed in
Section 1 General Information & Project Overview and for the deliverables in
Section 2 Overall Scope of Services.
2. Hourly rates for all consultant employees who are expected to work on this
project. These rates shall be the agreed upon costs for any additional
services requested by the City, above what is detailed in the scope of this
RFP.
3. Reimbursable costs including detail of service or item and applicable charge
per unit.
4. Not to Exceed cost for the project.
9. Insurance Certificate
Indicate ability to provide all necessary insurance certificates.
SECTION 4: CONSULTANT SELECTION
Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by a team of City staff on the basis of the
following criteria:
1. Consulting firm references and qualifications
2. Key project staff experience with similar projects.
3. Proven track record in successfully completing similar projects on time and
within budget. Successful experience of both the firm itself and the
individual team members will be considered.
4. Proposed approach to completing the project.
5. In addition to understanding technical issues and having sound technical/
engineering expertise, the Consultant must also have an awareness and
understanding of the social/political issues that can surround projects of this
Request for Proposals
Chelsea Commons I Plans & Improvements
--------------------------
Page 8 of 10
nature and must possess the personal and leadership skills necessary to
navigate the project through the public process.
6. Proven successful construction management of projects of this nature is
required. This includes the effective coordination and management of
private and public utilities, contractors, adjacent property owners, and other
stakeholders.
7. Proposed consultant cost.
Following review of the Proposals the City may ask Consultants to interview and/or
make a presentation to City representatives, which may include City Boards and
Commissions. Consultants selected for interview will be prepared to interview the week
of November 15Y, 2021.
The City will select a consultant to negotiate a contract as follows:
1. If, for any reason, a firm is not able to commence the services in that firm's
Proposal within 30 days of the award, the City reserves the right to contract
with another qualified firm.
2. The City shall not be liable for any expenses incurred by the Consultant prior
to the signing of a contract including, but not limited to, the Proposal
preparation, attendance at interviews, or final contract negotiations.
3. The Proposal must be signed in ink by an official authorized to bind the
Consultant to its provisions that will be included as part of an eventual
contract. The Proposal must include a statement as to the period during
which the Proposal remains valid. This period must be at least 90 days from
the date of the submittal.
4. The City reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals submittals or to
request additional information from any or all of the proposing firms.
SECTION 5: CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Upon selection of a Consultant, an Agreement or Contract for Services, attached to this
RFP, shall be entered into by the City and the Consultant. It is expected that the
contract will provide for compensation for actual work completed on a not to exceed
basis, and the following conditions:
1. Deletions of specific itemized work tasks will be at the discretion of the City.
Payment or reimbursement shall be made based on tasks that have been
satisfactorily completed. Billing that exceeds the not to exceed amount will
not be compensated unless a contract extension has been approved in
advance by the City.
2. The City shall retain ownership of all documents, plans, maps, reports and
data prepared under this proposal. In addition to being provided hard copy
Request for Proposals
Chelsea Commons I Plans & Improvements
--------------------------
Page 9 of 10
and digital documents throughout the project, upon completion the
consultant shall supply the City with a fully scanned (Laserfiche) project file
including all project components.
3. If, for any reason, the Consultant is unable to fulfill the obligations under the
contract in a timely and proper manner, the City shall reserve the right to
terminate the contract by written notice. In this event, the firm shall be
entitled to just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory completed
work tasks, as determined by the City Engineer.
4. The Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in the contract
without prior written consent of the City.
5. The Consultant shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance in
accordance with Section 466.04 of the Minnesota Statutes.
6. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of
Monticello, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims,
causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney
fees, arising out of or resulting from the Consultant's (including its officials,
agents, subconsultants or employees) performance of the duties required
under the contract, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is
attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or injury to or
destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and is
caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful
misconduct of Consultant.
