The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 08-03-2004 . . . AGENDA REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 3rd, 2004 6:00 P.M. Membcrs: Council Liaison: Dick Fric, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragstcn, Lloyd Hilgart, and William Spartz Glcn Posusta Jeff O'Ncill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann Staff: 1 . Call to order. 2. Approval ofthc minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tucsday, July 6th, 2004. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. 5. Consideration of a rcquest for a ConditionallJse Pcrmit, Simple Subdivision and Variance to creatc two single-family residential lots in thc Central Community District. Applicant: Dennis James Custom Builders 6. Considcration of a request for a Conditional Use permit for a comlllcrcial conccpt stage Planned Unit Devclopment in a B-3 (Highway Business) district. Applicant: Shingobce Buildcrs 7. Consideration ofa rcquest for a Preliminary Plat for Nathan's Court, a residential subdivision in an R-l district. Applicant: Quality Builders 8. Continued Public Hearing - Considcration of a request for a ConditionallJse Pcrmit for a concept stage Planned Unit Development for 41 detached townhOl11CS in a PZM (Performance Zone _ Mixed) district. Applicant: UP Development 9. Carlisle Village Update 10. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance regarding: a. Topographic survey requirements b. Tree survey rcquirements c. Final plat submission requirements d. Park dedication requirements Applicant: City of Monticcllo Staff and the Parks Commission II. Long-Range Planning Effort: Framework Discussion ] 2. Adjourn. . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 6th, 2004 6:00 P.M. Members: Staff: 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: 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM, noting a full quorum of the Commission and the presence of Council Liasion Posusta. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, June 1,2004 and the special meeting held Monday. Mav 18,2004. . Spartz noted a correction to pages 11 and 12 of the minutes, indicating that he had abstained on the motions relating to the preliminary plat and conditional use permit requests for Monticello Business Center 3rd Addition. MOTION BY HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 1ST, 2004 AS AMENDED. MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 18TH, 2004. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Frie requested the addition of an update from City staff on future planning efforts and Comprehensive Plan updates as item 14. . 4. Citizen comments. Cheryl Steinmetz, 9313 Eagle Court, addressed the Commission on behalf of a group of neighbors in the area adjacent to the proposed Ocello rezone. Steinmetz inquired whether . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 there are buffer requirements related to the rezone from light industrial to commercial. Steinmetz stated that property owners also have concerns about increased traffic. Frie responded that those questions would be addressed during the public hearing. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the MonticelIo Zoning Ordinance regarding minimum fence setbacks and maximum fence heights on parcels with multiple street frontages. Applicant: City of MonticelIo Planning Commission Patch presented the staff report to the Commission. Patch indicated that the decision made by Commission on the fence ordinance amendment would impact agenda item number six, which is a fence variance request. Patch explained that for comer and double fronting lots, the current fence ordinance appears to unreasonably limit usable yard area by imposing a 15 foot street side setback on alI sides abutting a property line for fences exceeding 36 inches in height. The 15 foot setback for talI front yard fences is intended to improve front yard aesthetics and provide for public safety by prohibiting obstructions to sight lines adjacent to driveways. . Patch stated that the suggested changes to the ordinance provide a reduced setback, at six feet, for talI fences on yards other than the front yard. This will add 9 feet to the yard area inside a fence on a comer or double fronting lot, while providing for a six foot landscaped yard on the outside ofthe fence, buffering the fence from the street. Patch cited School Boulevard as a specific example where there are many existing fences constructed along the rear and side property lines abutting public streets. Patch stated that while these fences are not considered to be blight, they do not provide for a landscaped setback area that softens the appearance toward the public street. Patch stated that staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance change. Frie clarified that amending this ordinance would mean that the next request would no longer be needed. Patch indicated that would be accurate. O'Neill asked Patch to outline the benefits to the property owner with the proposed amendment. Patch referred to a diagram of the Quinn/Sylvers request, stating that a 15 foot setback would bring the fence considerably into the useable yard area. The 6 foot setback adds a large amount of usable space back to the yard. Patch also eXplained that with the current ordinance, the area outside of the fence isn't really usable by the property owners, but stilI needs to be maintained. . Posusta asked what the distance from the curb to the fence would be. Patch stated that the average distance from back of curb to fence would be 22 feet versus 30 feet. - 2 - . . . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Posusta inquired if the same fence regulations would apply to a commercial property, as with the previous fencing request by Simonson Lumber. Patch stated that due to variables in curb lines, only a certified land surveyor is able to determine exact property lines. Posusta also referred to possible blight on the sides of property lines where two fence lines are adjacent to one another, but not shared. Posusta questioned whether there should be a provision within the ordinance that property owners share a fence line in such cases. Patch indicated that those matters are difficult to regulate by ordinance. Posusta asked if property owners agreed, could they share a property line fence. Patch stated that in that case, the building inspector would recommend a fence line agreement. Posusta asked staff to explain the 25' foot visibility triangle recommended in the amendment. Patch stated that the measurement is common in many ordinances, as it is necessary for visibility for cross-street traffic. Patch also indicated that setbacks for outdoor storage would need to be addressed in relationship to view obstruction. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked if under the proposed ordinance amendment, a front yard fence could only be 3 feet high. Patch stated that for lots with double-frontages, the side fronting a public street, not the front yard, could be 6 feet. Carlson asked how practical a 3 foot fence is. Patch stated that Planning Commission had recommended that specific fence height. Staff had originally recommended 4 feet. Spartz stated that his biggest concern is the line of sight addressed by the visibility triangle. Patch stated that while there are situations where the lot is somewhat curved, the clear view triangle provision would prevent obstruction in most cases. MOTION BY FRIE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THIS ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2, ITEM [F] OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE INST ALLA TION OF FENCES BE APPROVED. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for variance to the minimum setback requirement for fence placement. Applicant: Aaron Quinn and Tvlee Svlvers Chair Frie inquired about the proper procedure for this item after approving the ordinance amendment. Grittman recommended a review and decision on the item as proper process. - 3 - . . . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Aaron Quinn, 9893 Park Place Drive, inquired about the additional landscaping requirements in the amended ordinance. Patch clarified that if the fence was set beyond any existing landscaping, they would need to provide additional landscaping. Patch and Quinn discussed visibility issues for fencing versus landscaping. Patch stated that neither the fence nor the landscaping can obstruct view. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION BY HILGART TO DENY THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED, DUE TO THE APPLICANT'S INTENDED REQUEST BEING ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PREVIOUSL Y APPROVED AMENDMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment to accommodate a change in land-use from Light Industrial (II-A) to Regional Business (8-4). Applicant: OceIIo, LLC Grittman presented the staff report for the rezone request. The property is located at the comer of Oakwood and School Boulevard and is currently designated for industrial use. The applicant is seeking a rezone to Regional Business, a B-4 designation. Grittman noted the significant amount of current and proposed commercial activity already in the area. Staff believes that the proposed commercial use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is in the best interest of the City in the long-term. Grittman stated that staff recommends a Comprehensive Plan amendment and re-zone for this site. Grittman commented that there has been a loss of industrial property through rezones in the past years, noting that the Planning Commission and staff will need to look at relocating industrial designations. Frie asked what the size of the parcel is. Shawn Wienand, OceIIo, LLC, stated that the parcel is approximately 32.3 acres. Frie did note his concern about loss of industrial property. Shawn Weinand clarified that he had previously offered the site to the Industrial Development Committee, who had indicated that it was perhaps not best suited to industrial uses in comparison to other sites. Grittman responded to earlier comments from the public, stating that there is currently no specific development proposal for the site. Once development is proposed, buffer yards are required between commercial and residential uses. This request is strictly are-zone. Frie also clarified that when a project is proposed, neighboring property owners - 4. - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 would again be notified. Weinand confirmed that there are no current proposals. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Harold Moe, resident, inquired whether there would be truck traffic along County 117. Weinand indicated that a B-4 zoning designation would not add any additional traffic over what would have occurred under industrial zoning. Grittman stated that as Edmonson (County 117) is one ofthe City's designated collector routes, staff would hesitate recommending restricting truck traffic on that street. However, that issue could be addressed when a development proposal comes forward. Posusta relayed that truck traffic would take the most direct route, which is not likely to be along Edmonson. Dragsten asked about other the property adjacent to this parcel. Grittman clarified that it is also B-4. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. . MOTION BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT COMMERCIAL LAND USE IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE USE FOR THIS SITE, AND THAT THE CITY'S LONG- RANGE DEVELOPMENT BEST SUPPORTS THE CONCENTRATION OF COMMERCIAL USES IN THIS AREA. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Frie noted the need to find other industrial land as part of future planning. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a zoning map and comprehensive plan amendment to accommodate a change in land use from Light Industrial (II-A) to a Commercial/Industrial PUD. Applicant: Otter Creek. LLC Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that this request is also another proposed rezone from industrial to commercial use. . Grittman indicated that the rezone had been addressed as a future step under a concept PUD discussed several months ago. The approved concept plan PUD included a series of commercial uses that would be allowed in addition to the industrial uses. The list of commercial uses proposed at that time was pared to include only those most compatible with freeway exposure. Staff has attempted to analyze the previous approval in conjunction with the new request to develop a recommendation. - 5- . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Grittman stated that previous discussion related to this parcel points toward a PUD zoning. Grittman indicated that staff had created draft language to address this unique situation. Grittman explained that if such a rezone were approved, the zoning map would change to PUD and the City would need to adopt an ordinance that lists the specific uses and performance standards. Staff have outlined in the proposed language all of the current II-A uses as well as the applicant's intended commercial uses. Grittman noted that outdoor storage would be a prohibited use. Grittman explained that in a rezone to PUD, any standards not outlined within the ordinance amendment would default to B-4. Grittman also explained that by zoning the parcel as a PUD, it would eliminate the need for the applicant or developer to request a CUP for each use not outlined as permitted. Grittman stated that the applicants would like to have a higher percentage of commercial uses than was originally intended in the concept stage approval. As such, Grittman explained that the second option outlined for Commission allows the parcel to go beyond a mixed-use to a commercial-use district. Grittman eXplained that in order to be most consistent with original intent, staff believe that the PUD zoning would be most suitable. Grittman referred again to the loss of industrial property, noting that at the time of concept approval for this site, the Commission sought the opportunity to maintain industrial areas. . Frie inquired about the differences between a B-3 and B-4 zoning district. Grittman stated that the B-4 is more comprehensive, allowing more commercial uses than B-3. A rezone to a B-3 or B-4 district would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. O'Neill noted that the IDC recommended commercial uses for this parcel. Dragsten asked how the land layout for rezoning was decided. Grittman stated that it was brought forward by the applicants. It is reflective of the future Chelsea Road alignment and the City's efforts to create a municipal industrial park. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Paul Bilotta, 4795 West 147th, Savage, spoke to the Commission on behalf of Otter Creek, LLC. Bilotta indicated that he had questions regarding staff's recommendation. First, he questioned whether the standards would be B-3 or B-4, or those included in the proposed PUD language. Bilotta noted that the PUD standards seem more restrictive. Grittman responded that the PUD standards would apply to the extent that they do not cover something already stated in the ordinance. Bilotta stated that the more restrictive standards would limit both commercial and industrial uses and that the recommendation doesn't seem to fit with what the concept plan intended. . Frie asked ifit was the applicant's understanding that the concept stage proposal was going to allow B-3 or B-4 uses. O'Neill clarified that the document they were referring to outlining the proposed uses actually came from the applicant. - 6- . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Frie questioned if the purchase agreement with the City is contingent on the zoning designation of the parcel. Bilotta stated that City staff had proposed the rezoning idea due to a new assessment plan for Chelsea Road. Bilotta indicated that a term of the purchase agreement necessitated the rezoning. Bilotta indicated that Otter Creek is confused by the recommendation against rezoning. Frie stated that he would also like clarification on how the intended land use for this parcel seems to be in question. O'Neill stated that City representatives for the negotiation are not present to review the terms for land use on the project. O'Neill also remarked that one side of the road is inherently more valuable due to freeway frontage. O'Neill stated that City Administrator Wolfsteller felt there was a variation in value due to that factor, even ifboth sides were zoned the same. The group that worked on the land negotiations did not want to usurp Planning Commission's ability to look only at the issue of the best use of the land. It could be that a strongly commercial PUD or a B-4 zoning designation is appropriate. Frie stated that the problem seems to be the lack of the communication between all parties, which may be due to verbal agreements between the parties. . Grittman reiterated that it is important not to make decisions without knowing with certainty what the City's intent for zoning in relationship to the land purchase actually is. Grittman stated that it would be ideal to table if Commission wanted that opinion. Bilotta stated that it seems as if two sections of City employees differ in terms of rezoning the parcel. Frie expressed concern about staffs apparent divergent opinions on zoning. O'Neill stated that planning staff cannot tell an applicant what zoning is going to be in order to secure a purchase agreement. Staff is simply trying to compartmentalize the land use decision from the property purchase. Grittman stated that Commission should make the decision based on the best use of the property. Grittman relayed that it was staffs responsibility to present their idea of best use. If there is a difference between what staff believe appropriate and what the applicant believes, the Planning Commission needs to determine the ultimate result. John Chadwick, 1130 Zion Circle, Bloomington, addressed the Commission representing Otter Creek. Chadwick noted that the process has been positive and is an ongoing one. The applicants were anticipating commercial zoning via a City document that requested the change and what was reflected in their purchase agreement. The proposed agreement still leaves 120 acres of industrial property. Chadwick commented on the recent annexation agreement as an opportunity for more industrial land use. Chadwick stated that they would like B-3 or B-4 zoning. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. . Spartz indicated that he was also somewhat confused by the differences and would like staffs input. O'Neill stated that it is critical to make the decision in terms ofland-use. - 7 - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Spartz asked if percentages could vary in determining the amount of industrial versus commercial use. Staff clarified that could vary under the terms of the PUD more easily than a straight industrial or commercial designation. Carlson stated that the site is a premier property due to visibility and that it is his impression that the applicant is looking for more leeway than what would be allowed under the PUD. Carlson asked City staff if the other properties adjacent to the freeway would be subject to restrictions or would general B-4 zoning be followed? Carlson expressed that it would be important to be consistent. Grittman stated that from the beginning, it was presumed that this parcel would be a PUD, which requires a higher standard than what would be allowed by a base zoning district. The advantage of a PUD to the applicant is more flexibility. In this case, that designation allows the developer more uses - a mix of commercial and industrial. Grittman noted that with that flexibility come higher standards for development, especially due to exposure. . Frie asked ifthe PUD's flexibility is to the advantage of the City or the applicant. Grittman stated that it is hoped that there are advantages for both. However, it is certainly for the applicant as it allows a broader mix of uses. Grittman stated that it was his understanding that the applicants sought a mix of both. Frie inquired where the option to rezone to B-4 had come from. O'Neill stated that it had come from the applicant's desire for more commercial than outlined in the original PUD. Dragsten stated that it is important that this particular piece of property be zoned properly. He indicated that he would like to table a decision for 30 days to allow further review. Hilgart asked about size of the parcel. Chadwick clarified that it was approximately 47 acres. Hilgart stated his opinion that it makes sense to have commercial uses right along the freeway, with the industrial uses to the south. Posusta stated that he had sat in on a number of the land purchase negotiation meetings and he distinctly recalls discussing business uses between Chelsea and the freeway. He commented that ifthe applicant wants B-4 zoning, that should be the goal. Frie agreed that tabling may be the best option at this point. Frie asked Chadwick if he is receptive to tabling or if he would like the Planning Commission to make the decision. Chadwick replied that he preferred that a decision be made. Chadwick referred to a separation of uses as positive. Hilgart clarified that the applicant is fine with having no industrial uses in their section. Chadwick indicated that was correct. . MOTION BY FRlE TO RECOMMEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESULTING IN AN INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF COMMERCIAL USE AND REZONING THE SITE TO B-4 (REGIONAL BUSINESS). - 8 - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Spartz asked about applicable standards for the district. O'Neill clarified that B-4 standards would apply. Grittman stated that it would not include the standards outlined in the report. Posusta noted that the applicants could request a PUD at a later time. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to approve a preliminary plat for Jefferson Commons. a commercial development in a B-4 district. Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman presented the staff report, explaining that the request for preliminary plat has been made to accommodate the request for commercial uses on the parcel. Jefferson Commons lies along the west side of Trunk Highway 25 at the intersection with School Boulevard. The property would include the extension of School Boulevard right of way to the property's west boundary, and the platting of approximately 55 acres of commercial land. Planning staff has looked at the plat in view of the B-3 standards, and the plat meets or exceeds those standards. . Grittman noted that the plat does provide for a buffer yard which conforms to ordinance requirements. Grittman stated that at the time the southern edge of the parcel develops, landscaping treatments in context to the southern property owners would be completed. Grittman outlined the current proposed uses on the plat, citing a Culver's Restaurant, for which a CUP request is on this Planning Commission agenda. The second parcel is a lot of approximately 8 acres, planned for the Monticello Muller Theatre project, also on this agenda. The third lot will consist of the relocated commuter parking lot, owned by the City. The commuter parking lot will be moved to the Highway 25 and will serve the joint purpose of commuter parking and overflow parking for new businesses in the area. Grittman explained that the remainder of the property will be reserved for future commercial use, with the exception of required ponding and the potential reservation of space for a future fire station location. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. . Daryl Cardinal, 9187 State Highway 25, addressed the Commission. Cardinal stated that attempts had already been made to remove an existing tree line adjacent to the property. He.asked if the tree line would remain. O'Neill stated that a buffer yard would be required with significant landscaping between the proposed commercial uses and the residential uses. O'Neill explained that if the trees are far inside the property line, they may need to be taken down and replanted along a berm closer to the property line. In any case, the current landscaping would be taken into consideration. Frie clarified that they will remain as they are until a development proposal comes forward, at which time a new public hearing would occur. Cardinal indicated that the diagram shows that his shed and well are not within his property line. O'Neill stated that the aerial lines are ballpark, the - 9- . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 survey lines on-site are accurate for property lines. Barry Voight, 3802 Hayward Court, spoke to the Commission. Voight expressed similar concerns, indicating that he is unfamiliar with buffer yard requirements. His concern is about families in the area. Voight inquired whether there is a possibility of adding a fence to create more of a barrier. Grittman stated that the ordinance requires first a separation, then vegetation; it does not specifically require fencing or berming. At the time of development, staff works with the developer to determine other buffering materials. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION BY HILGART TO APPROVE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE APPLICATION MEETS THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION IN A B-4 ZONING DISTRICT, AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. . Dragsten asked ifthe commuter parking lot would still maintain the possibility of being expanded or ifit will be smaller than the current lot. O'Neill clarified that it is very close in size to the current lot, with some joint parking possible at the theatre. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a concept and development stage Planned Unit Development. Applicant: Muller Theatres and the City of Monticello Grittman reviewed the staff report, explaining that Muller Theatres is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD that would allow development of an approximately 8 acre parcel as part ofthe Jefferson Commons plat previously approved. Grittman stated that the intent of the PUD is to allow the applicants to create a freestanding sign pad on a separate parcel along Highway 25. Except for limited PUD applications, off-site signs are not permitted. The PUD also accommodates the applicant's intent to provide parking at a slightly lower rate than the basic zoning standard, relying on overflow use of the City's commuter parking lot during peak periods. Grittman also indicated that the PUD allows for the use of a common service alley along the north (back) side of the building that will be shared with future commercial development. . Grittman detailed that the project itself is proposed to consist of a 14 screen theatre complex, with a shell building constructed that would allow an expansion for 4 - 10- . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 additional screens. During the interim period, the applicants propose to rent the future theatre space for retail uses. Grittman stated that the PUD allows flexibility for the shared parking, joint access drive and off-site pylon sign. The City's advantages are improvements to the look of the building and the shared service drive, which leads to better use of land to the north and less impervious surfacing. Grittman also referred to other comments on building design outlined in the staff report. Grittman noted the buffer yard requirement on the south boundary of the property, which the applicant has stated is not currently proposed to develop. At the time it does, they will provide buffer yard landscaping consistent with requirements. It is staff's opinion that the applicant intends to comply with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the PUD. . Frie asked if the theatre had originally intended 10 screens. Grittman clarified that the applicant had always sought expansion area for up to 18 screens. The acreage is consistent with what Council recommended for the purchase. Frie questioned the use of retail space and whether the City has input into that area. Grittman stated that it would be subject only to the B-4 standards of the district. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Muller, 4940 54th Street NW, Maple Lake, addressed the Commission as applicant. Muller referred to the theater's history within the community and discussed the theater project. Muller described the theater as a state-of-the-art complex that would be an asset to the community. Frie asked about a time frame for construction. Muller stated they were hoping to be open in November. Frie asked about Muller's intent for the present downtown theater. Muller stated that they will sell the property; he has already had inquiries. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked if the sign sizes meet the ordinance. Grittman stated that they do meet the ordinance. Dragsten asked if it fits in architecturally with what is being built south of the property. Michael Monn, AMCON architect for the project, presented a color rendering of the theatre. . Posusta asked if they will be doing cornice work on the building. Monn stated that as architect, they did not recommend them, as they are more specific to retail buildings. Posusta asked if some of the trees in the parking lot could go to the back of the parcel. - 11 - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06104 Monn stated that the service drive does not allow space for plantings as the area beyond the common drive is no longer their property. Dragsten asked ifthere is enough parking to cover the full 18 screens. Grittman stated that there is enough parking provided. Carlson questioned what would happen if any other applicant requested off-site signage not permitted by ordinance. Grittman stated that they would also need to request a PUD. Spartz asked if there is any hazard to the park and ride facility if traffic increases on the service drive. O'Neill stated that the drive would be built to handle the expected traffic. Frie inquired whether increased traffic pressure would occur on School Boulevard and Highway 25 with the entrances to Culver's and the theatre. O'Neill indicated that a signal is planned, as well as protected turn areas. O'Neill stated that staffhas completed an in- depth analysis to make sure circulation works well. O'Neill also clarified that Highway 25 will be four lanes to Buffalo by approximately 2009. . MOTION BY SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE OF PUD RESULTS IN SUPERIOR LAND USE AND EFFICIENCY OF SITE DESIGN AND USAGE. THE PUD ACCOMMODATES AN OFF-SITE FREESTANDING SIGN, SHARED PARKING WITH THE CITY'S COMMUTER PARKING LOT, AND SETBACK FLEXIBILITY ACCOMMODATING A COMMON SERVICE DRIVE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON CONDITIONS THAT INCLUDE ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARDS, INCLUDING THOSE LISTED BELOW. 1. Parking lot construction. The plans appear to envision that no curb line is constructed delineating the south edge to the parking area. The zoning ordinance requires that all parking lots are surrounded by a continuous concrete curb barrier to control traffic and drainage. The existing curb surrounds the current commuter parking, and must be modified to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 2. Parking lot construction. The west boundary of the parking lot anticipates future expansion of the lot to the west. In such cases where future expansion is planned, the City has permitted a temporary asphalt curb or other measures that control drainage as interim improvements pending the permanent expansion. It is noted that while the theatre is not occupying the entire building, the space will be used by retail tenants. As such, the City should reserve the right to require full parking lot construction prior to the theatre expansion in the event that overflow parking conflicts become a problem for either the street or the commuter parking lot. . 3. South boundary buffer yard. The zoning ordinance requires a buffer yard between commercial and residential uses. The applicant is required to install one-half of the buffer yard requirements due to the mature landscaping in place along the residential boundary. - 12 - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 This would require a buffer yard width of 15 feet and 60 "plant units" per 100 linear feet of common boundary. Essentially, this will require an open planting of evergreen trees, or preferably, a continuous screen planting of larger evergreen shrubs such as junipers. 4. Landscape materials sizes. The zoning ordinance requires that 15% of all trees are planted with a caliper size of3.5 inches. There are 66 proposed deciduous trees on the plan, 10 of which should be identified for 3.5 caliper inches in size. 5. Pylon sign age for the theatre site is limited to a single sign as proposed, not including directional signs. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing for a convenience food establishment in a B-4 (Regional Business) district. Applicant: Culver's of Monticello Grittman reviewed the staff report for the request, stating that Culver's of Monticello has requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a Culver's restaurant on a 1.5 acre site on the Jefferson Commons plat, which is zoned B-3, Highway Business. . Grittman noted that the applicant did a great job of responding to staff comments and in most cases, the plans provided meet or exceed code requirements. Staff has requested only slight modifications or requested additional documentation to illustrate how plans meet the code. Grittman stated that some of those comments include the addition of striping in open areas to help site circulation and the submission of a photometric reading for lighting near School Boulevard. Grittman explained that the School Boulevard entrance would be the main entrance to what is expected to be an active commercial area. As such, the City is recommending a "plaza" treatment within the right of way. Those plans do not affect the Culver's site plan, with the exception of small pedestrian access to that space. Grittman indicated that staff is recommending approval of the CUP, noting the few staff comments and well-prepared plans. Frie inquired if the sidewalk would go east to Highway 25. Grittman stated that it would, allowing pedestrians to connect to the sidewalk along the Wal-Mart property by way of the Edina Realty sidewalk. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. . Site architect Chris McGuire, 4675 Shinrock Road, McCon Contracting, addressed the Commission. McGuire requested that the applicant be allowed to use concrete surfacing - 13 - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 on the patio area, rather than the pavers recommended for the proposed plaza. Grittman stated that they would not ask the applicant to match surfaces, rather just to work with staff to provide the requested connection. Dragsten asked if the City Engineer has had an opportunity to review grading, drainage and utility plans. Grittman stated that they have not been reviewed in detail, however, they had been reviewed in terms of site planning for this request. O'Neill stated that the engineers did not see anything that would change the overall plan. Dragsten commended the applicants on a well put-together plan. Posusta asked whether the small monument sign had been requested by staff over another design. McCon stated that although it was requested by staff, traffic patterns and the location of the store made it the appropriate choice in comparison to other store signs. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, . SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Adding a pedestrian sidewalk connection to the restaurant from the sidewalk on School Blvd. 2. Work with the City to ensure that street lighting will be in conformance with city plans for School Blvd. 3. Plans showing the proposed paving design for the outdoor patio and public sidewalks as coordinating with the paving design for the City's plaza concept for School Blvd. City staff is currently developing this design, and will work widf the applicant on this project. 4. Review and approval of grading, drainage and utility plans by the City Engineer. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a concept stage Planned Unit Development for 41 detached townhomes in a PZM (Performance Zone - Mixed) district. Applicant: UP Development Grittman provided the staff report, noting the difference in site location than what was provided on the aerial image in the staff report. The site is designated as PZM, in which the City allows mid- and sometimes high density housing. . Grittman explained that the concept plan represents a detached townhouse development on small lots which rely on private street access to gain access to the units themselves. - 11- . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 The unit fronts face common open space or municipal streets. Grittman noted that detached townhomes are becoming more popular, however staff is concerned about the public or front face of the buildings. The appeal of this concept is to provide common space or street exposure to the front face, which results in a unique neighborhood. However, many units do not have the benefit of common space. Grittman indicated that in discussing concern over lack of common area exposure, an alternative plan had been developed. Commission received the sketch in their staff report. The plan relies on a similar layout, but mixes attached and detached units in order to achieve density while maximizing green space and widening area between homes. The plan also re-orients the green spaces so that more units have exposure to the common area. Grittman indicated that in providing the sketch plan, the intent is not to propose that this be the approved concept, but to illustrate alternatives. Grittman stated that a concept review's purpose is to provide feedback on where there are issues and opportunities. Staff has no specific recommendation; they are awaiting comments of the Commission, applicant and public. . O'Neill informed Commission that members of the City staff had visited the developer's Brooklyn Park site, which is based on the same neighborhood concept. Staff was impressed with the appeal and liveability ofthe site. O'Neill stated that issues identified during that visit were addressed in staff s comments. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Tom Rollings, 4550 Westin Lane North, Plymouth, addressed the Commission representing UP Development. Rollings stated that he had come to Monticello looking for a site that would work well for the neighborhood concept. He and Southwind Builders, site contractor, have similar developments in Maplewood, Anoka and Brooklyn Park. Rollings commented on the alternative sketch plan provided by staff, explaining that the meandering storm water pond suggested takes away from the green court concept, which creates more of a community feel through the use of sidewalks. Rollings also commented that the style and design of the units move them away from the barracks look of many townhome developments to more of a single-family style. Frie inquired about development stage requirements that would depend on the outcome of the concept approval. Grittman stated that pending an approval, the developers would engineer the site and provide more information on the buildings themselves. . Frie asked if the units would be patio homes. Rollings stated that they are instead small two-story, Victorian homes. Some will have a basement option. Frie asked if a homeowner's association would be established. Rollings indicated there would be an association. Frie inquired about unit price range for the units. Rollings indicated they - 15 - . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 would be between $185,000 - $210,000. Rollings stated that twinhomes are not the direction they would like to go with the design. Patty Pratt, 514 Elm Street, addressed the Commission. Pratt commented that there are already issues with traffic on Elm Street, specifically at the comer of 6th and Elm. Pratt stated that many drivers do not stop at the stop sign. Increased traffic could make the problem worse, in her opinion. Frie stated that at development stage, Commission would discuss traffic and circulation; she should come back and address the Commission at that point. O'Neill stated that the City is looking at putting 7th Street through, taking some traffic off 6th Street. Additionally, 6 'lj Street would be completed with this project. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Hilgart asked if they would be doubling the allowable density for this area. Grittman stated that it would actually be possible to create more density with an allowed R-3 development. . Dragsten stated the units looked nice and would fit in well. However, he is concerned about parking. Dragsten stated that he felt there should be convenient guest parking and that driveways should allow for at least I car to park. Rollings stated that driveways are discouraged in this neighborhood concept. The fronts are intended to be the focus with cars parked inside. Rollings noted that no guest parking is more than 150 feet from units. Dragsten clarified that visitors and even residents will want the closest parking sport. He expressed concern that they would park on curbs, grass, etc. Rollings stated that a viable association will be formed and will enforce parking restrictions. O'Neill indicated that the site is designed so that residents park inside. However, public parking close enough to the front door of units is a concern. Frie asked 0 'N eill if there appeared to be any parking pressures on the site staff visited. O'Neill indicated that it did not appear as if there were significant problems and staff did not have to walk far from the visitor parking area. Posusta agreed that there should be more parking, perhaps utilizing the green space to attain that space. O'Neill stated that public streets will also be overflow parking. Frie stated that based on the dialogue, he would seek to table as there are enough concerns to warrant are-design. Frie requested that the applicant re-design the concept plan to incorporate the comments provided and re-submit. MOTION BY SPARTZ TO TABLE THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND PROJECT REDESIGN. . MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. - 16 - . . . 13. Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance regarding: a. Topographic survey requirements b. Tree survey requirements c.Final plat submission requirements d. Park dedication requirements Applicant: City of Monticello Staff and the Parks Commission MOTION BY DRAGS TEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT TO STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION. MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Frie clarified that the item would be heard in August. 14. Comprehensive Plan Update O'Neill provided an update on the contested case annexation process, stating that the City and township had reached an agreement establishing an orderly annexation area. The agreement was well balanced for all parties and addressed the concerns of property owners. O'Neill explained that under the basic terms of the agreement, for the most part, properties can only come in based on request by the property owner. Land remains agricultural until development and infrastructure can be planned for. The terms of the agreement allow the City to plan for growth. The new orderly annexation area's outer boundary is what had been identified a few years ago as a planning area based on capacity of the current waste water treatment facility and allows for expansion outside of that area once the area within that boundary is 75% developed. O'Neill stated that staff would be going before the City Council with Planning Commission's recommendation of how this land should be used. There is now an opportunity to look at detailed zoning in this area rather than long range guide plans, Some goals for this area may include more green space requirements and expansions of park and pathway planning. O'Neill stated that there has been a significant amount of pressure for information on how development will proceed within those areas. O'Neill concluded that there is now an opportunity for Council to authorize the Planning Commission to move forward on planning for the orderly annexation area. Frie asked ifthe comprehensive plan would need to be amended. O'Neill stated that parts of the plan may need to be updated and provide more detail. - 17 - . . . Planning Commission Minutes 07/06/04 Frie asked ifthe intent of the planning effort to allow the various City commissions and committees to have an open forum for direction. O'Neill stated it would be more akin to a public forum, allowing for citizen input. Frie asked if copies of the agreement and planning process for the area would be included in the next packet. O'Neill stated that he would hope to have a plan and schedule by the next meeting, however staff would like to complete a thorough job even with the speed of development. 15. Adiourn. MOTION BY DRAGTSEN TO ADJOURN AT 9:30 PM MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Angela Schumann, Recorder - 18 - . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 5. Consideration of a request for a Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit to create Two Ground Floor Residential Units in the CCO Distret. Applicant: Dennis .James Custom Builders. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant is seeing approval of a subdivision to crcate two single family residential lots in the CCO zoning district. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit is required to allow for ground floor rcsidential units in this district. A variance has also becn listed in the application materials duc to concern over lot width. However, the CCD does not have minimum lot standards as do other residential districts. Therefore, no variance will be needed. The CCD language in the zoning ordinance lists the following requiremcnts for ground floor residential units: 1. The proposed site for residential use is consistent with the goals and ohjectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. 2. The proposed site does not interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian traffic in the "CCD" district. 3. Density for ground floor residential units shall not exceed one unit per 9,000 square fect of lot area, exclusive ofland area utilized by, or required for, permitted uses on the property. The Revitalization Plan calls for a mix of uses in the downtown core, including all types of residential use. In this neighborhood, other residential uses can be found, including ground floor multiplc family units and single family homes. StatTworked with the developer in attempting to develop alternative plans for attached housing, but could arrive at a plan that accommodated the applicant's unit design, reasonable setbacks, and minimize impervious lot coverage. The applicant's proposal is to create two single family lots, each with 66 feet oflot width. These lots would be consistcnt with the original plat lot size, and would accommodate single family homes. The submitted site plan is an illustration of two huilding pads with 30 l()()t front yard setbacks and 10 foot sidc yard setbacks. The lots would exceed the R-l standard for lot area. It is noted that within the original plat, the City has allowcd 1()f side yard setbacks of 6 feet to accommodate garage expansion on the narrower lots. Planning staff would recommend that these lots utilize a 6 foot side yard sethack, and apply a house dcsign that avoids the garage-forward layout to dc-emphasize automobile parking and visibility. Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Subdivision to create 2 lots in the CCD District. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the subdivision, based on a finding that the proposed lots are consistent with other original plat lots, and that the downtown planning documents support mixed (including single family) uses. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the subdivision, based on a finding that the CCD should encourage attached housing in this area. Decision: Conditional Use Permit for Ground Floor Residential Units in the CeD. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on a finding that the proposed housing meets the requirements of the CUP regulations in the CCD section of the zoning ordinance. This motion should include a recommendation on the housing style, including a recommendation that the applicant not use garage-forward house design, and that the applicant be permitted to construct the building to 6 foot side yard setbacks. . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a fInding that the CCD area should be reserved for attached housing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION StafTrecommends approval of the subdivision and the CUP. The neighborhood in which the site is located includes a mix of housing, including single family. By applying the narrower side setbacks, the applicant should be able to develop housing that avoids the garage-forward design and minimize exposure of the garage to the public. SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Image R. Site Survey C. Proposed Site Layout Sketch . 2 ""II!!!II'" 11) I Irp I: I Iii 'J . I : - ,7 -,c:",. <: I. ~ (Q I)~ c" o 1,$ Cft ~ :z 'e 0) !!i .. I if: ~ i), Qj ;' p.i ~ " ~ ~~j ~ I) J''', ~ , I II 1/ S I , '- :~ {n t:J (.../ t 14 ,,-f.\ ~ t'J j 'J ,t ~ ~ ',) l>- t" t:l) -'-J I" ,~ (::','i ~ 0) " 'j , _I ... .'J I ~. ~ 1; r~1t( D 'I..:: CJ I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I Ot 'f.\f.\ '" C\ ....." "'..... "":' ( Ii' "i. " --b ,)-., .;-.,' '" , . ~? ~ ~ .. / ... i / - \1' "i. / / ~ <I) 1""'1 ;' ! <./ ,,-' _~ JU~-27-e4 - . . 04:08 PM DENNIS LICCI~RDI 1'1 l~ 4977760 P.01 \~ ~ -~'--T-"~ ,., /-,---- ~ ! I f ~ 11 #~ ' I ~- , f i f1 , ~14 1"- .....- '~ ,~ ...,... ~ \ \ ~ L. . l...._ ........ ',J'\ " j f ...' '..I. ..'_"'_ 01.." _ _ ..... " ,. "..... .r........ __......_~I..".... I i ,,~ \( \~ /, <( 'tl !'l I ..-- '---' -,..--' , /tJrr ,'-_.' ,-- Ii .\ /' r f 1'-' b tt ".. ,--' ,- ,r 1------ ,- i -y--- [ ~ ~ ,,,_.~-'- .-..---"'...... ......T' fur -,-- #f'\' .(,e-. ,...-.--.--.... l ! i fI, " ~' - ~ :q . . . Planning Commission Agenda -" 8/03/04 6. Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial Conccpt Sta!!e Planned Unit Development in the B-3 zonin!! district. Applicant: Shin!!obee Builders/UBD Properties. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUNll Shingobee Builders and UBn Properties are seeking approval of a concept PUD plan that would accommodate a commercial development on the block bounded by Highway 25, Oakwood Drive, Cedar Street and Chelsea Road. The block is currently occupied by the BP/Tom Thumb store, Subway Restaurant, Ultra Lube, and a residential structure. Only the Subway would remain following the redevelopment of the block. It should be noted that the project is a coordinated effort, as all current property owners represented on the plat have signed the application request. The project consists of six commercial buildings, including a Holiday convenience gas station in the location of the current BP/Tom Thumb building. Attached to the Holiday would be an automated car wash, and the relocated Ultra Lube facility. On the northeast corner of the block, a Wendy's Restaurant would be developed. To the east of the existing Subway, a space for a new fast-food restaurant is shown. On the south end of the project, a full-service restaurant and a small retail facility would complete the project. In previous versions of planning for this block, the south and north portions of the property were treated separately, and a number of circulation issues were apparent due to the diiTicult access to the site. Highway 25 is an arterial, both Chelsea Road and Cedar Street arc collectors, and Oakwood Drive has access issues related to the signal at 25 and MnDOT's requirements for stacking traffic and the need for a median. As a result, Cedar Street is the only access point where unrestricted full access is certain. Chelsea Road already includes a median, and Oakwood Drive includes a partial median with plans for extension, as well as closure of existing median openings. The proposed plan attempts to resolve those issues in the following manner: 1. A central north-south drive is shown that would provide primary access to the entire project, connecting Chelsea and Oakwood. Crossing of this central drive are reasonably well coordinated, given the ditTering uses. The few conflict points would appear to be internal, and should not affect traffic on the public streets. 2. Access to Chelsea is right-in, right-out due to the existing median, but no access is proposed to Cedar Street near the intersection, casing previous concerns over congestion at the corner with turning traffic. Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 . 3. The addition of pull-through angled parking between fast-f()od restaurant No. 2 (Wendy's) and No.4 should facilitate trailer and truck access from the Cedar Street driveway. 4. Circulation around the Subway appears to be adequate, and parking has been added to the south of the building where the primary entrance is located. Staff would encourage the applicant to review the plan to minimized paved areas, while maintaining parking supply, if possible. One option to consider may be to encourage a one-way circulation in the parking lot and add angled parking to both the east and north boundary of the Subway portion of the site A few issues will still require amendment or further study. These include the following: 1. The westernmost access drive into the Holiday site could be a concern, in that it permits exiting traffic to Oakwood. Staffs concern in this area is that the median will be closed due to previous MnDOT requirements, and right-turn~ out traffic will proceed to the east, then U-turn in the street or the intersection with Cedar Street, wherever the median ultimately ends. Large numbers of U- turning vehicles creates an unsafe condition in heavily traveled areas. Instead, staff has discussed permitting the median to end where traffic could leave this site from the central drive and turn left onto Oakwood. Eastbound traffic on Oakwood would still be able to turn left. into the SuperAmerica at this location as well. This issue is still under study by the City's engineering consultant. . 2. Staff believes that the sidewalk along the full length of the central drive is a significant advantage to this design, facilitating pedestrian trips between facilities, rather than encouraging multiple-stop vehicle trips. It will be important to enhance this connection with a unified tree-planting and lighting plan that emphasizes the central drive as the primary boulevard access for the project. The architect for the design has noted support for making such modifications. 3. Parking on the project appears to the close to the requirements listed in the zoning ordinance, based on some assumptions about the nature and size of the restaurants. If significant changes in these assumptions are required due to building plans that increase parking demands, further plan changes may be necessary. 4. The drive-through accesses for the three fast-food restaurants appear to have adequate stacking space to avoid con11icts with both the internal circulation and public street access points. Because tenants for the project are not fully identified, continued monitoring of this issue will be necessary. . 2 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 5. The plan shows the need for the City to grant a portion of the Cedar Street right of way to the project. The City and the developer will need to come to an agreement as to process and compensation for this grant in order to accommodate the project as proposed. The southeast building at the corner of Chelsea Road and Cedar Street shows a service drive facing Cedar. Issues throughout the project related to trash handling, deliveries, and similar service functions can have a great impact on the aesthetic and functional success of the project. Planning stafT would encourage internalized trash-handling locations to avoid a series of external, remote dumpster enclosures. 6. 7. Signage is not identified at the concept stage. Planning staff would encourage a unified approach to signage for the project. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss the pros and cons of signagc trade-ofTs, including taller pylon signage in exchange f(x total number of individual signs, or additional signage area if monument-style signs are used. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Shingobee/UBD Properties 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUD, based on a finding that the project appears to present the potential for a superior project design due to the shared access and central drive concept, as well as coordinated pedestrian circulation, building design, parking, landscaping, and other site planning clements. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD, based on a finding that the project amenities are not in keeping with the intent of the PUD section of the zoning ordinance. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Concept Stage, with the comments made in this report as well as comments and recommendations from the City Engineer. The plan incorporates a high level of activity onto the site, but manages to handle both vehicle and pedestrian traffic reasonably well. As discussed above, several items will require additional study, however, the project appears to meet the City's standard flJr PUD consideration, which is a tangibly superior design which could not be achieved without the use of the pun flexibility. 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 . SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Location/Cover Sheet B. Existing Conditions C. Proposed Concept Site Plan (Sheets 3 and 4) D. City Engineer's Comments . . 4 ~ WSB .,',,'()('iifl('\.IIII' . ~ 150 olsol1 Memorial Highway ',,"ie 300 .eapOliS \ 'lnesota 55422 763541-4800 76Vj41-1700 fAX "1:' Memorandum To: Jeff O'Neill City (~fMonticello From: Bret Weiss, P.E. City Engineer Chuck Rickart, P.E., P.T.D.E. Tramportation Engineer Date: July 27,2004 Re: Shingobee Builders - UBD Properties Site Plan Review City of Monticello Planning Project No. 2004-038 WSB Project No. 1488~69 As you requested, we have reviewed the proposed site layout for the UBD Properties development located south of Oakwood Drive between TH 25 and Cedar Street in the City of Monticello. Based on our review of the proposed site layout, we offer the following comments: 1. The layout shows two access points from Oakwood Drive. The first access point east of TH 25 will, at some point in the future, be reduced to a right- in/right-out with the existing median opening being closed. The second access point fUJiher to the east is proposed to be a full-movement access. However, based on review of the existing median configuration, it appears that this driveway is not lined up with the driveway into the Super America/McDonald's on the north side of Oakwood Drive. It is located within the existing median section. This driveway location should be verified and shifted to the east, if necessary, to line up with the driveway on the north side of Oakwood Drive. With a full-movement access point at this location, the other access location should be eliminated. One full-movement access would be acceptable to be located at Oakwood Drive. 2. The access driveway from Chelsea Road into the site will be a right-in/right-out access. An existing median is in place between TH 25 and Cedar Street on Chelsea Road. This median will not be modified to allow full access at this location. 3. All access driveways to the site are shown as 24-feet in width. Although, this is the City's minimum standard for driveways, each should be analyzed with respect trucks tuming movements. Typically, a 16-foot to 18-foot inbound lane and 12-foot outbound lane should be adequate to accommodate tuming trucks. In addition, the radii of the driveway should be reviewed to ensure trucks do not jump the curb when tuming into the driveways. A truck circulation plan should be evaluated to ensure that trucks tuming throughout the development are adequately accommodated. MIl11lC'i1r)()II' SI Clolld 1'1".11 Opp'HIIIllIly i:n1lJloyel F:\\vPW1MJ488-6W)72704 I1Il'mo jo,do(' Jeff O'Neill July 27,2004 Page 2 . Previous comments at the meeting with regard to sidewalk installation, drive lane width, and access locations will be further addressed by the City Planner. If you have any questions or require additional information on these comments, please contact us at 763-541-4800. cc: John Simola, City of Monticello Steve Grittman, NAC 8rb . . FtIWPW/M/488-69\072704 //le//IO jo,doc . Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/04 7. Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat for Nathan's Court. Applicant: Qualitv Builders. Inc. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Quality Builders, Inc. has requested Preliminary Plat approval of an 8 lot single family residential subdivision located south of Farmstead [)rive and west of Fallon Avenue NE. The subject site measures 11.07 acres in size, more than half of which (7.3 acres) overlays a segment of an NSP powerline easement. The subject site is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. Streets. The subject site is accessed from the south via a northerly extension of Fairhill Lane which terminates in a cul-de-sac. While the general street configuration is considered acceptable, two concerns exist. . First, the cul-de-sac measures approximately 600 feet in length from the center of the cul-de-sac to the intersection with 8ih Street NE. To accommodate this condition, the processing of a variance is necessary. To be noted in this regard is that the triangular shape of the parcel and surrounding access limitations limit street configuration alternatives. In this regard, it is felt that some justification for such variance does exist. A variance hearing could be scheduled to coincide with the consideration of the Final Plat. The second concern relates to the encroachment of a portion of the Fairhill Lane right-or-way within the adjacent NSP powerline easement. As shown on the submitted preliminary plat, approximately 10 feet of the right-of-way encroaches the easement. While it is understood that the street itself is not proposed to be constructed within the casement. a southerly shift of the right-or-way is recommended to avoid potential future conflicts relating to future street maintenance. Considering that all lots significantly exceed the minimum area requirements of the district, it is not expected that this change will result in the loss of any lots. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. Density. The development proposal calls for a total of 8 dwelling units upon 11.07 acres ofland. This results in an overall development density of 0.72 units per gross acre. Subtracting the 7.3 acres devoted to Outlot ^ however, a density 01'2.13 units per acre results. . Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/04 . Lots. Within the R~] District, an average lot area of ] 2,000 square feet and an average lot width of 80 feet must be provided. District provisions further state that not less than 40 percent of the lots in a subdivision may be less than] 2,000 square feet in size and 80 feet in width. Additionally, no lot may be less than 10,000 square feet in size or 70 feet in width. The lots within the subdivision have been found to average 15,832 square feet in size and 87.8 feet in width. Documentation has been provided that at least 40 percent of the proposed single family lots exceed the average area and width requirements. Outlot A. As shown on the submitted preliminary plat, Outlot A overlays the NSP powerline easement. Within the easement a strom water detention basin and corresponding drainage and utility easement have been proposed. The basin is an expansion of an existing basin located in the northwest corner of the site. The acceptability of such detention basin should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and NSP. Setbacks. All proposed single family lots demonstrate an ability to meet applicable R-l District setback requirements. . Landscaping. A landscape plan has been submitted for review. The plan calls for the planting of one tree per lot. Proposed trees include Green Mountain Sugar Maples and White Ash. The zoning ordinance requires two trees per street frontage for each lot. . The landscape plan also calls for some landscaping (sod) along Fairhill Drive and within the NSP powerline easement. As previously noted, it is recommended that the Fairhill Drive right-of-way be shifted southward such that it does not encroach upon the powerline easement. Park Dedication/Pathways. No park land dedication has been included in the subdivision. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, park related issues should be subject to comment and recommendation by the Parks Commission. It should be noted that a pathway corridor will be preserved running from the northwest to the southeast in the drainage and utility casement area along Outlot A and Fairhill Court. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. Issues related to site grading, drainage and utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. . 2 . Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/04 Development Agreement. As a condition offinal plat approval, the applicant should enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision: . . 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Nathan's Court, based on the comments from the staffreport for the August 3, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat for Nathan's Court based on a finding that the plans will require some revisions to comply with the requirements of the City. 3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat for Nathan's Court, subject to submission of revised plans consistent with approved conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding review, Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. SUPPORTING DATA A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. \. Z. Site Location/Cover Sheet Site Survey Existing Conditions Preliminary Plat Grading & Erosion Control Plan Utility Plan Landscape Plan Engineer's Comments Hunter's Crossing Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03104 . EXHIBIT Z Conditions: 1. The City approve a variance to accommodate the proposed 600 foot cul-de-sac length. 2. Fairhill Lane be shifted to the south to avoid encroachment into the NSP powerline easement. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. 3. The location of the proposed stormwater detention basin is found to be acceptable by NSP. Documentation of such determination shall be provided to the City. 4. The landscaping plan is revised to comply with zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements and final staff review. . 5. Subject to the comments ofthe City Engineer regarding grading, drainage and uti I ity issues. 6. The subdivision is subject to review and recommendation by the Parks Comm ission. 7. The applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. . 4 . . . Schoel! & Madson, Inc. NA THANS COURT PROJECT NARRATIVE Quality Builders, Inc. is proposing an eight-lot single family subdivision of Outlot A of Klein Farms Sixth Addition. This is located north of the east portion of the proposed Hunters Crossing development. The site plan is essentially the same as suggested in concept sketches submitted to the City in conjunction with the Hunters Crossing site planning. The proposed lots average 15,832 square feet in area and 87.78 feet in width, both in excess of the minimum City standards. The proposed site grading and drainage is consistent with the Hunters Crossing project. The Nathans Court development area was included in the watershed area for the drainage calculations submitted with the Hunters Crossing project. Therefore, the stormwater ponds are sized to accommodate the Nathans Court development. The street runoff drains to proposed Hunters Crossing storm sewer. The street, sanitary sewer and watermain is shown extended from facilities proposed under the Hunters Crossing project. The watermain is looped west to proposed 89th Court. F:\CAROLEJ\word\Ken04\Nathans Court Project Narrative.614.doc ~ "WSB ssociates, lnc, . ',,'..."..'.......,'..'.'......... 'dO....O.','.,..\...'..'< >:':~;:S" .:.,,/vi,.::;;;:'::;i '.' neapolis r' Minnesota ~; I 763.541A800 763,541,1700 FAX July 26, 2004 Mr. Ken Adolf Schoell & Madson, Inc. 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305-1525 Re: Preliminary Plat Review Nathans Court Quality Builders, Inc. City of Monticello Project No. 2004-28P WSB Project No. 1488-82 Dear Mr. Adolf: We have reviewed the preliminary plat documents dated June 14,2004, and offer the following comments: Boundary Survey 1. Show existing contours with a dashed line type. Existine Conditions 1. Remove the proposed Hunters Crossing development plan from the existing conditions. 2. Existing contours should be shown with a dashed line type. Preliminary Plat 1. The cul-de-sac should have a 50-foot radius to back of curb. 2. Show the future building pads for adjacent lots in Hunters Crossing. Gradine:. Draina2e. and Erosion Control Plan 1. All backyard drainage and swales should have a minimum 2% slope. Slopes are less than 2%. 2. The plans should show the revised storm sewer and ponding configurations under the power lines. Minneapolis - St. Cloud, Equal Opportunity Employer F:\WPWIMl488-8NJ72604-lca.tloc ," . Mr. Ken Adolf July 26, 2004 Page 2 3. A different line type indicating future contours for Hunters Crossing should be used. 4. The typical section should not include sidewalk if it is not being proposed. 5. Boulevard grades should be at a 4% slope. The City's standard is 4:1 maximum slopes beyond the boulevards. The typical section should be revised to indicate this. 6. Proposed contours should be solid, not dashed. Utility Plan 1. The location of the storm sewer to the pond should be revised to the new ponding plan. 2. MH5 should be deeper to avoid service conflicts with crossing the watermain. . 3. The sanitary sewer alignment should be kept on centerline. Additional manholes should be added to accomplish this. Please give me a call at 763-287-7162 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. jk1i-. ~ Shibani Bisson, P.E. Project Manager Attachment cc: John Simola, City of Monticello , Jeff O'Neill,' City of Monticello , Bret Weiss, WSB & Associates, Inc. lh/srb . F:\WPWIMI488.8NJ72604.ka. doc " g D z (';J 6 g ~ ~ <:l -_1 ,,., '\ ~ ~~ "'''''''',~ .~ ~'M3~~1'~' ~l ..:g: "' *~,-. ;' l , /" h. ,.. @ US9nl 'PP!^ep 'l'ld a'll;ZO POOUPI190 '6MP'WOlS~P9S\1 - Ji Ii ! ~ Ku ~n i n .. .6 i ~ h" 8 kl . i ~&J h fr" i j I. I . ~j} h. e ~ h f[l!hij ~ Irhi t ~ !!i,jiijjili~j ~i~ !I ii! i . J.! i! 'i'~> "- .~h. Iii .!i -,;. ~.li ~ .hr~~ ~ ,:<- ! J;.II!'.lj' 4.., ".~ ~ ~~ l~~iI I~.. .,," ~ ]~~!~i! !!~f~lij!jl~ijii~ i .F ~>~ J'"I JI Hr' 0 ~~.,_. NO'11'V':J to liHH~~1 :l !soh iii- '" jJIJJJIJjl!JlljJJJJjjjjjj .e ~ i; . ~ ~ .. ~ ~ · "- f .J J 5 !~l~ i .< ]N ~^'.. ~ l;}i ~~til~ :e t ,'JSI] ~ III : j Ii .013 l till. I I IIIIII11 J 11'1111 II ~ :. ii~ ".. 'Ll"~ T' 0 "" . I, I II I ' II ~q <0 ar.~.i~" i 1 !: ~ ~ Q .. ~r I z ' I' II l.j~I-.~1 z ~ eO.lll,o.,,,:fi J ,11"'11 ,,~ .I~ u . i.: .. <I: 1!;fJ~(,l ~ ~ ~ :~: ~ 'uT r: s . < w .. "I iEf'~H~j . ~ - f "- ii!- --' II II ~ :~ ~: ,r j ~ \i -< :I s~ a~~ "r,;) .1LI" :i :H '0'''1 - ~ Il~ i l= ~ '" ...N .1..H ~~1 Z III i3 5' --- ''J,'J, ": n !J ~.: :\ ~ rtJI! ~ _ _ :; " " " .,., ~ ,_ til't<.:.- - - ~ - - - - - _ _ _ _ 'i "".-----'! I - - - - - - -" It '. f" ----- I ..... / I I i~ / I "R~ 7 \.~/ /// I "I .- , 1n I __--~.,2~- I ~f :4' ,+-' / _ ~ // -~ ....--......pl,........ -/ L _ _ _ _ J" ./ I / r- I. _ _ \ ~ /.' ~ I i o n'"1nfJ:; \ ;' I ~('::'~~~-:;h(--J':'.i / /... I ::l~(".,I/'/ J 1, / ~.~" I " / ./ .f'.,'b?'I,' o-'''i'---; -~---- ft)- ~ f' / :i J If" I ,/ ~ tI I . I I I I . 1// /I/i ;; /~.- A If.... I ~ .. J / :! I I I II '" '-y · I ! . II I ,_---.'''--.- I" if I III; .1 I. I f -z. 1'_ --+-t- r--v / f __~___..o--r- I " I I IS ,'1/ i 1 / V I !. I I . ;11 I i j I 1'/ ." /_'-'--,J I I . 1 ~ ./ I I', ,{ /1 I' fi I I '--L 1 .. . /1,' i .',' t / ;K' " I II I" ~ I.!" ,'1 I R { I . I 4 'fl' I ~ II,'~,' ~\' /1 1/ '/1 _l~i I I J I I /V I ,'1/ I. ~-/---.v/ .// / I 'I I II' "I I I I. I ill I - I I I / / I I' / b I, I / I i /1 f ;',' J' /",j 0 . / ' / l I _ I I 1'---'--'" 0 I 1 I I I . 1 e I ,I. ''---. I //. I III I 10' I I ~ ,,-- I I I I I /.. Q::;- ~ . It/ I I I / ". Q , _ I IIi it f /'...... I I .. ~ ..,.:g .. .. J I. 1'1. I;", f J / J! _ - o...'G- a I I II I: I /! \ / I " /;---J- ~.' . .,' 1/ 'l, / ,','! >~ t _L-~ . ~ i - ffi ~. , II f. / /' I \ I 1-/ i!" I I I ;; I I" !;' I \ I ".{-- ~ I I . . .. I ;D;II I '\ I .. i ~ .. ! . . I II . I l .: i ii I , f-J\ ,: i --. leI I r '-,f ., 1" V' . . . I I I I I II ~ r." !. ./1 ~ /140 " I I~~ " {"l' I . ~ll-T-~ . ~~/ _ " // ~ !,' i' / il ,'. I ~r " . ~ ,....;;1 / 1/ ---------------~ I',' / / /~ I ~ ~ JI A;J;~--~:l,l-I' //J~/*lr? ~~~ r~1! ~/ ,):1 --'--.--. '---._./._ I' ;; I // I . - -- i . I"/'-.. - --. I ---_ I /i J I ! i --- ' "// "".!.~i--/L r--...--.t "'/--.--. /\.//1 / ,/ Ii" 7 ~ --1_....;'1-----...',,,' ---j ,/'--.--. I I 1/ I" ~ 0 r r( ~j d1 <:> "- '- @I ~ o -" Iz a i= :E ..:i: :.E ~ ~-il I-<- -0 >. i= :S E DC >. :-=::ii <- ~~ >.~ H ~~ ~ c- o 0 ." >. . 0 i~ ~ o -" ~.. i ~ .~.l ~ ~ ~-" ~ ~--, ~,~ "~ "" "". ~ )"~..._~ -- J> ) '~~'" I " S6a91 n 'PPI^sp 'l'Id Zl:S ~:~a wa~/~ U9a '6MP'l Vld"l'II1311d"(laau \8MOI -----~ / ____/~ ~ ';'j -4 ''J,~, L . _~" ' '1:11:;;' ,_ _ 3N _~n~3~ ~~01'Y:IAJ'~ ~--I- .. - .. - - . fjf- .. ---- - - --- .- ...' --- _! ...::....-l..........' _, \_-~"'. .~~;dd~-.: =..;;;:;;. - .-----6'.'j<---. . --..,..- - {){-)...:(.J,;",./._" ';I ." .. --" '-,+~> :::....:-.::.......r.=- , - (, II' r....!.-....-- ,_.~.- -.... - j ! 1/<" '7"~ <;0" r' - i ~ "".-.- -. :;/r- r - -.-- -~ -./:j. - . / 'j~} J-- . ,>L . I I' 1',1 I ~ff. : tr,~ ,// \~ i.)j //' ~ '?,l~~/ /-'....~7 . --6 "'''' /1;' zt:; ''':51''''///1 i rttl i ~~ ~ . /,X. ~:~ ~.. ~rrlj:1 0/'\ I , I ~ ~ ~ I ~~ /1" .J ~;': / I t{. I / / - I :;: rJ I '" ... \ '0"c' "J 'f ,:I'j ;' , .1 () . :5 ll: Iii'" \..... 'Jt. 1..1 t,J /t;., !, II / 1 I t>~ I I ro~'i \ go', ~ ----.:;Ii ,-:: "" / /;/'/~ / 1 I I , I. .. . """'2:/\" :5 t'- '.. I'; / j. 1;1 ,,~ , I 1 : ~/.... -~"-.. '\'<;/ it -- :;,,',, / /; f I; / \.< i. , ,.. I I --: '-""'''''" .' " ", ;:::, / // /' \ f ; ; .._......,._ / j \.,.."...._. ..// '<,\ \\ \ ~ uj' ~j // / ,q.~' I ,( ~ / .. I'm, .~) ~ _ _ ._~. _ ,_~.:=:''-~""''''-'- '~;";J- ", ') I\.' /'/ / i ~&A I <:1~! !' OQg. aV;J.J.SU\n:lVd-'-~"'~~~ d;;;;,:;:k':i.'-""'-I-___.. /,,'}~1!1 / /1, J '. ,.(.~.i.;.! -.~ nil' r-~-=-~-"=':~-""\ 1)--.....,.-'-"....--1--- ~/f;,~l// / V / ~ 'Iwll ; i' ~" -'J i; ,.~~ .._._~: :\/~ ~'/' '~/ . I~~:"< ., -l:t, I;;' / / '/I\/() / ('\{/~'''''/ I> I ,,"', \ s :::",; if'" i A / .,/1./1;;;: _I I I ' II ' .;,j '" (0 I...... · '" '. .. I ; ! I i I~I i: ~~' II: ~ '..: ,\ ~~...- <//'/' 17/' '. "'1/ / /! I d r'(;~/ Q : , I : :! lO ',\' i!:o; / (),,' /1;'. ij-.j 1 I ~. l{~L _ I' ( III 41", ... \\\:l0J! / ()iI' '~'/' i I ~""I 1'\:.....,iJ. ""-. -I I It.- I ~loo;,... '\' 1/ II:! 1 . I l -""""':,,;' ',> w II 'Ii: I J..~ ,\\ 1 /,if I / l ,..1 "/'-..,..... ~ ~ ....'.it:/ : '}Jt'Ii ":: ~I! ~~ '~~\i;'':;''yl '/~//!;' / / / j II ,'fII*,./..~ /.-I.....t)'.>>.' , IV~ L. .J~ . I r.~....' ;- \._) ;- IlJ/ I / / ,!!:" , -, -- ~ ! \...... " t-.--.:-:::t':' " .. I f';"'\;.. ..\. / I '/' ' / ~ I , / ! "'\--... i . . a:c ," (:::-- ~t::="=.~. . . . I 1/' ' (i I" I If ) \ l;t/: II: tJ"J~' 'I'~""'" :--:~';~'.()~~ - //;: .,::-!~ r//~. ,/ "~(--If')' c'_.__... I ~ !ts s:2 ["--" ' ,. U to '0 /Ii' i ,I / 1 /()' /,1 \. I' ~tjl~~-" ,,~ /Q'?lfl'~" /#~f ,/ / ii' l' \. / m C....... I I \ $:..._ "'~ 'j"'" IQ)'/ ,1:/1 ..' I:; --;..- .....) I - --'. -~- r~ ~-+ .::L_ ~// / ;' / / V --' :: f.\..-. )) l< J) C)j/ ";r"'- /f? / .I /;' 1/\ r-:::::~~~ 'j I J ---J I <( ....; / /1:./ / ! / I ) 1 ( J :;//j / ~ '.1 ~ . ~"l~:.r)s .ff> (/. / / I. If: 0 \." /// / ~ Q: ,/ '1/ 'J'';!! -" / i ~;' I .,.... 1/; \ 'ill!; i 7, ,. :I; ,:) / i I! f , I ,.' ;I / \,.,---'" N { /1,1, ( , f I / .I / / ~ *'1' (f ,II.: .". / ,I ( / / / ..... '-. )'lU./ //1 / ~; "- fJ~ _~:-:::.::::..-:..:ll'\:.... / / ", I f/ "" " &.1 " 0' () r - -... .. n -.. -::;l= 1/1 += "''>(,,/<'1' ./~.f/ Iii: Io.~z~!~ ~ : ~ f:t: / .........,_ .1'" / /. i "".,( &<J:t/' I I ,....... s 7- i ! -';- ,J.>...,~ I I'~:I --...tJ ........ (r ~ ' . ,- '-- ~ .. .. I ' "",., .' /.. if, I " ./.' ' .( / gi:c::;~ II ,I ) L_...u -. ':'"",. s;i! (!) "/,..J; ~r /i,,/ .....,!/ / /1 '::>0 1/ " '" ,.-.- ......:-:------ ^ IX .-';.- .'" j;;J" / 'y:,,, /' / / ~ 0. '~~(f ;~~ - 1/'/ ~ I ~~) /' /'&-:::J./(3 ~ g ./ ;/>::... :::.....+~ / I . / " ._~~~~ .. ~M;r:~ ~. / (. ~'''''-...... /./ / (~!j (f-f.; ./ Jl I / / .......,i;t' "". 1(' / / /....... f ! .: ~~ / / / .......-- - -, NV' l11HfIIV.:I / )(...., ~~ "..:lt~/ "('/r)~> / //; ,-' It,'..'