Planning Commission Agenda 02-01-2005
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1st, 2005
6:00 P.M
Commissioners:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and
William Spartz
Glen Posusta
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
Council Liaison:
StatT:
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Monday, January
4th,2005.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizen comments.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Concept
Stage Planned Unit Development for a health elinic, ambulance garage and parking area
expansion of the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital District.
Applicant: Monticello-Big Lake Hospital District
Consideration of a request to review a commercial site plan for conformance to a previously
approved Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat for the Monticello Travel Center.
7. Consideration of a request to review building elevations and landscape plans for
conformance to a previously approved Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat for the
Monticello Retail Center.
4.
5.
6.
8. Consideration to approve a resolution finding the proposed Modification of the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the proposed
establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-33, consistent with the City
Comprehensive Plan.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
regarding the replacement of billboard signage.
Applicant: City of Monticello
10.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for
Development Stage Planned Unit Development and consideration of a revised Prel iminary
Plat for Carlisle Village, a 242 unit residential subdivision.
Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation.
Consideration of Finding that City Sale of Land for School/Community Meeting Space Use
is Consistent with the Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
Discussion Item - Area Planning EtTort and Alternative Urban Area Review
Discussion Item -- Open and Outdoor Storage Meeting Update
11.
12.
13.
14. Adjourn.
~"._-
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TlJESDA Y, JANlJRY 4TH, 2004
6:00 P.M
Commissioners Present:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and
William Spartz
Glen Posusta
Council Liaison:
S tafT:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
1 . Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a quorum, noting
the absence of Commissioner Ililgart. Commissioner Hilgart arrived at a later time.
2.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Monday,
December 7th. 2004.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
MONDA Y, DECEMBER 7rII, 2004.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
NONE.
4. Citizen comments.
NONE.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a relluest for rezoning from A-a (Agricultural-
Open Space) to R-l (Single-Family Residential) and a request for Preliminary Plat for
Club West, an approximately 5 acre, 12-unit residential development. Applicant:
Back Nine, LLC
Grittman reviewed the stalT report, descri bi ng the location of the property and access
point ofT of County 75. Grittman stated that the Monticello School District is selling the
property and had developed a set of development criteria nJr the purchaser.
.
Grittman noted that the current zoning f()r the site appears to be A-O (Agricultural-Open
Space), although there is some concern that it may have been previously rezoned. The
City Clerk could find no record of rezoning for this parcel. The public hearing notice
was issued to ensure that the parcel is properly and o1licially zoned.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04
Grittman indieated that all proposed lots meet the R-l zoning standard for width and
area. The applicants arc also proposing a set of covenants, which are very similar in
nature to Hillside Farm, an R-I A district.
Grittman reported that although the first lot in the cul-de-sac mects the zoning standard,
it was noted that due to public street frontage, the setbacks for the lot impact the
buildable area for the lot. Grittman rccommended that the applicant shift other lot lines
to help increase the size of the building area for that lot.
The other significant staff comment is relative to the drainagc issues along the railroad
line. It is assumcd that the storm water drainage will eventually move to Otter Creek
along the railroad ditch. There are concerns about how this will be accomplished. The
City Engineer will be reviewing that issue in detail on construction documents.
Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval of both the rezoning and thc
preliminary plat, su~ject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z.
.
Chairman Frie noted that the City map seems to indicate that the property is zoned R-l
and R-2. As such, Frie asked if the rezoning requcst was made by the applicant or
required by the City. Grittman clarified that the rezone was necessary in order to meet
the requirements for public notice and to provide clarity on the zoning.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Zach Adams addressed the Commission as a partner of the development firm, Back
Nine, LLC. Adams stated that although they are not seeking an R-I A zoning
designation, they will seek to excced thc R-l standards due to the unique nature of the
site. Adams indicated that the pricc range for the homes was estimated to be $325,000 _
$500,000.
Frie asked Adams if the access off West Broadway (County 75) had been approved by
Wright County. Chris Otterness of Bogart Pederson, project engineers, indicated that he
had spoken with the County Engineer, who indicated thcre should bc no serious issuc
with thc entry. Thc County Enginecr did request a left bypass lane for feasibility.
Otterness noted that Wright County is currently in thc proccss of reviewing the plat. Frie
asked ifthcre is an alternate plan, should the access point bc denied. Otterncss stated
that there is no other possible access to the site.
Fric asked ifall of the developing partners, as well as thc engineer, are lamiliar with the
conditions of Exhibit Z. Adams stated that they had receivcd the report and intend to
meet the conditions.
.
- 2 -
.
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04
Dragsten asked if the area is zoned R -I, can the Commission regulate that R -I A
dwelling standards be applied. O'Neill stated that due to it being zoned and guided for
R-l, Commission would need to review it for those standards, unless the Commission
seeks to zone it differently. Dragsten's concern isin the past is that developers have
stated that they would put in high-end homes and then haven't produced that type of
development. O'Neill stated that the Commission would need to zone the site R-IA and
then do a PUD to create R-l lots with R-l A homes. Grittman confirmed the only way
for the City to regulate R-IA standards for this proposed plat is through the PlJD
process.
Adams stated that the land value alone would require that the homes meet the stated
price range and intended product. Dragsten replied that he doesn't doubt the intent, but
that he is looking for more of a guarantee, if possible.
Carlson commented that in other communities, he has seen demand for smaller lots with
larger, higher-end homes. Carlson asked if the group is marketing the lots to a particular
builder. Adams stated that they wi II have an exclusive set of builders.
.
Posusta asked for the proposed sale value of the lots. Adams projected the range to be
around $100,000, although he can't set a definite price at this time. Posusta noted that
he has the same concerns as Commissioner Dragsten.
Adams restated that their intent is to follow the covenants. He explained that as the
developers, they are also entering the project with the understanding that the lots will
take time to sell.
Pearl Carlson, 1226 Prairie Creek Lane, addressed the Commission, stating that her
property borders the playground of the school. Carlson inquired where the west line of
the plat is, as she is concerned that it may encroach onto her property. Otterness and
John Adams, Back Nine, LLC, explained that the Prairic West developmcnt had actually
sodded onto their property. Dragsten clarified for Ms. Carlson that white stakes marking
a certified survey of the plat will delineate where the property lines begin and end.
Ililgart noted that no representative from the School District, as the property seller, was
present. I Iilgart inquired about the timeline for implementing a PUD process for this
plat. Grittman stated that it would be another 60-90 day process and would require a
comprehensive plan amendment. Frie noted that the School District had met with Back
Nine prior to the land sale and they arc in apparent agreement with what is being
proposed.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
.
'.l
- I") -
.
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE REZONING TO R-I, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
ZONING IS CONSISTENT WIll I 'fIlE SURROUNDING NEIGIIHORHOOD,
CONSISTENT WITH TilE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR REZONING
CONSIDERATION.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
TIlE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CLUB WEST, BASED ON A FINDING THAT
THE LAND USE PATTERN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT MEETS THE
R-l ZONING REGULATIONS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN
EX 1-1 IBIT Z AS FOLLOWS:
I. The plat should he redesigned to allow for a larger building envelope for Lot 1 Block I by shifting the
western lotlinc wcst approximately 10 feel.
2. The applicant willnced to receive access approval onto CSAH 75 from Wright County.
.
3. A park dedication fee as set by City resolution is provided, according to a development contraclto he
approved with the final plat.
4. The grading plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
5. Utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Consideration of expiration of current term Planning Commissioners and
recommendation to the City Council of appointment or reappointment of
Commissioners.
O'Neill deferred to Commissioners Hilgart and Carlson for their responses.
Hilgart stated that he is interested in being reappointed.
Commissioner Frie read Commissioner Carlson's resignation letter, which he had
received that evening.
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF COMMISSIONER CARLSON BY
FRIE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN.
.
No vote was taken on this motion.
-I -
-
.
o
C
-i
,-
o
-i
o
<J
~
N
)>
G)
::::0
)>
S2
z
G)
)>
z
o
o
f'T1
{j)
C5
z
~
,-
,-
rn
f'T1
o
f'T1
<J
f'T1
Z
o
fT1
Z
-i
C
<J
o
Z
2J
z
)>
,-
G)
::::0
)>
o
f'T1
{j)
o
~
f'T1
::::0
:s::
z
rrl
o
III
-<
:E
{j)
III
)>
Z
o
)>
{j)
(j)
o
o
~
rrl
{j)
\
I
\
\
\
\
I
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
I
\
\
\
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \ \
I 1\
\ \ \
\ \ I
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ I \ \
\ \.. ....\ \
\\ 1""\ \
\ \ Ij
\ \
,I
II
,I \
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I Ii
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
\ I II
\ I II
II I II
II I II
II I II
II I II
I, I II
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
/\ \\ ('
\ I \ \
\ \ \
\ \
\ \
\ \ \
\
\ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\~ ,.. \ \ \ \ 1
\ \ ~\ \ \ "
\ \ ,""\ \ \ \ \
\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1
~\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \1
\ \ \ \ \ \1
\ \ \ 1
\ \ A'\.\ \ \ \ \
\ \ \~y\ \ \ \ \ 1
\ \ \~ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ - ~\ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \~ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ ~.\ \ \ \ \ 1
\ \ \ ~\ \ \ \\ ~ \\
\ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \\
\ \ \ Y \ \ \\ \ ,\ ,
\ .. t"\ \" ,
\ \ \ V~lj" \\ \\ \ " ,
\ \ \ \ \\ \\ "
\ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ "\'
\ \ \ ~ \ \\ \\ \ ,,~-
\ \ \;>.\ \\ \\ \" /
\ \ \ \ \\ \\, <..