7. The Consultant contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
8. Project summaries shall be submitted with each invoice during the course of
the project. Each summary shall detail the amount billed to date, work items
that need to be completed, the estimated costs to complete these tasks and
the projected timeline for the completion of the project. Invoices submitted
to the City shall include a detailed breakdown of times, personnel, mileage,
etc. chargeable for that period.
SECTION 6: CONCLUSION AND SUBMITTAL
Any requests for additional information that may be needed for the preparation of the
proposal should be directed via email to Angela Schumann at
Angela.Schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us . All questions must be received before 11:30
am, October 11, 2021. No responses will be provided for questions received after that
time.
Please provide 10 paper and one electronic (pdf) copies of the Proposal for the
evaluation process.
Request for Proposals
Chelsea Commons I Plans & Improvements
--------------------------
Proposals shall be addressed to:
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello MN 55362
Proposals will be accepted until 11:30 a.m. on October 22, 2021
Attachments:
Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan, with appendices
Page 10 of 10
Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/21
3C. Community Development Director's Report
Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations
A. Consideration of Request to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an
Automotive Wash Facility in a B-4 (Regional Business) District
Applicant: Rosa Morquecho/Take 5 Car Wash
Approved on the consent agenda of City Council on September 27t"12021.
B. Consideration of a Request to approve an Interim Use Permit to allow
Extraction/Excavation of Materials in a B-3 and B-4 Districts
Applicant: City of Monticello
Approved by the City Council on the regular agenda on September 13th12021.
C. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for adoption of the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan
Applicant: City of Monticello
Approved on the regular agenda of the City Council on September 27th, 2021.
D. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2021-65 and Ordinance No. 763 for
rezoning to Stony Brook Village Planned Unit Development, Resolution 2021-66
approving the Final Stage PUD for Stony Brook Village and Resolution 2021-67
approving the Final Plat and Development Agreement for Stony Brook Village.
Applicant: Mark Elliot Homes
Approved on the regular agenda of the City Council on September 13th, 2021.
Planning Commission and Communications
During the September 271", 2021 special Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
requested additional information on how best to contribute to the communication and
community understanding of upcoming agenda items and general information on city
projects.
As a start, staff is providing the League of MN Cities handbook on social media practices.
In addition, the following are courses that may be of interest to the Commission.
Although geared toward elected officials, the information is certainly applicable to the
Commission's request. The Planning & Zoning budget for 2021 and 2022 includes
funding for Commission training. If you are interested in attending one of the training
sessions, please contact either Hayden Stensgard or Angela Schumann and we will work
with you on registration.
• https://www.imc.org/learning-events/learnings/social-media-elected-officials/
• https://www.imc.org/learning-events/learnings/communicating-for-
community-engagement-for-elected-officials/
Staff will also discuss the question more generally as it applies to all of the City's boards
1
Planning Commission Agenda—10/05/21
and commissions in the coming months and provide additional resources for the
Commission.
Minnesota Planning Conference
Each year, members of the City's Community Development Department attend the
Minnesota American Planning Association (MnAPA) conference. The conference is an
opportunity to learn from experts and peers on a variety of planning and planning -
related topics. Certified planners are also required to take courses during the
conference on ethics and law. Beginning in 2022, sessions on equity and environment
will also be required. For 2021, Community Development Director Angela Schumann
attended the conference, which was held virtually.
Staff's goal is to bring back tools and resources that can be applied to the work of the
department and City as a whole.
Council Updates
Highlights
https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/Blog.aspx?CID=3
2
aCIOF
MontiiceRco
Elected Officials: Social Media Use
Introduction
The City of Monticello does not provide or administer official social media accounts to elected
officials. However, we understand that these platforms are powerful tools for officials to engage
with their constituents. If elected officials opt to utilize social media, they may do so in a private
capacity. Since these accounts are not covered under the City's social media policy, guidance
based on recommendations from the League of Minnesota Cities is provided below.
Account Settings
Page Creation:
Although the accounts are not official city accounts, elected officials are encouraged to create
public pages rather than personal profiles. This allows all people to view the content on the
pages without having to be "friends" with the elected official. It also allows you to keep
conversations with your constituents separate from your personal account subject matter.
Nome on the Account:
Personal social media account names should not be tied to the city. This will help clarify that the
individual is not speaking officially on behalf of the city.
Page Transparency:
Elected officials who use personal social media accounts are encouraged to complete profiles on
the sites and reveal they are elected officials for the city. Officials are encouraged to include a
disclaimer that any opinions they post are their own, not those of the city.
Recommended disclaimer: All content is created in my personal capacity; views and
opinions are my own and do not reflect the official position of the City of Monticello.
Please be aware that, although not official city communication, the content will inherently create
perceptions about the city among visitors to their personal account sites. Individual actions,
whether positive or negative, will impact how the city is viewed. A good standard to follow is if
you would be embarrassed to see the comment appear in the news, don't post it.
Content Responsibilities
When using social media accounts, it's essential to be honest, straightforward, and respectful.
Since the account is not an official city communication source, you are personally responsible for
what you post.
You are responsible for:
• Abiding all privacy and confidentiality laws in your posts
• Never sharing non-public information related to council colleagues, personnel
City of Monticello: Guidance for Elected Officials about Social Media
data, medical information, claims or lawsuits, non-public or confidential
information, or other privileged information provided to you as an elected official
• Never posting content, including photographs, that infringes on trademark,
copyright, or patent rights of others
• Not posting hateful, biased, or discriminatory content
• Avoiding content known to be false, misleading, or fraudulent
• Refraining from blocking or banning followers from your account
• Ensuring posts comply with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law
You are encouraged to:
• Post content that is suitable for readers/viewers of all ages
• Create a plan specifying your goals and the content you want to highlight — these
can act as guides helping you decide if something is appropriate for you to post
• Draft posts in a program like Microsoft Word and review them carefully before
posting publicly
• Be careful with humor — especially when it can be easily misinterpreted or
potentially offensive
Mistakes, liability, and claims against the city
To help prevent errors, elected officials should not post official information about the city.
Instead, allow city information to originate on official platforms covered by adopted policies and
procedures.
Deviating from this practice increases the possibility of errors that could create city issues
ranging from minor to significant. Posting official city information may also create unforeseen
liability issues.
Inconvenience Example: Posting the wrong opening date for enrollment in a parks and
recreation program likely will create confusion, inconvenience, and even frustration
among residents who try to enroll their kids in a program too early or who find a program
full because they tried to enroll their kids too late for a program.
• Potential Liability Example: Posting incorrect information about a new city ordinance
related to land use zoning stands a greater chance of creating liability if someone acts
based upon that incorrect information, and later is penalized for the action they took
based upon the incorrect information posted by an elected official.
If you make a factual mistake, please correct it as soon as you are aware of the error. Corrections
should be upfront and as timely as possible. Posts may be edited to include a note about a "fixed
link" or "fact correction" so the public knows there was an update. Do not attempt to hide a
mistake.
In addition, if you make an error related to official city business, please contact the City
Administrator to note the error and discuss the best manner to communicate the correct
2
City of Monticello: Guidance for Elected Officials about Social Media
information. Depending on the type of error, the City may choose to correct the information
using a variety of official city communication resources.
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act
Elected officials should recognize that using personal technology to communicate on official city
business could become both personally intrusive and very inconvenient. If a request for data is
made on a particular topic, and the elected official has commented through his or her own
equipment, including computers and phones, the city may require access to the equipment to
ensure compliance with the request.
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
The Open Meeting Law has been amended to allow elected officials to post in a social media
context with less chance of violating the law. However, it is still highly recommended that
elected officials save issue debates for formal public meetings.
Campaign Accounts
Social media used for campaign purposes should always be separate accounts that are clearly
identified as campaign materials.
3