~' ~ iD ~,~ IT ,"", "'.... j. ! ' , / . .~. >- .~.~ 'R~)~"-~ I / ~ I. ^<"'-+.., /../ , / ~ / ,~"'~ >"..", '" /1/; ~?::...~:-/,' / ~ oJ '&./. S ~ l t':1;j....O IV,; .....'" / I /'! 1'. . f' >- ...... is '" .... '" ~r;i' C) . ("X ' , , I ,>oJ I :!. .' ~ ,.....1 I ~15~ .'" W) !\' J - /) / . .' ; ! " I ~ 'i ~~ ( ...... "" -, ,,'.f (';? 1/( '~. , F / /! i ,1.""'1 :, .. ~_-_- ::..=.:::.:::...\1..0-.. " %) " 4--""- , f / ~ .-::1::: ~~ "~~ ,c>:.... --,:.I / .. / / ~ ,J ::1 "-:,"-"rr."':--)H ~ ., I! . ,; f ! ~ 'Of' ~" ,_ ji . ,,;.~(.:(~,., ~~.>: .f 1,4 ~~ I'" If ' l,(' i "'-I ./ / ;' . !) I ~ /....((...'/ / '~i.., 1-~(..1~ l ~ ~.-~=~~~~=-~=~2j:~:: "', .\ I ) .....1. ,/. i~~-""". I ...11i1 ~ ~ o _~ .0.. 0: o LL '" E u o f'- o ~ ~ ~ ~ QI QI III ~ IU A) U UI"IUUUU Ll Dodl;;lOD 0 ~g;;)~~~ ':l oociooo ci >- W > 0: ::>z (f)O >-t !l: .- <(0: OU z}3 60 OJ...J w<( l4.l8 (f)...J ~ ,., <il r' N co <t =.. u VI " . . , . . . . .............,. -_..........- ........-...............-..... Itd-d-&d-d"ci-o- III 1/1 ~ ~ III III '" I/) ..0 O\'-Il;IOlOr--~ aD OID~r-tpn\D1JJ ..tt)tI1lQg\f'-l"""tC1 tliN"l"'lori..q-6..,jtd ..-.-_........~~1"'" 1\ o ~ ...J Q. ~gogBgg~ ....~....:;-:;-.;: w m o t,., <( w Cl:: <( _INNNNN{'4N .....................,........"....... ~- ..... "" I") "t If') I.() t'-- ~'5"5"5:s"5:s"5 ,,~~~~~~~ f-I-l-"t--t-l-I-...... 00000000 ..l..,J...J...J-I..J...J...J ...J <( .-. o f- '" ~ 0- "" Z >- ~ ~ ,~gg2i~ Z ~~>::E..(t-Ul " s::t.o;{ . ,gl;"ol ~ 8u:~t=t :ri Q::uiVloo:ol1li '" f",fOJ_ g8~ II ~ U II ~~~~ ~ ~ I: ~ II 0- ~i50 110 "'- in !i ....... C', ~>5 0- ~0ci 0 ~~ g ~~::( l" Ii\ Ii\ Ii\ >- a! \i':;i'<i IY <( ... .....,0 ",nO> 2 q ''-': N :::;: :: :::> U1 II '" I--- ~ II Z '" l!? w g ::;; ... '3 0 (L '" ~ Q ~ S 0 w " ....J ~ ~<(~ ~ 1.Ll t:.b'j > "- '.' ..J l'-' ~g~ '" 12 z 0 '"0 Vi Vi V1 . '" ~ o~ ~il I VJ ~ U:. ~t:r:; ~ Slg~ W '. g 'z!l;w if) ~~~ ~II ~ . ~~ g ~ ~~lij 9 , I I ~C:~III ~ ~ l,II:I"~"':-' li~P'l~~~pU~ .~I;!!h!i;nu ~I~~ti~ ~~~~n' -Ilial i~~~u~ s~ni~ ~ilj~~~~ ~~al~i ;~~i:il ~;;!~I I I~~h ~~n~. ~ ~~aU ~~m~~~ l ~~ s~ jlJi~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ '~m~i~ ~~ i ~~Q~ ~ "i !~ l~~- .~ ~ lJ ~~ ~ '"' g ~ la ~ lJ ~~ _,i\ 00 ~~ J ~ 9. ~ ~ i 8 ~ c ~ 8 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a I ~ ~~I.. ~_._.- L ~ :':al - J, 1~: \l~ Ii:: g~ h " ~lS !8 ~~ ~~ ~~ "'"V ~o ~ tn ;J I~ AI ~ 6\, ::r~ E: -I Ul ~ ~~ ~~ tn ~ t:; ~i ~~ "I ~;II" "2 m 0 !l'''' .. ~ ~ ~~! i~ - ~ t ~ ~ ~ i i " I id, L i IW' i~~ f., -~ "" o I~ ~ ~ ~ 1: SOO9rn 'PP\AllP 'I'ld \O:H:ZO~OOZI~H90 '6MP'A1I111I\'SIOO\lI()MOI' ~ '" 1I. '" u ':J "' u ';j w 'l "- -' j " ':J @ " :; i " ~ I ~ " ~ '" ~ ~ ~ I:' " ~ <; ~ 0- I -- - '4i-~- "- :;; '" '" 5 ~ ~ ~ " I ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii: I I :i ..1 tl e ill I I ~~ "' <> <> <> tl e ~ v. I I ';t " " z " z " 0 l:i;.t [ji 1I. :;; [ji II. [ji O. 1I. I I 0 0 0 " ~ I 0,", $) B go B ll' B ll' B '" I II>: 0- I '" '" i':l '" ~ ~ '" ~ ~ I J ,""'" '" ~ s ~ -'X 0 0 I i~ 0 " 0 0 I ;5 z ;5 ;5 ;5 ;5 ;5 3 :< I I 0 0 0 0 0 " " 0 ~ ",0 . '\."---.-- ~ 0 . <} ., l: T llll G 'Z eo, !;I '" ~ ., B '" ~ tt: ~ z tt: z ~ >- <> 1= ~ ~ ;;; !!i ~ z to 9 W "' " 0 ~ ~ ~ " 5 '" t;; ~ ~ :; 0 > t;; ~ '" ;:; ~ 0 0 ~ :ii?' "' co u co '" '-' \3 " <; z 0 ~ 0 z Z 0 ~ z '" 1I. O. t; 1I. ~ 1I. ~ '" " '" 0 0 ~ B ll' 8 If 8 '" 0 0- '" ~ '" ~ '" ,~ '" iJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i'! " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z is z ;5 '" ;5 i5 '" z 15 w "' w l5 " " " 0 " " 0 I I v V~~ v I I <J :~~ ~l 8 " 1\ N U~ <:> " 0 I < C1 ;U U1 "U ;:;: ~ ;U -< 0 -; C1 M Q 0 c G) '" r'1 0 Z c 0 U1 :il C1 ,,' () '" '" .... I'-,l N-l -., ~ ~ ---=- ;p.CJ.,,:J> "fl3>- ~ ~~. 2 ~,~ 8 ",z2:J::~~~ ~ i:: III Z FJl :z ~ [~3~3~~ 2-d~N~N)Io ~~~Ir'l~rr'l~ ~~~t&h: Vl ~ ",:;.1,:01 oj 0 ;?uE-l; 2-l; ~ ~ o~3I3I:;p. 0 ~~;l ;J ~ c: ~. M!!l ~ r ~. ~ ~ rr1 U> ~t;~~~~ ~ ~ '" '" '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ ;p.VI):>/,I')J>-Vl i5 ~ i5 ~i5 ~ ill 2~2~2~ ~ l= -11= --1~ --I ~ gM53f;;g~ o~o~oe; BBB "U "" ;:; 0 "" n1 i\i ~ g " '" :0 ~ 0 '" ", ;;; 00 '" "" ." -.I '" ~ iR~ g 0 0W ~ "" -< '" ill 'iJ R ,,' U> -0 n1 '" '" U> '" I " i1i := V1 '" g '" Z ',' 1'//-1 j "J 1111: I ~Jlllf l /1/ ' ,/ ,l': \ L j I~ \ \...... ;-- / \ \ ~ ~~- ~ J .. ...,).>......~.... ,~_...-::.:. '.:.:'.~"'-'-_._'~~! " ""7 / ~ "/ , / / / / I / I I I ~\ 0> \ ""~, J. t / , g . " :>- n1 Vl C / / / / / / / / ." '.."-....... ~.~':::.:.-._~ :-:"~-'~I \ i \ I I \ I -- \ I I ' \ l\;)\I~ '- " \ I I~"----r-"~" I ~_i_ "~"I J"">' ...- -j--- -, \0 ~ ~ c ( ., . ~ o V1 ~ r'1 ;u J"I'1 o C ;0 r'1 ,.. 'JJMP-1l3^O:)IOOP SilOBrn '861":) IVf(Bl'LO;1l ~OOZl9WO . .-......,..,~~~,'""~-~.~~~". " ~~-"'._- .,---'~. -- IIIJ lll"' . /--- l- ~ )~ iii ~ "- , ~.'''.''~~ I '" ~ ~ ~ f2 :; I ~! :11 j ,,/ I n.. - .- g~ ~~ ~ -<tg 85 8\~ ...1% IQI ~ "III ~ "'" Z __________--/-.- PlSl-~/-- ~-- Ut--t Wf----. /J<[ IU DU · n::: 0 0.... ~ .._.. ~~--~"._-'-'.~.i~ ~~ ~ .. II g . _..~ .l,._.._.._.._.._.._..;..:-". -i~:(H_H_H, r.: 7 I.. ". 1$1 w,~~ " ,L " -- _ .J ......-----" ''-... /'1 \, WW~~ UlZUlZ I I I I ---1---1-.J---1 0000 0::0::0::0:: !Z!Z!Z!Z 0000 uuuu o .J _J lLl D ~'':: Z o :? oo:::r c:J c::J c--J U> z o i= 0.. i2 xU WUl OW ZO o I.LI > W () 6Q9Q LU 8888~~~ 0: n:: n:: n:: n:: I I I I WlLllLll,J ;;z;;" ww3:3: ~~~~:'l~iro.. lIlZ'-;''TwW3:3:0000Cl. ~~UlUlUlZI'-;'t~~~~~~~~ ~ w ZZZZ I oooo:J:J:J--'z<i' > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DOoo~~~~ ~ <(I) 8888~~~~~~~~z~~~~~~~~ zzzzzzz ----uu---'o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z ~~~~~aad~~~~~~~~~~5~g oxxxxO::O::[~~~~~~o..o..o.. uwwwwo....o.... l.L o >- I- (3 IN .....J :::> ..., tJ W :r: (I) . . . . "uitci"a:ioio": ~ .O-Nn. ----NN w. . ...,fuiuir'ccicnr-.--rr-.......,....,..... w-Nn :r: Ul -... . . . Planning Commission Agenda .~ 8103/04 8. Consideration of a request for a Concept Stal!e Planned Unit Development for a detached townhome proiect in the PZM district. Applicant: lJ P Development. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicants had originally provided a concept plan for City review which consisted of 44 detached townhome units on a site of approximately 6.7 acres, formerly a part of the Ruff Auto property. The site is bounded by 6th Street on the north and Elm Street on the west, and abuts the Vine Place townhomes on the cast. An extension of the public 6 Y2 Street will be required through the property between the Vine Place project and Elm Street. Following preliminary City review, the applicants have made revisions to their plan. Concepts new to Monticello were introduced with the original project design that are summarized below, with comments on how the revisions affect those issues. 1. Alley-loaded townhouses are designed to require parking vehicles inside garages by eliminating space in front of individual unit garages. This design raises issues of parking accessibility, convenience of access to individual units, and turning/backing movements from the garages to the alleyway. The applicant's concept relies on a unit design that discourages driveway parking, which the applicants believe results in a cleaner look to the alley. As a result, they have identified areas where potential on-street parking might be located for visitors or overflow. Some of these on-street spaces are not in optimal locations due to curves or street width, but the layout provides adequate total spaces. This concept has been applied in Brooklyn Park with some success. 2. The PU D concept plan and unit design is intended to create a central "village green" onto which the units have their front, or public, exposure, with back alleys and garages hidden from public view. I Iowever, much of the project does not have exposure to this area, and most public or visitor exposure would be to the rear of the units, not the green space. The design has been modified to carry the pond into the green space south of 6 Y2 Street, and thc north open space is carried through to the north driveway. However, the green space north of the public street is narrow and does not appear to have a significant impact as an open space. Without this impact, the concept of a central green with units arrayed around it is severely compromised. Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 . 3. Stalfhad proposed an alternative concept that mixed detached and attached units in an attempt to add some variation to thc building spacing, kcep the unit count up to accommodate the developer's objectives, and vary the building style. The applicants have provided a revision that shows a return to the detached unit style, with 7 attached units clustered together in the southwest corner of the site. The intent of the mixed unit style was to add variation to the main layout, with the objective that garages would continue to be hidden, and additional open space could be accommodated. The revised plan retains the original layout, but creates garage- front units on Elm Street, departing further from the concept. In summary, staff is concerned that the use of PUD in this design merely results in a denser project without the benefits of open space preservation. When PUD is used to lessen the zoning standards, the City's ordinance requires that a specific, tangible benefit results from that flexibility. The common open space shown on the plan is accessible or visible to only about half of the units in the project. The remainder have no private rear yard space, due to the zero-setback alleyway, and no exposure to the common open space either. . It is acknowledged that the dimensions and configuration of the property make it difficult to accomplish all of the following: (l) achieve the developer's density objectives; (2) retain the standard building plan he proposes; and (3) provide view and access to a significant open space worthy of the pun requirements. However, this conflict should not result in abandonment of the PUD purpose. Instead, the unit style should be changed, or the unit count should be reduced (or both) to fit the dictates of the site, rather than the other way around. If this project were to have just 30 to 35 of the units proposed by the developer, with the narrow alley design as proposed, an open space of impressive and attractive proportions could be accommodated, justifying the PUD flexibility. In the alternative, if this design relied on attached units ofthe same dimension and alley access, 40 or more units would fit the site, again preserving a large area of open space. The developer has indicated to staff that they are not interested in either option. The project includes open space that will not count toward park dedication, as the open space provided is privately used by the units themselves. The project will be required to contribute the full park dedication fee of $1 ,200 per unit. . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stage PUD for UP Development. 1. Approval of the Concept Stage PUD, based on a finding that the applicant has proposed a superior project in design and amenities, justifying the use and flexibility of PUD for this site. This recommendation would be subject to comments relating to engineering and public works issues to be addressed at the Development Stage pun application. 2. Denial of the Concept Stage PUD, based on a finding that the project does not exhibit the required level of design and amenities required for application of PUD flexibility. 3. Approval ofa Concept Stage PUD that either (1) reduces the number of units to 30, with each unit having exposure on a greatly enlarged common green space, or (2) keeps the density and alley-access design as proposed, but includes attached units so as to provide for a significant increase the amount of, and exposure to, common open space in the project. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION . Staflrecommends either of Alternatives 2 or 3. The project, as designed, does not appear to fit the site, and keep the intent of the use ofPUD in place. Staff has indicated to the developer that density in this project is not the issue. llowever, by attempting to rely on detached units, the joint goals of higher density and increased open space appear to be impossible to achieve. As a result, planning staff believes that the detached units would need to be reduced to about 30 units, or replaced by similar, but attached, units to keep the density as proposed. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Location Map B. Revised Concept Plan C. Revised Schematic Utility Plan D. Revised Existing Site Conditions Plan E. Brooklyn Park Site Images . 3 :., """'I.", "".. - -~ "'~~ ~~"'- " " -~.." ~ -:SA ~ o I 1/2 MILE fI!B .,. ~ ~ i;1 ~ i s~ i i~ ~ ~ I q II i~ ';l r:.~ "-( i ! ~ ~ ~~ ~ i~ ~ x. i ~a ~ ~ R ~i ~ ~ i i il~! ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ g~ ... l; . J R e ~ ;; ~ ~ l i ll~;~. 8 ~. ~i! ~ ' : ~ I 8 ~ ~ <: 'I ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ", i : '" .: [) "0 i.,: .J.'.~:~.