\0 \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ '
~ ,\ ,\ \\ \
4n
<:<:0
X8Y
--;",\
'"
",0
o
,
~
()
\
\ \ \
\ \ I
\ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \
", \
'\
"
\
\
\~
u~
,
----
------
~
--
\
.".
o
I
/
,\
1\
I \
t I
II I
\1 \
I \
I I \
I I \
I I \
I I \
\ I \
\ I \
\ I 1
\ I \
I I \
\ \ \
\ \ 1\
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ I
\ I '\
\ \ 1
\ \ 1
\ \ I /
I I I
\1/
/'
--
/'
/'
/'
/
\
\
\
\
I
\
\
\
'"
"
'"
\;l
"
"
~
<,~ \;
,,~ ~
::.4~11_\_....\.tIl_....lI._'III'II!n_'" ....l1.lIlIQt-~_\IIiIMIl
.
iS~1 ~~umumm 11
~~ ~ ~~!nlnn"n.~ ~
i;l! nhljll~IIIHI ~
!.; lUlU.; l~::;l ~
!~i ~'Jmll 'i"1 f;i
~i~ ml;;~1 :i . ~
U ir ~~ 1 ill
~~ i~ ~~
!! l
~u~
;~~i
i~'
~ 1
\ /
\ /
, /
\ I
! \ / ~
~ \ / ~ $ ! ~
I /
~ ~ \ 1 ! I
\ I
, /
I /
I / : ~ ''''I
~5 \ / ~ ~
\ / ~ !II
~ I / ~ : i
I / , ; III
I /
B *' \ I I*' I ~
, I
I I ~ ::!
~ ~ ;! 1/ ~ ::! ~ ::!
\I ~ I
v
= ^ = I
1\
/\
"t / ,
I I
/ I
/ ,
I \
/ I
/ I
I ,
/ ,
/ I
/ I
/ ,
I \
I ,
I \
/ ,
I ,
I I
I I
\
I
II
.
rrl
~
::t
o
z
)0-
I
"=.
6
o
~
o
z
51.26'
-U'e};J
"';;oS:fil~
'5 m ~~--<
g~ jri~o
C/l-VlO
"r- )>~
5'C1
'"
~,J
~'"
~~..~..~~~......~~~~~ ~~
........~.. ...~~..~ ~~~-
"-, '-"- '-'"'"'A'--------'':':.:;'
~"" -"'----,..
....- -. ~
" -
""""" """,-
..... -- "',
1~1fffi{]
rn
r
'"
: -~-~=-'--~~:~:~~~
..'::~uitiiij,{iiD-,:,;~Yr ...
------.,---J==--:::c__:::_~ ,',
-- /~:
/1
I
--<Vl
;oc
)>;0
"Tl;;:;
2]0
Oc:
Z
Ui;;
<;rn
Zr
0'"
1iHffHffmo,~-
UlliIIII'HO iU
I ri IITlTTI ",_
h~.
HWHmJO ;
a/"'~
~ t-
'.
~
~
CO ~ ~
I:) [~; E~ ~
--I C) ~~ ~
-~ ~ n
/ ">i~ ]
-----' Jl~' _____
---~
~
I'rj
."1
~g~~
-;ll;o
5000
~~~
00
"Tl
;ll",0
oco_
~~~
;o;ll
'C1
~'"
)>
'-
Il
<:
il:{
)>. ~"
~,i_'
::-....}
1"1:
.':b_'i'
I ~ ~,ft
~~i1
,~t~"
':~'
..~/'
'i\.
]
~+H+fffi
-
+HHro:
" I
\ I
\ I
,i<.
ii;'",
-~,
:::if"
.,~~~".
:{~,.
':ik
J
-k-
iH~<
-I\i,_
I
~~~
; , '1,_,
~J,:,r
;,.j..,
v,! - .. ,_ i" ii ,,'--- --' _ __ ~:::;~"" _ __ __ '_
-)1 .-"
~ ~:::=;::. = >"" e, ,:. -"~__._~_~_C-:,,,,~~, ~ ~:~ j ,r;: --f:;-
- ., ""'" -....'. ~-- ---,
~-.~..~~~~;;;.;~;~.:..;~"",,::..-:.::.,.:::;;.;-; "'-"-'~~':':r
.
)
-
I
I
,
II
]
-
'="
]
I
I
,
II
]
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04
Commissioner Frie thanked Carlson for his years of service. rrie stated that it his belief
that the Planning Commission's position and been proactive and positive, and part of
that direction can be attributed to Commissioner Carlson's worked.
The Commissioners engaged in a brief discussion on whether Carlson would be able to
continue to serve. Carlson stated that his service could only be on a month-to-month
basis, due to travel.
Dragsten and Posusta recommended that Carlson stay until a replaccment is found.
O'Neill referrcd to the list of previously interviewed candidates and then indicated that
the publie notice process could includc a notice to those candidates. Frie noted that
those on othcr Boards or Commissions might also be intcrested in serving on the
Planning Commission.
MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE
REAPPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER HILGART TO AN ADDITIONAL
THREE- YEAR TERM ON THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION
OF COMMISSIONER CARLSON, WITH COMMISSIONER CARLSON FILLING
THE SEAT ON A MONTH-BY-MONTH APPOINTMENT BASIS, SHOULD THE
SEAT NOT BE FILLED BY FEBRUARY.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Discussion Item - Summary of pending projects.
O'Neill distributed and reviewed a list and map of upcoming pending projects.
In responsc to the discussion, Hilgmi asked if the Commission should revicw the R-IA
standards. Grittman stated that it is always appropriatc to look at the ordinance to see if
it will be utilized properly. Grittman refcrred to the market answcring the need for high-
quality housing stock, indicating that the dcveloper's rapid pace is not a reason to relax
ordinance standards. Grittman stated that the Commission may seek to address specific
issues within the ordinance. I lilgart stated split-entry style homes were his primary
concern I()r R-I ^ areas. Hilgart suggested that issue might bcst be addresscd by
reviewing thc proposed ic)()tprint of the homes.
Fric asked if instcad of adjusting ordinance standards, if thc Commission can deny
approving a style of home. Grittman stated that is possible only under PUD conditions,
- :1 -
.
Planning Commission Agenda 08/03/04
but regulation of housing styled can be completed consistently through the ordinance.
Frie asked Hilgart to clarify why he would recommend allowing no splits in an R-IA
district. Hilgart stated that it related to the quality of the homes in the R-I A area.
HIlgart agreed that housing styles should be addressed through the ordinance.
Dragsten asked whether thc Commission should also look at an upgrade to the R-l
standards. Carlson indicated that discussion may be needed in response to the demand to
put higher-end homcs on smaller lots. Grittman stated that to require large homes on
small lots, the Commission may seck to create a new zoning district. Grittman stated
that it is important that the arcas with high-end amenities are preserved for true R-IA
housing. Spartz explained that f()r example, he is comfortable with the development that
was approved this evening, however, he would like the Commission to have the tools to
deal with regulating high-end developments at a later time.
Frie asked what role the township plays in the planning process in relationship to the
new annexation agreement. O'Neill stated that the township is notified of pending
annexations in the new OAA, but does not have planning authority in those areas.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
TO REVIEW THE R-IA BUILDING STANDARDS AT THE EARLlST REGULAR
MEETING DATE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
8. Adjourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED.
.
- (; -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 02/01/05
5.
Public "carinI!: Consideration of a reQuest for a Concept Stal!e PUD for
Monticello-nil! Lake Community Hospital. Applicant: Monticello nil! Lake
Community Hospital District. (NAC)
REFERENCEANDHACKGROUND
The Monticello-Big Lake Hospital District is proposing an expansion of their
facilities and grounds by way of PUD to be phased over time. The first step in
reviewing a PUO is to consider the entire site concept plan. The concept plan
review is designed to alert the applicant to issues which may alTect the general
layout of the project, which may include zoning issues which ailect adjacent
parcels and landowners. This PUD project lies within the PZM zoning district
which allows mixed uses including hospitals, medical and dental clinics, nursing
homes and senior housing. Thus, the majority of the issues that arise with this
proposed project have to do with the impacts on the adjoining properties.
The proposed project will incorporate several phases, the first of which will
include a new clinic building as services expand and additional physicians are
needed. The proposed clinic building is a three-story office building of 68,000
square feet which will house the Monticello Clinic and Specialty Services. Also a
part of Phase I is a new ambulance garage and EMS Quarters on the western edge
of the Site as well as additional parking to accommodate the building expansions.
As a part of the concept PUD request, the applicant is applying for approval of the
3-story clinic building, a 6-story hospital building and a 2-story parking structure.
'I'he PZM District allows for 3-story buildings contingent upon the installation of
fire extinguishing systems throughout the building. Additionally, the applicant is
requesting that the parking stalls be a minimum of 18 feet by 9 feet as opposed to
the parking space standard of not less than nine feet wide and twenty feet in
length per Section 3-5[0]9(a). The applicant is also requesting that the final
portion of Hart Boulevard and Dayton Street be vacated.
One of the most significant issues the proposed Site Plan raises is the potential
impacts on adjacent property owners, namely the three single family home owners
who currently live in between the existing hospital building and the parking lot to
the west. It is important that the interests of these properties owners are protected
and that all appropriate zoning practices are enforced (i.e., bufferyards and
screening). The general requirements of a PUD as stated in Section 20-2[ ^]
rcquire the application to be filled jointly by all landowners of property that is
included in thc project. All submissions must refer to the development of the
propcl1y as a unified whole and the final approval is binding on all included
owners.
Planning Commission Agenda - 02/01/05
.
As proposed, the first phase of the hospital expansion will involve the
construction of a 3-story medical office bui Iding directly to the east of the existing
single family homes, while directly to the west of these single family homes the
applicant proposes to expand the existing parking facilities and construct a
retaining wall to allow for two-level parking. Of particular concern is the visual
impacts and additional traffic generation these expansions will have on the
cxisting homeowners.
Access to the Site will change with the Dayton Street entrances off Broadway
Boulevard to thc south of the Site and River Street to the north of the Site, as the
applicant is requesting that this portion of Dayton Street be vacatcd as a part of
the PUD. The permanent access will now be via Washington Street. In the long
term, this is the best option from a traffic standpoint, as Washington is
programmed fix a futurc signal location, and will connect with Fallon Avcnue
over the freeway. However, in the short term, the applicant will need to address
impacts oftrafJic in the neighborhood, and the avoidance oftraHic along River
Street.
.
The future parking deck would havc access to the upper level from the Highway
75 side only, and the lower level would access from River Street only. There
would be no intcrnal access between the two levels of the deck. Staff has
discussed the possibility of access to mitigate the necd for traffic to use River
Street. However, this plan reduces the parking supply significantly, and defeats
the ability to rcly on Washington Strect for traffic control. Instead, sign age and
intersection design will need to be managed to protect thc River Street
neighborhood f[om conccrns over non-local traffic.
The location of parking lots in regards to their proximity to the buildings they
serve may also constitutc a problem. The large parking arcas are not located near
to the main entrance of the hospital or the proposed medical office building. It
should be suggested that the applicant construct a pedestrian walkway through the
center of the large parking area to safely dircct patrons to the medical buildings
through thc parking lot(s).
Pedestrian access has been an issue previously with the parking lot design. This
aspect should be reviewed carcfully to avoid thc need ie)!' large numbers of
employees and patients walking in the drive aisles, particularly during winter
snow season. In addition, the applicants should be careful to design the parking
lot lighting to avoid glare onto the adjacent roadways, as well as the adjacent park
and houses. A lighting plan should be developed that demonstrates consideration
for this issue.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 02/01/05
.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision]: PU [) Concept Plan
1. Motion to reeommcnd approval of the application for a PUD Concept Plan
with thc comments listed in Exhibit Z and based upon the findings that thc
proposal would comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan and long-tcrm
developmcnt goals for the area.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD Concept Plan based up on thc
findings that the application does not comply with the goals set forth by the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Motion to table the application to permit further City rcview and refinement
of the proposcd plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff rccommends approval of the pu~ Concept Plan contingent upon the
comments in this rcport and as summarized in thc attached Exhibit Z. Specific
concerns relate to the treatment of the existing homeowners adjacent to the
hospital property and specifically, how they will be impacted by and screened
from the proposed expansion.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Project Narrative
B. pu~ Concept Plan Site Plan, Phase I
C. PUD Concept Plan Site Plan, Phase II
Z. Recommended Conditions of Approval
.
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 02/01/05
.
Exhibit Z - Hospital Concept pun Conditions of Approval
1 . Addition of pedestrian access through the parking lot to the Clinic building.
2. Parking lot lighting design that avoids glare and illumination of the adjoining
residences, park, and public roadways.
3. Buffering and landscaping of the edge between parking and building areas
adjacent to the neighboring residential uses.
4. Traffic control measurcs at Washington and River Streets to minimize traffic
conllicts and avoid traffic utilizing River Street which will result from the
vacation of Dayton Street.
5. Resolution of the Hospital's acquisition of the Dental Clinic, currently
occupying the site of the new Mcdical Clinic. No further vacation of Hart
Boulevard can occur without this clement of the project.
6. Landscaping treatment within the parking field to minimize the large asphalt
expanse.
.
.
4
.
.'
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/01/04
6.
Consideration of a request to review a commercial site plan for conformance to a
previously approved Development Stage PUll and Preliminary Plat for the
Monticello Travel Center. (.JO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Mielke Bros, LLC have requested a review of a proposed revision to the originally
approved Development Stage pun for the Monticello Travel Center. This review is
in ordcr to detcrmine consistency with the original approval, granted in April of 200 1.
Recently, the Commission had recommended the approval of a new Concept Stage
PUD which included the Monticello Travel Center property, as well as the parcel to
the north. It is staff's understanding that the Concept Stage proposal is now on hold
as Mr. Mielke would like to follow a plan similar to the April 2001 PUD.
Thc rcviscd plan prcscntcd reflects only the Monticello Travel Center parccl. The
primary purpose of the revision is to allow the development of a proposed DQ Gri II
and Chill restaurant, marked as number "1" on thc rcvised plan, independent of the
developmcnt of the rest of the PUD.
It should bc notcd that in terms of parcel alignment, the property lincs shown on the
revised plan are not proposed to vary from the originally approved preliminary and
final plat for the Development Stage PUD. The final plat already recorded will not
need to change as a result of the proposed modifications to the original plan.
Additionally, public utility systems and associated easements are unaffected. Access
points to roadways also remain the same as originally proposed.
There are four major difTerences between the original pun and the revision. First,
the rcvised PUD plan shows Parcels A and B as "Outlots", and does not show a site
plan for each of these lots. The previously approved PUD idcntified uses on each of
the parcels, which illustrated the relationship between each parcel. These uses
included a convenience store with pump islands and adjacent retail on Parcel B (the
southerly "Outlot") and a restaurant on Parcel A (thc northerly "Outlot"). As
Commission is aware, the identification of uses on a PUD is important in relationship
to parking requirements and site circulation considerations.
The second change illustrated is a proposcd lease facility on Parcel D, shown as
number "]" on thc rcviscd plan. This lease building replaces the originally proposed
car wash.
Third, the revised plan shows no parking field adjacent to the existing Subway. The
original PUD showed a large parking ficld between parcels A and E, which would
serve uses on both lots.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/0 1/04
.
Lastly, the revision shows a significant change to the drive aisle that was to be
continuous along the west edge of parcels A and B. The drive aisles are now split
between a drive aisle along the western edge of parcel B, where it would "T" and
move east to Cedar Street, or continue west to intersect with a new "possible futurc
drive" between parccls A and F. The developer has indicated that the shift in the
drive aisles is to accommodate the possible progress ofa plan for the north side of the
property similar to thc recently proposed Conccpt Stage PlJD. That plan illustrated a
central drive aisle bisecting the entire property from north to south.
Overall, what is shown on the revised plan appcars to be relatively consistcnt with thc
approved DevcIopment Stage PUD. However, the revised plan docs raise issues
related to parking and site circulation.
A parking deficiency remains for the existing Subway. The Developmcnt Stage PUD
plan acknowledged thc existing parking deficicncy and accommodated an increase to
mcet parking requiremcnts by creating the large parking field adjacent to Subway to
the east. The revision, although still potentially allowing the creation of a similar
field, separates the parking lot lrom Subway by thc suggested "future drive". If it is
the applicant's intent to move forward with development on the Outlots (Parcel A and
B) as previously intended, the applicant would need to address how the deficiency
would be accommodated in the presence ofthc proposed drive aisle separation.
.
There is adequate parking shown for the proposed leasc space and the existing
UltraLube facility. The parking fields shown for the proposed restaurant on Parcel C,
number "I" on the revision plan, are also adequate.
Thc "possiblc future drivc" shown on thc revision plan does create concern about
potential tralTic conflicts. As through traffic moves to thc intersection of the future
drive and east-west drive aisle, vehicles are forced to makc a right or left turn. As
such, the through traffic would come into direct contact with backing traffic from the
parking field adjacent to the proposcdlease spacc. As a significant amount of traffic
could be cxpected on this future drivc with the development ofthc adjacent northern
parccl, this is an area of concern in terms of traffic safety and site circulation.
The dcveloper has indicated that other than thc rcvisions as notcd, they intcnd to
comply with the terms of the original PUD for landscaping, signagc, lighting, etc.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to find that the revised plan is consistent with the previously approved
Development Stage PUD plan with the changes as noted, and to recommend
that the plan proceed to final stage approval of the DQ Grill and Chill
development site, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/01/04
.
2.
Motion to find that the revised plan in not consistent with the previously
approved PUD, and to recommend that the developer request a new public
hearing for an amendment to the original Development Stage PUO.
3. Motion of other.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending alternative number 1 above. Staff believes that the revised
PU J) is relatively consistent with the original PU D for the portion of the parcel that
rel1ects a development plan. Recognition of this plan with the original PUO will
expedite the processing of the Grill and Chill's final stage application.
.
Staff would recommend the elimination of the "possible future drive" until the time
that a development plan comes forward for the north property. This recommendation
is due to the concerns about required parking for Subway and possible traffic/parking
conl1icts created at thc intersection of the two drive aisles. It is stafT's opinion that
the drive is not needed for circulation on the sitc (as it was not included in the original
PUD), nor is it needed for the proposed restaurant at location" 1" to develop at this
time. Additionally, as the type of development on the two "Outlots" remains unclear
at this time, it may be better for the developer to leave drive aisle options open.
It is also statTs recommendation that any future revisions which vary from the
original PUD move through a fcmnal amendment to PUD and public hearing process.
This is critical for any departures in uses or site layouts Lrom the original PUD, but
also important should the developer choose to meld elements of the Development
Stage PUD and Concept Stage PUD together. While staff recognize the intent to
cooperate between the two propcrties and the possible creation of a unified site, it is
important that the City follow the process outlined in the PUD ordinance and that
neighhoring property owners are aware of site changes.
SlJPPORTING DATA
A. Original Development Stage PUD Site Plan, April 2001
B. Concept Stage PUD Site Plan
C. Proposed Site Plan
D. Approved final Plat
Z. Conditions of Approval
.
^'
-)
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/0 I /04
EXHIBIT Z
CONDITIONS OF APPRO V AL
1.
The applicant is to prepare and submit a revised site plan reflecting exact
development plans for the Monticello Travel Center.
2.
T'he revised plan is to include a parking plan which addresses the current deficiency
for the existing Subway restaurant.
^'
-, .
The "possible future drive" is to be eliminated from the revised site plan, unless the
revised plan includes a development proposal for the adjacent north parcel.
4.
The revised plan is to show a development plan for the Outlots consistent with the
original Development Stage PUD, or:
. Should the developer choose to vary the development of the outlots from the
original PUD, a formal application for amendment to PUD will be required.
. If the developer choose to prepare a revised plan showing no development
plan for the outlots, future development of those outlots will require a
Development Stage PUD application.
4
I
,
........-- -.-
I
r
~6~~~ 5i
~ "~I! i~
i'l~g ~
~
gS~i; ~!i
~~~~; ~Ze
~!I~~ "8
! i
! a!j! I!
fJI~~ !
.
n!j~i~ U!
f!IU5i ~~
II ~i
ii
!a!i! iiI
,'151 'I
E ,~
Ie;
--.
.., ......
--------------------------- r _____
0GlGl0 ,
0000~ ._.....1 I I I
II r : I iU1I1II r r, ~
I I : I i IIUU,f
( ( a A I iieU1ff
I ( ,11I1 PI
I I"l
IP
,
,
J
1_-
o
~
b:
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
,
I
- ---- '''-------------,--------
[C
Cl-IHse....
JJ
I@
..,
I!\
"
. OTs TY L E --:== ~~
D.t(p I'" -...- .,.....
-.--.:- ;;.::;.-":;. ~
.-'''''.-- IIII'IIIIII_"'~ ...
-..... ____I......"..W ..w_,..,.
:~:;::::..,~,,-_. ... --~
<:
rrt
~
~
m
!
(pA
S.
Y",
',",
~
-......./
hj
'\)
r--
~
.:::
."
,~
:l)
,.....
h
~
~
".
ill
)...
8
......
'"
~
f)
"
~
~
\::J
ill
'-
111
B
~
~
,'h
~
-,
V(
~
<1\'
ill
~
'-,
"I
J:'
;:,
.,; -;:; 0 g2
"
.,; :l;! .,; '" o~~ /oe7
00 '" ~~~~ ~IUC;I
0 :li:!O -' 2 0 <I. ~ .,; :r1~::; . .,; -"
OJ OJ -' """ ~ '" '00- ~~~-":-~ 2 p>-
cij!l ",'" '" ~j ~ :l;! ",,,, ~~:;~ j~:~~ '" ~ile
"'<> >- .. ... ;c'"
",=> "z '" i: ~:;i -' - "'",- ii
u'" z '" "'''' j
",'" I=s; '" 0 "'", !i:~ li1~ ~~~t;~~Q ~~~~~~ ",,,,'"
,,-'" ~o '" ;:: ,>- g '" ....ii2o Z;n 0>-
"',,; "- ~'" '" c~"n-;;;)...J -'",z Ei::: ~g
~ Z ~~ "'>- ~t;; .l(9~:t~2~ ;::!:?m~;! >- ~;>..r{
:fi~~ '" 0., ~'" '"
~~ '" u u... ;;; ;c'" "''' ~~ ~ 5&2: mil!: ~~~g m-~ ~ .. lD o-z ~~ -,z
;::'" u ~ ~~* -,0
u"'<> ..'" ~ ",::I :n"- 1-"O.......I::::i~ ~ ",'" ~~
"'0 ~oo ",,,- Zo ~:i~~t52~ --1....~.~z ~~
"'0 0'" u >-", '" . '" . ~~Qf5~~ >- ~~~
U'" "'.... ~~ 00 0 "'>- "'., :n" ",0 0
'" :ri:l] <> ;:... "z ",'" obg~~~~ ~e3~~~~ UO >- ",>->- >-",
>-"'''' z "'- 0'" ~: ~>-
:l;! >-" t1 og.. g- ",'" '" "-"'z "'-
"',,- ","'''' :.io. ':!I' gt-o:i:lO~--I 'll[lLOlolOlU l:;- -,"'''' u'"
.,"-"- "'", ,-l1L t;; -'''' ~~
'" ... ~~~ \'jl'! ~ '" ","- o.o. >-o. ~~~~~,~g ~$5l ~ ~ :-~ o. ~,~~ "''''
':!I~ ::i~ "'" >-'" ",,,, 1;3 --
z -'U 50 ~o ....'" --' .,
;;; <'" >-"'''' -'" ':!I 8 ~88og~~ ~~g8~~g <0 0",>- 00 .,
~ ..."- ","-"- >"- "'..- uo "'''' ,,'" ~ ~~:fi >-u
",'" ","'''' :::i'" >- t~~ ,0 ,,," lL;i" "':} IL :;;-!-3-~-~;t >-", 0>'" ..... .E:::
"'- "'-- ",,, '3 ~..: ~ -~ ~ ~-~S-~-~~ ~;- OJ ~ '" :f.:= ~'" en
.., .n, ot .n, ori. E;
o " 0 ~ ".S'.H~ tfO'Z .. . LO
J
. >-
lU
lU '"
'"
>-
>-
'"
'<
"" "
0 '"
'" '"
u
'"
>-
'"
z
. '" Z
'0:
>- ~
>-
,,;:
~ en ci
lu ....
'" ....
'", W III
''''
;;; - U
~ I- i=
"-
"' z
II: 0
W :!
I-' a. ~
::> 0
0
~ III
a: U
IlJ C
I-
~ u; a. :f
~ 0
1IJ
. " "'Il Q ~
<> o.
50 "-~
'" fi m fI)
!;( ....
:n III
'" :>>
'" X
~ ffili u
0
>-
.J, EBli
"11
~'
~I
~~
~r
,1
~
I.n ~i'n
q "
, -.:::
I i'1l
I
0
q I
I
f-
r$
1--
i-
,-.
1---1
,
I =:J'
,
,-
I
,
'.
'. "- "- '-. ~G' ''"m' ",'
".::.:~~~~~~~~~, " '" ~
"-"'" "~~" "
-"::"-':'~ol.;- , ____
" " ;'''ol ___
~'~ "" ~';-ol ____
~'<:.:.-,~~.;-......... ----
" '~,,-,-~.;-;,....;-, "-
..... .......... ~'.~, ~.;-~ "-
' "'>'::--'~"'" '-.
' , "..:--".... "-
/ . '--....:::'::::~~~::.. '-. '-. '-.
I "~, '
(P()
I
,
I
g~)G
I
I
.....
~. -b Ii
IT/ ~ :):::,.
:t:. -- 1...0
~ \,J) ~ ~ __I
~~' ~
'V Q t~ '" _\
\;.0) Vi /'-l I
~ 'f '\; -<- <0
<:::....... .:t. C)
i'.'\ -r I"') 1--1
\) ~ -.",!,':'\ <::J 'V
"( " ;U
('\ 1i1):) -:.
~~ a::s: "
.", ~ "'-
,.. -1 'I'
r'~~V:l
~ ~;, ~
V} 'tI Ij'.
~>i
--- '" 'r\
'.f\ ~ __
-r ~ 'Il
::,.. '" 1"-.
r\ ~' ~'J
:5:~
~
---
--
------
o
g
"
c
.......,
--
c
(:-
-,
r-,
<:.
'--I
i"'
~
~
rn
V)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
/
---------~-.
. ---...,/'
,
).
t'"
(}
J:-
!.J.....'
I.-
"
.
/
f
I
r
133.30
~")
l,j
,,'
.,~
1':>5."5
/'
BLOCK
N 71~~J
<'\:>,.
iI'
~
,
&
~
~
'" !:J
f?
N
?1'tl;>,
9J.a" 00" iI'
;! :,~
;' ~~,~1 Ow ~:.
t.~
t( " ",.'
~ ".' ~ .
,~.c" __ !o 5:>'
"7 q) 5'
I ~. {Sf
"-~.~,".",;;;C--;-;;'."";",,,, ,~-----c-:' h-
.' /" ". ,.~..' -<:.
,'^!,
~t?",'"
II. ' . ,'I'
"..... ,f, ,c.
8.96""::- -' .
N 24.32' 19" E '
\' ~\
\~'::."
[23.32 '-
89'84' 38" W
/ IJ; 66'/J..,.
77;96'
/ 0ir, ""0"
/ '''. ,stij
/
.
/PC?
N 89'14' 00" E 393.83
---_!!~~-------
'"
I
_ __ _ __ _ _ _ ~ __IJI_rJe;:{;'?;6'jJ':4-
/ .. ."'.'-"" ,,,, '.5'J::>-
,I. \ /"'~ ~.-
. .,' :.. \ " If/
:1"/1.";,1. /
Ii'04^
N1. (J('I~ / u
,~<.o-<'
I'
\\ (.'1
, 'J~ ':>':>1.0.:>
(/.~E''1" -'t7
"',
1
".
i,I'
~
~
~
~
'"
"1'
,
:.~'/'lY'~
:~.
:- /
"I '
'~i & th
.~/::J' ,"'J
'Ii" ~
';;: --! i{
.g
l
I t/ fa "
: ,~' '0 J;l
,.,. '_' 'J!:)
.~<S"13
/,;, "f{p;'
,- t: # t\ !:)
Ii' "# ff3
/ <\ ~QC
-l.
1 -. -
I " . --
,! (J
,.:'t/'\- ~.
!'J'''' ,-'
~ll:t. ::y
r/ ~ II
'CJ/ ..., QC
,
, ''''
, ",'1
~
IJ
....,
'-
!-<'"
If.J
.'>-'
1--'"
("..;
{}..
~
fJ
(J
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/01/05
7.
Consideration of a request for buildine and landscape plan review for
Monticello Retail Center as a part of the Development Staee pun approval.
Applicant: Rvan Companies. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Ryan Companies have submitted plans illustrating building architecture and site
plan details for Target and Home Depot. Planning staff offers the following
comments:
Building Comments.
1. The rear (north fayade) of the Target building has been enhanced with the
addition of a series of projected wall panels, and includes a variety of
colors and striping to add interest to this highly exposed portion of the
building. Because of this exposure, the City has encouraged the developer
to address the aesthetics of this walL The changes are considered positive.
The only unadressed item that staff has discussed is the addition of a wall
sign on the north exposure to add identification of the building as a retail,
rather than industrial, facility,
2. The side walls of the Target building have also been enhanced in the same
way, together with a red stripe integrated into the block pattern.
3. The front wall of the Target huilding includes a relatively contemporary
design, with a sleek appearance. The building includes two semi-circular
covered entrances, and an arbor area that extends forward with tree
plantings and several variations in the line of the front waiL As with the
back and sides, the front of the huilding includes a variety of colors of
rock-face block that add variety to the look of the building. Different wall
planes utilize different colors, emphasizing the variation. The aesthetics
of the front fayade appear to meet the City's request for a varied and
attractive building design.
4. The Home Depot Building is constructed of a combination of Elf'S (a
prefinished panel with the texture of stucco) at the top of the building line,
and prefabricated concrete panels below, with a rock-face block imprint to
simulate the look of block. As is common with Home Depot, a double
orange stripe surrounds the building.
5. The front wall of the Home Depot steps up the roofline to the highest
level over the main entrance. A series of higher wall panels capped by a
metal cornice in a darker color flank both of the entrances. This plan
provides a reasonable upgrade from the more basic building design.
Planning Commission Agenda ...~ 2/0 1/05
.
6. The rear wall of the Home Depot includes a scries of similar dark-colored
wall panels that are flush with the building, but ref1ect the front wall
design in color and mass. The applicant also has includcd the colored
striping and a wall sign along the rear wall to identify the building as a
retail facility.
7. The fencing that is used to enclose the Garden Center is black vinyl coated
mesh and chain link, an acceptable upgrade from galvanized steel.
8. The dock doors facing the 81. Benedicts' residential facility have been
painted a dark brown to match the building color, rather than orangc. In
summary, thc building design would appear to meet the City's request for
an upgraded exterior fayade.
Site Plan and Landscaping Comments.
1. The front of the Target building includes a variety of paving colors in the
entrance areas, as well as tree planting and the arbor noted above, to create
a softer entrance view.
.
2. The front of the Home Depot building includes a scored concrete walk
area that distinguishes the display area from the pedestrian walkway.
3. The front of the Home Depot building does not show the landscaping
plantcr areas that staff has discussed with the applicants. However, these
planters are mentioned in the application letter submitted with thc
materials. Planning staff believes that this is an important element to both
soften and shade the south-facing building.
4. The landscaping plan appears to be reasonably well dcsigned, and exceeds
the City's minimum planting requirements by a substantial amount. The
plan including an intensified landscape screen area in the front where
Home Depot will park a rental vehicle when not in use.
5. The landscaping includes a berm and thickly planted border along the
north property line that should filter thc vicw of the rear building walls
and service areas of the complex from Highway 75 to the north.
.
6. The most important screening area is along the common boundary with
the St. Benedicts property in the northwest corner of the site. The plan
shows an 8 foot high solid fence and a single row of cvergrcen trees on the
S1. Bencdicts' side ofthe fence, with the intention that this screen will
buffer the residential use from the loading area. Planning statTwould
recommend that the trees in this area be planted at an initial height of at
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/01/05
.
least S feet (rather than the 6 foot minimum specified in the zoning
ordinance) to accelerate the screening effect ofthe vegetation. In addition,
the trees are shown to be planted at about 15 feet on center. This
dimension should be reduced to 12 feet on center, requiring the addition of
about 3-4 trees in this area. Finally, an additional planting of trees on the
St. Benedicts side of the property line would further intensify this screen if
acceptable to the St. Benedicts' representatives.
7. The plans show a small plaza area within the "Outlot 0" portion of the
project _ the far southeast corner of the site, south of ill Street. The plan
shows a semi-circular planting area and sidewalk design that would
include two benches and connect to the end of the City's pathway and
pedestrian bridge to the south. The area is further enhanced with a berm
behind the plaza. It would appear to be appropriate to consider a small
planting of shrubs and trees on top of this berm to protect the plaza area
from wind and frame the site. It is also noted that thc City Enginecr has
some concerns about grade in this area, and the City will need to continue
working with the developer on the final design for this plaza.
8. It is not clear from this set of plans if the parking lot lighting is being
coordinated with parking lot cart storage, per previous staff
recommendation. This item should be clarified as a part of the final
review.
.
9. The Homc Depot plans include the following elements:
a. Seasonal Garden Center in the parking lot.
b. Utility trailer and rental truck display in the parking lot.
c. Tool rental and display near the cast side of thc store.
d. Contained storage of material in the rear of the building for
customer pick~up.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Monticello
Retail Center - building and site landscaping for Target and] lome Depot.
1. Motion to rccommend approval of the Developmcnt Stage PUD, based on a
finding that the plans, with the conditions and recommendations listed in
Exhibit Z, constitute an incrcased level of design and amcnities suHicient to
qualify thc site for PUD approval.
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Development Stagc PUD, based on a
finding that the plans do not rise to the level or zoning ordinance requircmcnts
for PU 0 design.
OJ
.,
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/01/05
.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Statl recommends approval with the comments in Exhibit Z. The applicants have
satislied many of the comments offered by staff, and with the few remaining
changes, the plans appear to mect the City's requircmcnts for pun approval. It is
noted that this approval applics to the Target and Home Depot buildings, and the
common landscaping areas around the property. The future phases of the project
will still require a Development Stage PUD review prior to final approval and
construction.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Site Plan
C. Home Depot Building Elevations
D. Target Store Elevations
E. Outlot D Site Plan
Z. Conditions of Approval
.
.
4
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/0 I /05
.
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval for Development Stage
pun - Monticello Retail Center
(Ryan Companies Target and Home Depot)
I. Consideration of the addition of a Target logo sign on the north side of the
Target building visible to Highway 75.
2. The front walkway area of the Home Depot is to be improved with the
addition of planter areas for tree planting. These planter areas may consist of
movable planters if desired.
3. The landscape plan in the area adjacent to 81. Benedict's should be intensified
hy requiring a minimum of 8 foot high evergreen trees at the time of planting,
at no more than 12 feet on center.
4. The pedestrian plaza area on "Outlot D" should be enhanced with shrub and
tree plantings on the included berm, and will require further review by staif
due to concerns over grading in this area. Limits to grading affecting the plan
will be further defined or limited by FHA standards.
.
.
5
7A
W
-..J
<(
U
(f)
0
~ (X) z
~ \0
ro ~
U I'-- (L
z <(
~ ci 0 ::2:
> u
~ 0.... .J ..J
en <t >-
0 l......
Z 0.... I-
-
'Vl Z
0 a '1
. 0 >l]\:1aS V\ U
C)
~.. (\j dS" >
CJ
:r: z
u ~ l-
V)
<a u
w .'
J
, 3 Aid 0
a::::
...0 (L
<tc\)
ci ...J
IX W
L:J 8
c
.... a::
IX ~
0 rf:' '~1J w w
Z ..J
SIdONno CJ. ~
:-.! <1 .....<r j:l:l
0:: W (/)..J W
[@ <t V) V) 0-
'~lJ a. <r >-
..J Cl ", lX
W Z \01-
SldWOH1 :r: ::> ruz
(/) u t::l =>
CJ
oCt u
~1 '~a 0001'\)11;;/0 ci
g..' >
~C=;\Dt5
~~....~
~
W
N
a::
~
.
n"'~1i~~~
:\;~h""b,..
i~~8~5~~
~:li~~~~r
0)';'"(;;"",,,
~.. s~~
; z0
8 ~~
c 01::.
~ S~
"'...""
b:~~
...""
"'~Ifl
"'",1';
""'rn
~
Q
"
E
"
z
<>
o
g
~~'"~ ~
-. ""
V1'",H.''' Ii!:"
l!l/!; '"
~ 0
~
rn
,-
o
'~~~~~~~~ R
:~~"lgjE~~t
,/\l\g!a<>z<>s;' !'>
?Q~~~~~?:;' 5
,)';'g[;;.,,~~)';' -I
; -z?fjfT1~
~ ~~~9"
" ~~~
i SE~
.' ~~6
~ ~p
,-..
l~~
:k'"
.,,!jl
:;;;/!;
"{;i
'!::
-0
:>:J
~goo 0
~~~ ri9
DOi!; ~
"'''' z
2J...,.., --l
(j)
i;j
rn
,-
o
~~~~~~~~~ R
"'f'l 0:;91:'11 "0:;E;,..
2!"/1~~~i'ii'i~ !'>
i:~;:;~~;g:li. 5
5:;;os;'g,,~s;' -I
<;:"'~ ~U VJ
;li~;Jl '$ ~..
~~8 ~~
"';:')'" "',
D ~ 5
!iI!iI tl
... -'~~ ~:~
""'" b~t l.rIrn
~ 8~Vl 8"
tI) VJ,...~ (/)
..,.., "T\~~ ...,.,
'"
o
c:;
"1;J~-u-n~'i':g~5' ~
"'0;:\;:\;",0",--< 0
~o~~~a~~~ -4
~~")~Io'~~fj}~ rn
<;;:";:;:li'l!r;;",;t
8g51~g,,~~
<;)"'<;)-::h
~gril ~~,.
:;g~,'J ~ ~ Z
o.3D ':-:"n
~ ~ E
8 '" 0
.. !iI g
~ t:?~ mg~
ut ~~~ :Sf)
~ ~(J)~ ~
"'",
'"
~;g~ ~
~~~ Sti
ZUl(;) :.to-
~~::5 F
~NZ
~~~ ~
~~~ ~
.. I
Cl[D~
Al':"'2
!w~
<::~z
"ITI~
!;I 11
~~ 8"~
"'1 ~~"'O"')> 0,,_
-....J t;JIQ t./p.! , , j..,Ji.H;"";:u r"1:;u
~ ;~~~g~U)l..!OJ ~ ~ g
~ MM~MM ~~
. Vl
;;QOOOOI!!~l!1~
~ ~ ~~g~gaaaR
5 . --l-l-l-l"->"->t0~
~ ~'O(')I;I;J>- " ~ .
M ~ ~Q~~
~ lftN.......
:r:
o
'!::
fTl
ID
,-
r--.""tlmr 0
iHiU~~~~ R
~Yl~~~8~(O")~~ ~
<;;:<;:;t~~~Oll:-O' 5
a~~~! ~~~ -1
~g~ ~~~~
J'T1afTl ':::_G')
'" ~ Z
~Y11"l -....IOz
~,:!~ t;~E
~ ~ ~8~
9!? -9
'"
fTl
Z
fTl
;0
;<0-
r-
U) ODr-;\~
-0) lo i!;;...J
~ ~~;
~ ~~f)
"l/l
"'~~ '!::
IV.....~ fTl
.....~:..... ;;0
Vl1l:'" 0
~o~ ~
rn~ ~
(j)
fTl
>Q
r;1
rn
,-
o
;2~~~~~~~~ R
;:I)~ 9l~~ (1 2!;b~
L~U~i'i~~ !"
~:;:;M~Ollt' 5
5:\1ltil~g~~s;' -I
~g]~ ~2SS ~
~grr1 ~~
\JYJ ~ ':.:if
~~ g ~ p
~ ~ ~
" .. S
~ ~~~ ~~~
g;", gl.!Jlr-.:. 8!D
"'~Ul o~
~ ~U)~ ~
-n",
'"
o
c
~~~~~~~~~ .r:1
~~ ~~~ 0 ~5". S
~jn~~~~5t;~ :to-
'"'Tl I;i;I .
;:;:"Pu'l!J;;Ollt
og8~;5,,\i1~
h~ 1i)~~
rr1ol'Tl ';)1;")
jl~Rl "";;'"2;
~;:')g P
o ~ 5
~ S' g
~ ~E~
~ ~gp~
",/,;
"[ri
J'.3tll....
U1bb
~~
o
c:;
~~~~~1;~~~ 5
~f'l~ha~h -I
~~(.H;)Q~(;)C}~ 0
;:;:"n?'r;;;ll:-O
51ge~g~~~
~g~ ~~!iI
,",".
'I'" .
\
\'
.\ ,....).:,i.
I';
I "
'f
\
i
I
\
,;
:i
.~
0' :~
:$
.~.
M'
o
'f;
.~f
'\';.
l'
)..
".;,.
't
.w
".
'K.
2-
'-:J-
0-
tm
N
N
ii
'"
~,'.Li0
:;f:
.~+.
"..s.
:;~
:......"
.,..:~~.
~.....y.
" )\
'. : ~
,
">".;~:
":"it
;:~
",4
..."t
,'....;;.'.
.'.'t
\:. ~\
\\\\
\"\,
.
~1I~_"'l-'__,j,IOIlIo-III~_1IiIj """"I,IIIf,IJ-..tJrowl......
I
I
i
I
~
i
I
.
I
m
I
Ii
II
=
"I
:t
;
",
~
~
_11II
~
~ ;
.. ~
; ~
I~
..
, ~
i
il~1 Q
d ~
~;I ~
hi :>:J
~~~
!il
sh
~~~
II
wmmmm 2
I I '!!'!I'!1I.'tI...1:bll:'It -
mIUINi~I!1 ~
imUjj 1~::~1 ~
Funll 1; I) M
@hrH~1 i! 1 ~
~~~~I! l rn
~~ ~~
I! I
\
\
\
I
\
I
\
\
\
\
I
\
I I
~",
I I
\ I
\ I
I I
I I
I I
II
V
,
1\
II
1\
I \
I \
I \
I I
I I
I I
I \
I I
I \
I I
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
\
o
C
-l
r
o
-l
o
""'0
);:
N
:x>-
GJ
;;0
:x>-
o
z
C)
:x>-
z
o
o
fT1
(j)
(;)
Z
;;
r
r
OJ
fT1
o
fT1
""'0
fT1
Z
o
fT1
Z
-l
C
""'0
o
Z
I
I
,I
II
,I
II
II
1\
1\
1\
II
1\
1\
1\
1\
II
II
1\
1\
1\
II
\I
\I
\I
II
\I
II
II
II
II
II
1\
II
\I
\I
II
II
\I
II
\I
\I
\I
1\
II
II
:::!J
z
:x>-
r
C)
;;0
:x>-
o
fT1
(j)
o
~
fT1
;;0
$:
z
fT1
o
OJ
--<
:E
(j)
OJ
}:>
Z
o
:x>-
(j)
(j)
o
n
~
fT1
(j)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
I
I
\
\
\
II
I,
II
I
\
\
\
\
\
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ 1\
\ \ I
\ \ \
\ 1\
\ I \ \
\ ~...l\
\\ \ ""-1 \
\ \ U
\ \
\ \
I \
I I \
I \ \
\ I \ \
,I \
", \
'\
"
\
\
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
\
\
I
I
\
\
\
\ \
\
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~~~
,::0:0
"8V~
~,,~
~"
o
~
<0
~
()
"
~~a~
--- -
-------
~~
-------------/-/-----/
\- --------
-----------
----(
\~
"
~-
-----
- ~.... ... ----..--..-..~...............-.. .......
-------
~...
//---- ~
.,..
V
/
/
"I (' i\
I ~ I
I II I
I I \
I \1 \
I I I \
I I I \
I I I \
I I I \
I I I ,
I I I \
I I I \
I I I \
I I I I
I I I I
I II '\
I I I \
I I I \
I I I I
I II '\
I I I \
I 1\ \
\ I /
\ \ \ /
\\/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\v \
\ \6c ...\ \
\\ \\"\\ \
M'\~\ \ \
\ \ \ \ \
\ \\ \ \
\ \ ~ \
\ \ \ ~y\ \
\ \ \~ \
\ \ \ - ~\ \
\ \ \ :::9\ \
\ \ \ ~\ \
\ \ \~ \
\ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ \~ ;,
\ \ \::..<\\ \\
\ \ \.th\ \\
\ \\X\. \ \ \
\ \\;>.\ \\
\\ \\ \ \ \\
\1;1 \\ \ \ \ \\
~ \\ \ \ \\
/'
/'
/
\
/'
\
I
I
\
I
I
\ \
\ "
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\\\\\
\
\ \
\ \\ \
\ '\ \ ,\ '-
\ \ ,'- '-
\\ \ ,-' '-
\\ \ ,:-<'~
\\
\\ \ ~
\ \ , '-
\\\\\
, \
\
\
ul
~
"'
<:
z
"
"'
. <~ \\~
~ ~ i
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 02/01105
8.
Consideration to approve a resolution (in din!! that a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No.1 and the
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-33 conform to the !!eneral plans for the development
and redevelopment of the city -1324 Edmondson Avenue NE. (O.K.)
A. Reference and backeround:
The Planning Commission is asked to adopt the attached resolution stating it finds the
proposed TIF District No. 1-33 Plan conforms with the general plans for development
and redevelopment ofthe city as described in the comprehensive plan.
Proposed TIF District No. 1-33, an Economic District, is being established to assist
Tapper's Holdings LLC, the developer, and Strategic Equipment and Supply Corporation,
the lessee, with site improvement costs associated with the construction of a 25,000 sq ft
warehouse addition to the property located at 1324 Edmondson Avenue NE (previous H-
Window.) This property lies within Oakwood Industrial Park and is zoned 1-2 (Heavy
Industrial.)
Grady Kinghorn, Kinghorn Associates, is the proposed general contractor. Tapper
purchased the existing 60,000 sq ft H- Window facility last fall and relocated Westlund
Distributing into the building occupying 42,000 sq ft of the warehouse space and 3,000 sq
ft of the office space. The proposed tenant, Strategic Equipment and Supply Corporation,
requires 40,000 sq ft. The tenant will lease 10,000 sq ft ofthe remaining warehouse
space, 5,000 sq ft of the remaining office space, and the 25,000 sq ft addition. Strategic
will commit to 40 new jobs for the City of Monticello (See attached job and wage levels.)
The tenant needs to occupy the facility by no later than mid-June. The Contract for
Private Development between Tapper's, Strategic, and the HRA states the development
must comply with state, regional, and local ordinance, zoning, construction regulations to
receive TIF assistance.
For this agenda item, the Planning Commission is stating the TIF Plan for Economic
District No. 1-33 conforms with the Comprehensive Plan: Land use and zoning. The City
Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing and adopt the TIF Plan for District No. 1-33
on February 28, 2005.
Based on the preliminary plans for the addition, it appears Tapper will need to apply for a
CUP for the proposed loading berths on a corner lot. They have contacted the Planning
Department for a pre-construction meeting and information for the February 7 application
deadline date for the March Planning Commission cycle. According to the HRA
Attorney Bubul, the attached resolution can legally be adopted prior to the CUP approval
as the resolution finds the TIF Plan conforms with the development and redevelopment
plans of the Comprehensive Plan. The TIF District must be established, the Contract for
1
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 02/01/05
Private Redevelopment must be executed, and the building plans approved before
issuance of the building permit.
Also attached is a copy of the Planning Commission motion of June 2000 relative to the
approval of a simple subdivision.
B. Alternative Action:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 and the TIF Plan for
TIF District No. 1-33 conform to the general plans for the development and
redevelopment of the city.
2. A motion to deny adoption of a resolution finding ..............................................
3. A motion to table any action.
c.
Recommendation:
Recommendation is Alternative No.1.
D.
SupportiD!!: Data:
Resolution for adoption, proposed expansion, summary of TIF Plan, job and wage level
goals, and excerpt of June 2000 Planning Commission minutes..
2
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR T AX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1~33 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to
adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1
(the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-33 (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan are
referred to collectively herein at the "Plans") and has submitted the Plans to the City Planning
Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: February I, 2005
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of Monticello - Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-33
The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for TIF District No. 1-33. More detailed infonnation on each of these topics can be found in the complete
TIF Plan.
Proposed action:
Redevelopment Project:
Type ofTIF District:
Parcel Number:
Proposed Development:
Maximum duration:
Estimated annual tax
increment:
Proposed uses:
Form of financing:
Administrative fee:
Interfund Loan Requirement:
Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 ~33 (District)
and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan).
Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan Modification for the Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I. CI'he Modification is to
include the project activities anticipated in the District.)
An economic development district
155-018-002120
The District is being created to facilitate construction of a 25,000 s.f.
addition to the existing approximate 60,000 s.f. industrial building for
Strategic Equipment & Supply Corporation.
The duration of the District will be 8 years from the date of receipt of
the first increment (9 years of increment). The date of receipt of the
first tax increment will be approximately 2007. Thus, it is estimated
that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for
subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 20 15, or
when the TIF Plan is satisfied.
Up to $18,299
The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount
that may be expended:
Site Improvements/Preparation ........................................ $ 102,700
Interest................................................................................ $40,000
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)........................................$7,300
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ..........................................$150,000
See Subsection 2-10, page 2-5 of the TIF Plan for the full budget
authorization. Additional uses of funds are authorized which include
inter-fund loans and transfers and bonded indebtedness.
Financing will be primarily through a pay-as-you-go note.
Up to ] 0% of annual increment, if costs arc justified.
If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures from a tax
increment fund, it is recommended that a resolution authorizing a loan
from another fund must be passed P RlOR to the issuance of the check.
T1F District Overview
.
3 Year Activity Rule
(.11'469.176 Suhd. 10)
5 Year Rule
(II' 469.1763 ,)'u17d 3)
At \cast one of the following activities must take place in the District
within 3 years from the date of celtification:
. Bonds have been issued
. The authority has acquired property within the district
. The authority has constructed or caused to be constructed
public improvements within the district
. The estimated date whereby this activity must take place is
February, 2008,
After four years from the date of celtification of the District one ofthe
following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the
District:
. Demol ition
. Rehabilitation
. Renovation
. Other site preparation (not including utility servIces such as
sewer and water)
. If the activity has not been started by the approximately
February, 2009, no additional tax increment may be taken from
that parccluntil the commencement of a qualifying activity.
Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments
must be expended or obligated to bc expended. Tax increments arc
considered to have been expended on an activity within the District if
one of the following occurs:
. The revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to
the activity
. Bonds, the proceeds of which Illust be used to finance the
activity, are issued and sold to a third party, the revenues arc
spent to repay the bonds, and the proceeds of the bonds either
are reasonably expected to be spent before the end of the later
of (i) the five year period, or (ii) a reasonable temporary period
within the mean ing of the use of that terlll under 9. 148(c )(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code, or are deposited in a reasonably
required reserve or replacement fund
. Binding contracts with a third party are entered into for
performance of the activity and the revenues are spent under
the contractual obi igation
. Costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues are
spent to reimburse for payment of the costs, including interest
on unrcimbursed costs.
Any obligations in the Tax Increment District made after
approximately February, 20 I 0, will not be eligible for repayment from
tax increments.
4 Year Activity Rule
(f 469.176 Su17d 6)
.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as
required pursuant to MS.. S'euio/l 469.175. Su17d. 3, areincludecl in Exhibit A of the City Coul1cil
Adopting Resolution.
.
Page 2
T1F District Overview
.
ROUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-33
.
.
Page 3
.
". ~
;:: I
~ :::=n
,. -
=.,..
,."C
<
,. -
--
Q a
~
a ,..
.. ...
~
,..
.
.,
,.
.
.
..... '. I
..~ . m. .~ (") )> ,\J I _ t...
~.. . )I. G ~
. : " (jj". - ~ fl ~
i:l -..:: ~ "'. -.
"~ " c.
. ::l ~. 0 CD " .':'~.'
liQ... X " ..,. , ." JI
~..(n N' ~ OJ ]. ...., J
~i~ -~ .;r - ..-....... .
0 <" 0" .~, '1
... :'-. 0' ::3 '\'.. '.
'!.. -',
.... .. :J
,II ~::: lQ,.. . -.. .. ~..
'~".l ::.; - en . ' '.:..
. ..- :2" fr
'il~;; -
~ CD C
iii::< .
:~:-: .. - a.
.2: 2- 0 '<
.!'I'. II
"..., ."
.
::
"./J ~-
" .t
.,
.:..
~
. -:':1 :....,_.
:.", ,,"
-- ~t
"
.i
1./
1,\
v
\ ~.
...._-~"'. .~ ,#. .-..:
,,"\ " : I
" ,'~'. ". .
--_\.-
\".
~.
-:~~... - <7' :~..~; .~
.....~ ~,~I- ,...
,. .. -_...... I" ?t
.
-("
: '.
r:':;_
:.:~~--
"._i. I
--~....
~.
;
, ,
.
.
....f
t::I >-3
H ~
en ~
>-3
:;d H ~~~
H Z
c:J c:J ~o
>-3 :;d O~O(1
~
z ffi ~<zt'!'j
0
. z t'1'-'ltt'jl-3Z
H n~~1-3
......
I "':I ~O(1~
W H >"'dt'!'j
w z
> ~s:~~
z
(J t'1'-'ltrj~
H >ZO
Z
0 ~
.
--
.j. L
~ ~' ::
~~
-<)C"'
c=>1'
C>
~ ]
..'
..
i
f
.
J
,,> ~
~~
~~~~
1'\ 'J::..'
- Ii' r """"\
"T\-..
...(t'"Q~
Iii.
\1' _ Q r
- \J
.,t ...... t';' ~
"'.. -'I
V · Q
n
~
-------, ~
~..D_
fl
~
~i
~=
E~- -Ii -
t ~
~3
A>
ef
kl"f
.......
'7l.-Df'1!
i
t
w
--
-.- '" .~. -'~_ '._ lit. '-
,,-
sa
II
<;.l-",
<------
~-.-
:l
~ ---
..:. I C
. .. I
" l" !I
- ~
~ ; .:1
TAX INCREMENT
INANCING DIS RICT
Nd. 1 33
I
I I
'T
11-A
STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT
612 381 3131 P.12I2 '" ", ,/",,,,,
'\ 111;i~Y/~tl.:::I;~~~('."~~\'~ ''ll . '~::I
JAN-07-2005 13:35
I' ' I "', J
$"
~-, ,t ,", ,..J .,', ,
~
~
1"/
t~l~
:~
i.~
"1'.
:,1
,J
,( ,
\1 ,
"
MONTICELLO
1,1,1,: II
"
~I\ .'
,I "
, .
\. ,\:
",
. "
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Economic Development Director
Phon,,;
Fax:
EmaiJ:
(763) 27 J ...3208
(763) 295-4404, ,
011 ie. korotlchaJ.::ru:c i, mOnlic$11 o. mn. Us,
\I
...\1_____.____-._,
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
. ,
..' I ~~\. ~'~ ~
JOR AND WAGE LEVEL - EXISTING JOBS
I " ,,. I II' '/ ~ I
Number of Jobs
, F.ull-time
".
'/-
1-
~
..s
2.
~
/7
.:,' ,C9mpany Name
::' . .:
:' '.WAGE.2004
'To.-t ~
. () I ~"
"
. I ,t 'I', ~,~,i' I , . I
",
. "1
Please indicate number of current employees at each level and indicate the corresponding benefit j~ve1., . ':~
I, ~ I
".
HQurlv Wasre
Level
Hourly Value
of Vol untary
Benefits (5)
I": ,
, : ':: ::'~.:: ,:.: "
. .
. ~. ,
I.. I
Part.time
, " I
(Exe!. benefits)
"
. "i;'>:';;;~:i~ >!.:;i,)
. I ..k .~ ~l~' - . I I....~..... .. "~I' I " . ~1
(
'J
Less than $7.00
$7.00 to $7.99
$8.00 to $9.99
..
, "
$10.00 to $11.99
~
t.
"
" ,
',.
, .
rl'
I,.
I":
.,~;
,,'
k~
~.,
.'(
",
~ .'
\,t;
l<l~
~~
}~\
t\ I-~
I"
.fI~ ;
[:';'\
f'.~J'
f. .'\
. 'I't!
. .,11 ~-:.
;'1,.:;,
, ~;"I~
, t I i~
j..k,
~'~f~.
\'~I '
;~:~~~~
\ 'II'
,~ ; I
I.",
~:; .
, I. j. \~\.
. ~ .-: \~
!"""\
) ',,(',i'
!~J,0~'
'~,.\.j ,\':.
J)";:;
$12.00 to $13.99
4. fJO
'I. (} 0
if. (J ()
';./jO
J/.OO
1. DI)
,1\ "
$14.00 to $15.99
. ,
1/,/
$16.00to $17.99
" /I ~ I '.
, "
. I .l~ .
I ,I, I ~.; . I
. . ,
',.,\ .
" '
(.~ )
. " I
, ,
$18.0010 $19.99
$20.00 to $21.99
, ....'. " ~
, '''.
$22.00 and higher
~-l rIA 1-,; ,'t::.
(-a~ ~Sl!
y 0-
,
~. \
9."'j >>I1t".f- ~ I ~ 'l j Ct,,,. JP~yq-{ ; tJ'^-
. f f /
g,y/ 7 ea I/-.J' AtIf,~.I,"J
(
. ' ....
." ,0
:''i '
,~
, "",.... ,
L,V~ ',,' .'
,...
Monticello aty HaU, 505 Walnut Slleel, Suite I, Mooticcl.lo, MN 55362-8831. (763) 295-27\1 . FlU: (763) 295--4404
Offi~ of PubUc Works, 909 Golf COllTllC Rd., Monticello, MN 55362. (763) 295-~170. 10.._. ,..,~." "... u__
:.,,\':,)~, . .
TOTAL P.02
.
Planning ('Oll1lTlissiol1 Minutes - C)-C)-OO
lClr buildings that Were built at that lime, and Crittman also stated SOll1e cities have a
clause that states they cannot profit from a sale ot'the lot onee combined.
DICK FRIE MUf]ONED TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF TlIF SIMPl J.:
SU13DIVIS!ON AFI.'ECl'INC; LUTS \ I AND 12, BLOCK 2, OAK WOOD
INf)USTRIAL PARI( BY SI IIFTINC; cIllE LOT LINE 35 1,'I~ETrO TIlE EAST, WITll
CLARIFICATION PROVIDED BY STAFF" TO THE ('ITY COUNCIL AS TO TI-IE
INTENDED USAGE ()F THE PROPI-;:RTY. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED TI IE
MOTION. Motion carried,
.
.
-R-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda... 2/01/05
9.
Public Hearine - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zonine
Ordinance reeardinl! the replacement of billboard sil!nal!e.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Staff is requesting that this item be tabled until action is required.
.
.
.
10.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/0 I /05
Consideration of a request for an amendment to Conditional Use Pcrmit for
Dcvelopment Stal!e Planned Unit Development and considcration of a revised
Preliminary Plat for Carlisle ViIlaee, a 242 unit residential subdivision.
Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation
This item has been tabled to the March meeting of the Commission to allow further
review of the submittal documents.
.
11.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 2/0 I /05
Consideration of Findine that City Sale of Land for School/Community
Meetine Space Use is Consistent With the Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City Attorney has indicated that the sale of approximately Y2 acre of land at
the wcstern edge of the Community Center Site to Swan River Montessori School
first requires that the City detcrmine whcther or not the sale for the proposed use
is consistent with the comprchensive plan f()r the City.
The Montessori School includes the existing church building as an assembly hall
plus 6 classrooms housing a maximum 115 students. The assembly hall will be
acccssible to all citizens for a variety of uses, including weddings, church use and
mccting spacc. This space will be available for rcnt during week nights and
weekends. During summer months, the facility will bc available at all times for
public use. Scheduling for usc of the space will bc coordinated through
Community Ccnter stafI.
Attachcd you will find excerpts from thc comprehensive plan, which notc that the
area on which thc school is located is guided for "Civic/Institutional" uses. In the
plan, Civic/Institutional uses are listed as: municipal and county facilities (exccpt
maintenance operations), public meeting spaces, community activity spaccs,
educational facilities, churchcs, outdoor gathering spaces.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Motion finding that the proposcd School/meeting space use at this location
is consistent with the Comprchensive plan for thc City.
2. Motion finding that thc proposcd School/meeting space use at this
location is not consistent with the Comprchensive plan for the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the ideas and expectations put f()fth in the Comprehensive Plan, it is
clcar that thc proposed usc is consistent with the Comprehensivc Plan. Thcrcfore,
staff recommends alternative 1.
SUPPORTING DATA
A.
B.
Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan
School/meeting space site plan
"'
.
organized to create a sense of pieces fitting exactly together. The picture that
results in a built downtown is one that is beautiful and one that functions well
for the community.
I1A
DistrIcts
Downtown Monticello will always be a mix of uses, ages and patterns, and the
plan recognizes a series of districts formed around basic uses and character.
Therefore, a building near the river will have a character different from a
building near the interstate. A uniform building character across the entire
downtown will never be achieved and would likely be undesirable for tenants
and the community. Within districts, however, buildings would have a strong
relationship to one another and a consistent relationship to the streets of the
d istri ct.
.
----
~~~,~~"""'''''''l":,,!~,,,,:.~~:,^~:.,'' "~:.'" ,."..
.
.
The plan envisions eleven districts in downtown, each with varymg U:l.15'-"-
use and character:
Riverfront
. Specialty retail, eating establishments, lodging, entertainment, multi-
family residential, office; upper level residential or office; two or three
story buildings; river orientation; emphasis on public areas surround-
ing buildings (rather than parking lots)
Broadway: Downtown
Small and mid-sized retail, specialty retail, personal and business ser-
vices, eating establishments, lodging, entertainment and office; upper
level residential or office; two story buildings; orientation to Broadway
Broadway: East and West
Single family residential; strong emphasis on restoration of existing
older homes
Walnut
Small and mid-sized retail, personal and business services, eating
establishments and office; upper level residential or office; two story
buildings encouraged; orientation to Walnut Street
Pine
Mid-sized retail and office; two story buildings encouraged; orienta-
tion to Pine Street
Seventh Street
. Larger scale retail and service, auto-oriented retail and service, drive-
through restaurants, lodging; orientation to Seventh Street
Transitional
Mix of small office, personal and business services, multi. family resi-
dential and single family homes
Neighborhood
. Predominantly single family homes following existing neighborhood
patterns
Industrial
. Sunny Fresh operations only; transition to CiviclInstitutional, Walnut
or Transitional if Sunny Fresh ceases operation
Park and Open Space
. Parks, cemeteries, outdoor public spaces and gathering spaces
Ci vic/institutional
Municipal and county facilities (except maintenance operations),E.ub-
lic meeting spaces, community activity spaces, educational facili~s,
churches, outdoor gathering spaces
,\ ~
L' ~ vi'
. ~J..~~ .-(
"/ p;S~('L
A Now Bridge :L
Revitalizing Mont/cello's DOWlltOWII and Riverfront ~
page3:13
,
i
,
, Ie>
~.. .., ,
,~'
j~t
.~
,1\
-+li
~~
G
.11
~
~..
.
I
I
t>litll0 39'\td
~.
~
~
J-.--.....
.3-
~. t
. J' I
-~.
r
1300>1
. H
.j
. ,.
: ~ \1 1t
; L-l
~ljh
r U' ·
, - .
;; ,
. ,
, .
I ,;
;. I
If
.-.'
-
-j.'
:f
f~
I
1SS1LLSl19 90:L1 ~00llll/~0
.
~-
................,
-.
-
.....:.:.....
.---::-......
'-'~
'~~"" "---
'",~ &
'-'::--. &.
"'~<,~~~~lt-l'&
'-'<~
~
tf'
s~
~tf';.
'...............
-.....~'.::.~::.'~.
........>
'.,:'.~
-..:::~::.:...--.,:."'
............
'"
'"
<Jl
<Jl
b'~
~ ~.
~~
~g
~ ~
$!
~1
~~
~~
\.:t\'-
I
'"
'"
en
"s..
l~
........
'"
'"
(~
<Jl
.
.
.
12.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/01/05
Discussion Item - Area Plannine: Effort and Alternative Urban Area Review
(.TO)
Verbal report to be provided at Commission meeting.
.
13.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda.. 2/01/05
Discussion Item - Open and Outdoor Storae:e Meetine: lJpdate (.TO)
Verbal report to be provided at Commission meeting.