~\ '. ~ :-X', ~~~~'II h ~ ~ ~ a ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ If} jj l J ~] "! ~J 0] rl 1 ii ~,,] :; ~~ 8 !I i rd j~ ... olI i I ~ l >- ~i9 'li~~~1 ~ * ~ ! 1 ~ Jt D f .! i ~ tj~~ e:.U~ i s !!!'AI1" 1& r"l ill ~ ~~H~ Ihii& ~ 8 ~"''''IL'''' i. Ii [i jH 1 .. ! !~ }! .. f~ ~ J I r 1 " ~ w ~~ ;z 3w l:s Il} ~!;~ ~ >- t-jij (It -'&1 '" ~ ... ~~H ~~ 01 ~~3!ti~ >:~ ~ ~~n!!~ -' &~~~'" "'~ :r n.n..D..B. 0. a.. Ill@0)l) {I t II @ ~ :il ~~ 'j ~ ~ a ! ;; .2 ,," ~ <l: - " Vi iii .... ~ b +=-0 0 ~~ Do - E E UJ ii n_9-~ ;;:; ;;:; ~.j..1 ~I ~b~ il z " " z i h .~ ~ ~ u II " 5E D o t. ~ 0 :I: C_OL. :5 g~ O)Duio ..... .., -' i "8~80~ -g -g w ~~ u E"~:5-fj <5 a F t ba :g~o:!-~ __ _ z ~ 0 ~11 ~gu2: 2 g ::E J h Lf"~ :I: :I: I ~Ii ~.2~5~ ~N ~v ~ t- a-fi~ ~~ _~ c:;1 ~ :1 og'-g: 5~ ~~ "", . "j. ~ .~...... t.: ~ Cb ~II r II I bli "'il" :;;l J: .! -0 ~ .;:;: ..... a -;_~ . d~ o &::::.0 u.... :::I.~ %_ Iii CtiEi5 Z1J ~ 1 n: ~ cu-og.~~ 8".!!~ 0 t=..s: QlIIl1 tJ ~w '" d: .-: m 'ljiljj'llnr, i:J II 1111 il iJ~ / [I II t{ ilI.1 t ~7J "'~ ~ \ \ :, 1 -:J ------ I % .(~..'... ! l' , I ~ ~ r.n --j ':;:0 rTJ rTJ --j .. ~ Ii [j .._,.'.,.." .. . . "'~ i", , / -......... . . Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 9. Carlisle Villa!!e Preliminary Plat - Uodate. (O'Neill and NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Verbal report to be provided at meeting. . Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/04 10. Public Hearin : Consideration of a re uest to amend the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City has been considering various changes to its Subdivision Ordinance. The attached ordinance combines the items into a single ordinance that would make each of the changes contemplated by staff, the Planning Commission and the Parks Commission. The changes include the following: I. Language establishing a deadline for the final of a final plat after the approval of the preliminary plat. 2. Language amending the method for calculating the required park dedication for a new subdivision. This section proposes a new formula for the amount of land required. In addition, an alternative method is offered that is based on the estimated population of the subdivision rather than the acreage. In this way, subdivisions with townhouses (and thus, higher densities) would be required to dedicate additional land. . 3. Codifies the method for determining the value of land when a fee is required in lieu of land dedication. 4. Established specific limitations on acceptance of marginal lands for park use. 5. Codifies the pathway surcharge per unit for all subdivisions, whether land or cash is required. 6. Codifies the timing of land dedication, and establishes the requirement for rough grading of park land by the developer. '!- 7. Establishes a requirement that entrance monuments, if approved, are allowed only under specific conditions, and not within the street right-of-way. 8. Establishes a requirement for tree surveys as a part of the required information for new plats. 9. Establishes a requirement for topographic inf()rmation outside of the houndaries for new plats, to ensure that drainage around a subdivision is heing accounted for by new development. . Planning Commission Agenda ~ 08/03/04 AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS Amendment to the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that need subdivisions need to be able to demonstrate compliance with the City's zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan, and that the proposed amendments support this objective. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the existing Subdivision Ordinance language is adequate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION StatTrecommends approval of the amendment. The ordinance is the summary ofa number of comments and observations that have been made over the past several months, based on experience with recent developmcnt proposals. . SUPPORTING DATA A. Proposed Ordinance Amendment. 2 . City of Monticello, Minnesota Wright County Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR CHANGES TO STANDARDS AND PROCESSING RELATED TO PARK DEDICATION, FINAL PLAT FILING, AND SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains; Section 1. Section 11-3-3 is hereby amended by adding the following subsections; 11-3-3; . (C) RECORDING FINAL PLAT; If the final plat is approved ~y the City Council, the subdivider shall record it with the County Recorder within one hundred (100) days after said approval. If the subdivider fails t~ record the final plat, the approval shall be considered void, unless a request for time e~nsion is submitted in writing and approved by the City Council prior to the expiration of the one hundred (100) day period. The subdivider shall, immediat~ ~pon~~ding, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of recording. No building permits shall be Jet for construction of any structure on any lot in said plat until the City has received evidence of the plat being recorded by the County. - (D) RECORDING OF MULTIPLE-PHASED PLATS; If a-Ereliminary 21at is final Rlatted in stages, unless otherwis~ 12J'ovided for in the development contract, . all~ta~~ ~st_be fin~latte~into lots and blocks (not outlots), within three (3) years after the prelimiI?-a~ ~t has been approved-E~the City Council. If the final plats are not~rove~and recorded in accordance with this time fram~he-Ereliminary plat ~oval shall be considered---'yoid,---ynles~2~~uest for time extension is submitted in writinlLand . approved by the City Council prior to the expiration ?f t~e three (3) year period. Section 2. Section 11-6-1 (A) is hereby amended to read as follows: 11-6-1 . (A) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subdivision 2, the City Council of Monticello shall require all developers requesting platting or replatting of land in the City of Monticello to contribute an"amoun:t= of land fo~ pub~ic park and trail purposes. The l?catior:t~said ~and shall be at the discretion of _. the City Council. The amount of said land shall be reasonably commensurate with the dem~nd that the platting or rep~atting plac~s on the City park system, as described in ~he Comprehensive.Plan. For purpose~ of this Section, an ~ount of land equal to !~rcent (lO%)of the total gross land area.of the pl~! shall be presumptively defined as "reasonably comm~nsurate". In the event that the subdivider ~bjec~s ~o the ten percent (10%) standard,.. the C~ty sh,CiII, at th~ develop~r's request and_expense, co~duct ~ spec~fic ded~cati.(;m st!ldy of the park system and the demand placed on the sys~em by the proposed plat: fAIt: For purpo.ses of this Section, .an amount of land equal to one (1) acr~. for each 75 persons in the subdivisjon shall by EE,esumptively defined as "reasonably commensurate". To esti~ate the population of the subdivisj.on, a hous~hold ~ize ot 3.5 persons per unit for single family !;Lomes, and ~.' 5 peJ::"sonsper unit for attached housing shall, be used. J_ Erior to cOEducting th~ study, the City shall obtain a waiyer of statutory time lines for plat approval durinq the conduct .of the study. No approv:al of final platsL ~or constru~tion ?f any improvements, sh~ll occur un~il the pa~k dedi.cation study is ci:)mpleted. 10 lieu ._?f l?nd deciication, the City Council may requi_re a c.ash cont~ibuti.on in_accoY.0ance ,wi th Minneso~a Sta~utes,. or a combinatio~ of ~i:)th. The City Co~ncil's deci~ion on lan~ and/or cash shall be made follo~ing recommeI1dation,s fro,.!!! t~e Ci~y' s P_ark Commission and staff, in accorC!ance ~ith the C?mpre0ensive PlaI1_-t;..e.R-percent (10%-),. of the fin.::t~ pl3t gross area to be dedicated for use ac-eithe~ parks, pl3ygroundc, -publiG open space, or ~inear,park and trail . . . . -&ystemc or to contribute an cquiv:llent :lmount of caeh baeed on the conditione outlined, below. The form G-f- contribution (c:lsh or land, or any combination there-e-f--f- and the epecific are:l in c:lsed of land contribution eh:lll Be-----Eiecided by the City Council baeed upon need and conform:lnce with :lpproved City plane. Section 3. Section 11-6-1 (B) is hereby amended to read as follows: (B) In accordance with Minnesota. Statutes, w.0ere the City Council determines that the park dedication requirement shall be paid in a cash contribution, the amount ,of s~id contribution shall be based on the market value of the '. . land no later than at the time of final plat '.._ The City may require that the subdivider provide an.. appraisal to determine the market value. In the alternative, the City may, by Ordinance, esta~lish ~ fee per residenti~l unit th.-at w~ll me.et the cash. dedication ~equirement. The determination of the appropr~ate fee calculation shall be made b,y th~ City Council. Section 4. Section 11-6-1 (C) is hereby amended to read as follows: ( C) Ihe City C~uncil shall not a~cept for credit against a subdivider's park dedication requirement any of the following: 1. Delineated wetlands. 2. ~and ,,:,ithin a designate? floodplain. 3. Land encumbered ~y a u~ility easement sucb as a petroleu~ or electri~ power transmission. line !except whE;re su_ch easement is a standard plat!:ing reguirernent of.. the .City ?f Mont::.icello pursuant to SectiC?0 11-5-4 .?f th~_s Chapter ,~nd where the City ?-eterm~.!les that the land wi~hin t!1e eas~ment ~ill be usable_,for park, trail, or open space purposes.L 4. Land, within a drainag~ ease~ent, o! other land required, for stormwater t:r:,eatment. . . . The City may, at its discretion, accept lands in the above categories for park dedication purposes if it ?eems the dedication to be of public benefi~. No_credit shall ~iven aga~nst the subdivider's park de~ication requirement, however, unless the City determines that ~he land will be used for a specific public park, trail, or open_space purpose. Section 5. Section 11-6-1 is hereby amended to add the following subsection: (F) In addition to the park dedication requirements listed above, each newly subdivided lot shall pay a surcharge for... park and trail development purposes. The surcharge wi~l be at a prevailing rate as determined by the City Council. Section 6. Section 11-6-1 (E) is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Land dedicated for park purposes shall be transferred to the City of Monticello by warranty deed. The transfer of ~aid land~~hall oc~ur at the ti~e of recording of the final plat. For multiple-phased de~elopm~nts, all of the park ded~cation land shown on the approved ?relimil]~~ plat shall be transferred to the City upo~ the re~ording of the first final plat, in the form of Outlot(s) and shall not be shown as "Park" on the pla.:.t. The Develqpment Agreemen~ may permit the phasing of_said land transfer. In addition, the Development Agreement shall grantthe sub?ivider a liceI]-se to ~nter 1:;he pa~~ de~ication ~and for__ the pUEPoses .cA requ.~red g~ading , se~ding, or other '/Jork approved by the. ci ty C;:ouncil~~_ Section 7. Section 11-5-3 is hereby amended to add the following: (M) SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE MONUMENTS: Subdivision Entrance - - Monuments shall only ~e allo~ed ln~~onformance ~ith Tit~~ . . . 10, Section 10-3 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, and shall be required to meet the following standards: 1. No such En~~Monument may be located within the public ri~of way of any street. 2. Entrance Monuments shall be permitted only where an association of homeowners has been established with the legal and financial responsibility for maintenance of the monument. 3. In the event that the monument becomes a nuisance~ either thro~h lack of maintenance or other event, or becomes a hazard to traffic, the. City may remove said monument at the expense of the property owner on whose property the monument is located, or at the expense of the association if appropriate, or both. Section 8. Section 11-4-1 (B) is hereby amended to add the following; 12. A survey of all trees on the property, including location, size, and species. Deciduous trees that ar~ less~~ix (6) inches is diameter at a point five (5) feet above the natural grade, or trees that are of ~ndesirable species, including Poplar, Boxelder, or ~lm~ma~be exempted from this survey. Section 9. Section 11-4-1 (B) 11. is hereby amended to read as follows: 11. A proposed grading plan Showing the present and existing contours at a two (2) foot contour interval~ .!:ogethe~with off-site existing contours within two hundred (200) feet of the proposed subdivis~on. If determined. to b~necessary by the Ci tL Engineer ,--.2ne J.l:-L foot~ontours~ be required for----.Proposed~radi.Q9 El-an~in order~~nsure proper drain~e. Th~ propose~radiEg~lan shall demonstrate a qesia~fo~ the~bdi~ision that respects the natural ~ograph~ . . ..... ?nd preserves existing trees, wetlands, and other natural features. Section 10. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and PUblication. Bruce Thielen, Mayor ATTEST: Dawn Grossinger, City Clerk AYES: NAYS: