Planning Commission Agenda 10-02-2001
.
"
-) .
. 4.
5.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICF.LLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - October 2,2001
7:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick Fric, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
S tafT:
Jeff O'NeilL Frcd Patch and Steve Grittman
I. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 4, 200 I and minutes of the
special meeting workshop held September 18, 200 I.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Continued Public Ilcaring - Consideration of a Concept Plan for a Residential Planned
Unit Development in a PZM Zoning District. Applicant: Silver Creek Development.
Request Planning Commission action to deny, but allowing applicant to resubmit at a
later date. (.lefT O'Neill to report).
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the 30 foot front yard
setback requirements to allow construction of a one-stall garage onto existing two-stall
garage. Applicant: Scott Hamilton
7.
Public Hearing - Consideration or a request f()r concept stage residential planncd unit
development approval. Applicant: Front Porch Associates, Ltd., Michael Cyr
8.
Adjournment.
-1-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - September 4, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson and Rod Dragsten
Absent:
Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Staff Present:
JefT O'NeiIL Fred Patch. Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 PM.
2.
Approval of minutes of the special meeting held June 25. 2001 and the regular meetinQ
held August 7. 2001.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON
JUNE 25.2001. Motion carried unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGS TEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING ON AUGUST 7, 2001. Motion carried with Roy Popilek
abstaining.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Robbie Smith wished to add discussion regarding Royal Tire and parking issues. This
was placed as item 9 on the agenda.
4. Citizens comments. None
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment of Zoning code Chapter 13.
Section 13-4. [Jl 5. reducing side vard setbacks to 10 feet. Applicant: City of Monticello.
Fred Patch. Building OfficiaL provided the staff report stating that in the B-3 district. pet
hospitals are allowed by conditional use permit subject to several requirements which he
-1-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/04/01
advised of. One of these requirements applies a 20 foot sideyard setback rather than the
10 foot sidcyard setback typical in the B-3 district.
Staff has found that there is no substantial reason for the increased sideyard setback for
pet hospitals in the B-3 district and therefore recommended that it be removed from the
ordinance as it excessively restricts and interferes with full use of the commercial lands
within the B.3 district. By doing this it would put the setbacks to 10 feet.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing and with no response, the public hearing was then
closed. Frie concurred that the 20 foot setback requirement was too restrictive.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POP[LEK AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REMOVING THE SPECIAL 20 FOOT SIDEY ARD
SETBACK FOR PET HOSPITALS AS CONSIDERED BY CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT IN THE B-3 lONE. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a
planned unit development in a residential district. Applicant: Scott Dahlke.
Steve Grittman, City Planner. provided the staff report. The applicant is requesting
approval of a PUD to allow the construction of eight townhomes upon a 1.0 acre parcel of
land located south of West Third Street and west of Elm Street. The proposed dwelling
units would be dispersed within two. four unit structures upon the property.
Grittman advised of the adjacent uses as well as that this proposed use is generally
generally consistent with the provision of the City's Comprehensive Plan policies in that
it promotes a wider range of housing choices in the City. Grittman also noted that
townhouses are allowed in this district as a Conditional Use Permit PUD.
Grittman stated that the applicant was in compliance with the requirements of the
performance standards of the zoning ordinance. The proposed development is to be
accessed from the south via a private driveway constructed within the West Fourth Street
right-of-way. To allow such condition, a specific license must be issued.
Grittman advised that because utilities will be located in this area, the residents of the
project should be notified that utility work will result in the residents need to repair the
private driveway. The acceptability of the temporary private driveway and issues
associated with the referenced licensing requirement should be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer.
[t was stated that while the proposed landscaping is considered positive, it is
recommended that additional plantings be provided within the interior "garage courf'
..,
-...-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/04/01
area of the development and that foundation plantings such as shrubs, be provided along
the perimeter of the proposed structures. As part of the forthcoming Development Plan
Stage submission, a detailed landscape plan should be submitted which identifies the
location, size and variety of all site plantings.
Grittman stated that as part of the Development Plan Stage submission. preliminary
building elevations should be submitted and he noted that buildings within the R-2
zoning district are limited to :2 \12 stories in height.
Garbage pick-up and mail service for the proposed development is to be provided along
Elm Street. Grittman rccommcnded that sidewalk connections be provided on the north
and south sides of the eastern townhome building, connecting the interior "garage court"
with Elm Street and a mailbox structure (for the eight townhome units) be erected along
Elm Street adjacent to one of the recommended sidewalks. Design details for the
mailbox structures should be submitted prior to Final Stage PUD approval.
As part of this application. a preliminary utility plan was submitted and the plan will be
subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. As part of the Developmcnt Plan
Stage submission, the applicant will need to submit a grading and drainage plan which
will also be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer.
.
The applicant will be required to provide appropriate cash contribution for park and trail
dedication and shall be consistent with City policy.
To allow the sale of the individual townhome units, the subject property will need to be
subdivided in a base lot/unit lot arrangement. As part of the forthcoming Development
Plan Stage submission. a preliminary plat depicting the proposed subdivision of the
property should be submitted.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dave Gerads, 303 Vine Street, questioned if these
units would be rental or owner/occupied and Scott Dahlke. applicant. stated that these
would be owner/occupied and would sell for approximately $110 to $120 per unit. Mr.
Gerads also was concerned with traffic on Elm Street as well as parking and it was stated
that Elm Street would be a "glorified driveway access" into these units stating that 41h
Street is not intended to be a full street. Grittman also added that it would actually be an
advantage to have Elm Street as the main access into this development as it creates a
natural intersection with 4th Street stating this is a beneficial design. Chair Frie closed
the public hearing.
.
Chair Frie asked Dahlke about the size of the units and would they be more a size for
dderly persons versus families. Dahlke stated that his experience \vith these types and
sizes oftownhome units. 1500 sq. fl:.. has been a variety of single people as well as
"empty nesters". Dalke also stated he has a similar project in Albertville. Chair Frie
.,
-J-
.
Planning COlllmission Minutes - 09/04/0 I
mentioned safety as that road veers left in this area and the Planning Commission should
be concerned with the entrance. He also asked about the time frame to which Dahlke
stated this fall to complete development and tinal stage with a proposed winter
construction. Frie also questioned who would maintain this development and it was
stated that it would be taken care of by the owners. Dahlke added that there would be an
association in this development.
There was discussion among the commissioners regarding snow removal and single
access into the development with concerns for emergency vehicles. Grittman stated it
appears to be designed that any type of vehicle would be able to get in/out, adding that
the Public Works Director is also looking at the design at this time. The commissioners
discussed adequate parking for visitors and Grittman stated that overt10w parking would
occur on 4th Street and that each unit would have a two stall garage as well as adequate
driveway space. The commissioners questioned garbage pickup as well and Grittman
stated the design of the project would be better served on the street and the developer may
have to take it out to Elm Street. Frie asked again about requirements for the driveways
such as I ighting and vvidth. Grittman stated they would look for a width of 26 to 28 feet
for the drive along 4th Street and the remainder would be the minimum 24 feet. Dahlke
added that there is a street light after the intersection.
.
Quality of the proposed townhome units was also discussed in relation to the existing
homes to the north and the new townhomes built by Cyr stating they should be a similar
quality. Dahlke stated they will submit their architectural designs and that possibly a
portion of the buildings may have brick or stone. stating they will design them to fit in
with the existing homes.
Turnaround space to the north of the proposed development was also discussed and it was
noted that there is sufficient space for the units. Parking was again addressed and Jeff
O"Neill stated that the parking near the Legion was previously grandfathered in. Fred
Patch added that a particular fire hydrant may be requested to be moved to a more
accessible area and that he will discuss this with the Fire Chief.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COMPATIBLE WITH
EXIS"fING LAND USES IN THE AREA. SATISFIES THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S USE OF
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING AND
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; AND SUBJECT TO 'THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
.
1.
PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN STAGE APPROVAL. THE FOLLOWING
PLAN ARE SUBMITTED:
-4-
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/04/0 I
.
.
LANDSCAPE PLAN
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
PRELIMINAR Y PLAT
.
2. IN ADDITION TO THE TREES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, ADDITIONAL
PLANTINGS BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE INTERIOR "GARAGE COURT"
AREA OF THE SITE AND ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPOSED
TOWNHOME BUILDINGS.
3. THE CITY ENGINEER PROVIDE COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN REGARD TO THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE TEMPORAR Y PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY AND ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUIRED
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH CONDITION.
4. SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS BE PROVIDED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH
SIDES OF THE EASTERN TOWNHOME BUILDING. CONNECTING THE
INTERIOR "GARAGE COURT' WITH ELM STREET.
5.
A MAILBOX STRUCTURE (FOR EIGHT TOWNHOME UNITS) BE
ERECTED ALONG ELM STREET ADJACENT TO ONE OF THE
RECOMMENDED SIDEWALKS. DESIGN DETAILS FOR THE MAILBOX
STRUCTURE SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FINAL STAGE PUD
APPROV AL.
.
6. THE CITY ENGINEER PROVIDE COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN REGARD TO DRAINAGE AND UTILITY ISSUES.
7. A PATHWAY CONNECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED SOUTH OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY (ALONG WEST FOURTH STREET) WITH A DESIGN
TO BE DETERMINED.
Motion carried unanimously.
L. Public Hearim~ 4 Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a concept
stage planned unit developmcnt allowing a mixed residential development. Applicant:
Silver Creek Real Estate Development and Ocello. LtC. * Applicant reQuests this item
be tabled and continued at the October 2.2001 meeting.
Chair Frie Opened the public hearing. The Public hearing was then closed.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROY
POPILEK TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE OCTOBER 2. 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/04/01
8.
Comorehensive Plan update and meetim,: notice.
Jeff O'Neill. Deputy City Administrator, provided the Planning Commission with a brief
staff report reminding them that a special meeting of the Planning Commission and City
Council has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 18 at 7:00 pm for the primary
purpose ofreviewing the Gold Nugget land use designation, as well as other important
land use related topics. O'Neill provided a preliminary list of subjects that will be
reviewed at the meeting and asked for input from the commissioners.
Chair Frie questioned tax dollars amounts coming from townhomes versus higher end
single family homes and O'Neill stated that it is almost double on townhome
developments versus single family for a number of reasons, one being utilities into the
townhomes being less expensive.
Frie questioned if the primary purpose for the special meeting is the use of the Gold
Nugget property and O'Neill stated that was correct. Frie stated that perhaps they would
be able to keep the meeting time from 7 to 9 pm, with the focus being on Gold Nugget.
adding that two hours should be sufficient. Roy Popilek stated that twice the Planning
Commission has voted that Gold Nugget be zoned residential and he questioned if the
members had since changed their minds. Carlson stated that he felt they were trying to
compromise nov\!o Smith stated that he would not be available for the special meeting but
would like to be on the record stating he still maintains that the Gold Nugget area should
be residential as there are still issues \vith the School District regarding enrollment and
that the City could make some real sound decisions with good impact on the School
District with bringing in more students and families. He questioned what the rest of the
commissioners felt about that. He also asked about the School Board giving their
thoughts on this issue. O'Neill added that he doesn't feel there is a huge push to put this
all as industrial but rather a mix of uses of industrial. commercial and residential. Frie
also added that the HRA stated they are unanimous with Gold Nugget being industrial.
O'Neill added that the Council would not change the comp plan to go along with the
MOAA, whether they exist or not. Frie stated he had heard trom the general public that
irregardless of the OAA. existent or not. there is no way the City could justify the
township dictating ho\\/ the land would be used once annexed.
O'Neill stated that the supreme court did not takc up the lawsuit and that the City is
pursuing annexation of the parcels. stating a 3 ~ 2 vote by Council. Dragsten questioned
if this would be a meeting that the Planning Commission/City Council would be making
decisions at and O'Neill stated no, either way the City needs a plan to follow. Smith
asked if there would be two of the City Council members at the meeting that would want
the Planning Commission to proceed as if there is an MOAA board in place and O'Ncill
stated most likely there would be. There was no further discussion.
-6-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/04/01
9.
Discussion rellarding parking concerns at the Royal Tire site.
Robbie Smith stated that he had been approached regarding parking concerns at Royal
Tire and Fred Patch stated he had visited the site earlier that day and there was illegal
parking and unlawful signs as well, and that staff would be monitoring this. Patch stated
it is his hopes that once the Cedar Street improvements are made a good part of this issue
would resolve itself. He also added they have a difficult situation with that building.
Dragsten questioned if there was room on the Hwy 25 side of the building and they stated
there was no access to it. Popilek added that in the past, Royal Tire has been compliant
\-vith issues brought to their attention. There was no further discussion.
Chair Frie stated that on Monday he received calls regarding the new Mexican grocery
store on Broadway. They had strung banners trom the top of the building to the street
side and he felt it was not a lawful banner, but also noted they were only in place one day
and are no\-v removed. Asked that staff would monitor this as well.
Fred Patch added that they will now be taping the Planning Commission meetings a they
have the opportunity to send the tapes to the cable company to televise and he wanted the
Planner Commission's advise. Chair Frie stated that they had voted for this previously
but that the City Council voted it down. O'Neill stated that he did not think it had been
formally brought to the Council. Patch asked that the commissioners make a motion or
state their agreement on this.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK
TO STRONGL Y RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE
TELEVISING OF THE MONTHLY MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Frie added that the televising would be of the normal monthly meetings only and
would not include any special meetings.
10. Adjournment
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
Recorder
-7-
.
MINUTES
Planning Workshop
September 18,2001 - 7:00 PM
Present:
Bruce Theilen. Roger Carlson, Clint Herbst. Rick Wolfsteller, Brian Stumpf,
Mayor Roger Belsaas, Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman, Ollie Koropchak. Robbie
Smith, Richard Carlson, Planning Commission Chair Dick Frie, Roy Popilek, Rod
Dragsten, Representatives from Gold Nugget. Horst Graser and Shawn Weinand
Acting Chair Clint Herbst called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM.
Deputy City Administrator O'Neill provided a brief recap of the purpose of the workshop
regarding Gold Nugget land use as well as the scope of the Comprehensive Plan update study.
Steve Grittman. City Planner, provided a brief description of the previous proposal by Gold
Nugget from the Fall/Winter of 1998 which was primarily single family residential, noting that
the City's comprehensive plan states the primary use as residential. Grittman also noted that the
southwest corner of the proposed project showed commercial use, and that is were the project
ended when the Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat. Grittman advised them on
the status of approval/processing, as well as listing land use alternatives.
.
Dick Frie asked the City Council if they were unanimous in favoring annexation of the entire
Gold Nugget parcel. The Council noted that in time they would like to see the entire 220 acres
annexed, but not all at once. and that it may depend on what is proposed by the developer. They
discussed again various options including extending Cedar Street. installing a lighted pathway
system. as well as a possible mixed use of light industrial with residential. Ollie Koropchak,
Economic Development Director, stated that the City's approximate available acreage for
industrial land is 100 acres, and advised that this includes two large lots with several smaller lots.
O'Neill also advised of the Chadwick 180 acre industrial parcel available which already includes
utilities, etc. Mayor Belsaas stated that staff repeatedly gets requests for land and the City does
not have any to offer at this time. These people often do not want to deal with private developers
but would rather deal directly with City staff.
There was discussion that perhaps residential along Highway 25 would not be appropriate, and
also if it would be appropriate to mix industrial with residential. Grittman added that with some
creative planning there could be a softened transition between industrial and residential. It was
noted that there are different types of industrial as well and that light industrial may even be a
better buffer between the residential and Highway 25.
.
O'Neill questioned the layout of the Gold Nugget property in that it is not completely f1aL so
how would it be arranged for mixed use to make the most use of this land and would it be large
enough for a residential neighborhood with enough buffer for industrial/commercial. Grittman
advised that it is doable if a greenway corridor was retained as a break point between the two
land uses. He noted that a 70 acre area for industrial uses would be created if a frontage road
along Hwy 25 was used as a corridor for industrial development. It was the consensus that a 70
acre area for industrial land use was appropriate.
. It was the consensus that all were in support of the land use as a mix ofresidential and light
industrial. Also noted vvas that MnDOT may not be in favor of entrances to Highway 25 nor
would the City want entrances off 85th Street. Grittman also suggested the possibility of bringing
back a business campus, making sure the area becoming the buffer would be a nice buffer.
Shawn Weinand stated that of the 100 acres he owns, there are only 2 acres of industrial with the
remaining land being a business campus. Weinand felt the City may want a different zoning
where they would have more choices.
It was noted that the developers of Gold Nugget have previously worked very well with the City
and that hopefully that would be the case once again.
Horst Graser. Gold Nugget questioned about the infrastructure to work with regarding industrial
and commercial, noting that he doubted they would be allowed access to Highway 25 for
residential use. Also are there road limitations on the rest of the area. O'Neill stated utilities
would have to be installed depending on what type of zoning, probably upgrades if the use was
for larger industrial. but also noted that the City shouldn't let these utility limitations dictate land
use.
Koropchak also advised that the IDC has not made any formal recommendation but are
encouraging City Council and Planning Commission to make sure industrial land is available.
It was advised that the Northwest corridor is another area available for industrial land with
. freeway accessibility. it is contiguous to the City, and utilities would come over time.
.
.
Regarding the comprehensive plan study, Grittman advised that it would need to be
amended regarding the Gold Nugget area. Regarding the Southeast Monticello
Extraterritorial Area. it was noted that many areas around the City are under development
pressure. The East and Southeast areas of the City have really used up the utilities and
growth would go to the West or South of existing City limits. The City has now received
a lot of interest in this area. Mayor Belsaas stated several concerns with some starter
housing mixing in with higher end recently. Also added that the area near the Monte
Club seemed to be a good spot for higher-end housing. It was stated that the City
Council had recently authorized a feasibility study in this area. Consensus is to hold any
action on amending the comp plan for now until the feasibility study is completed
.
It was the consensus of the members to set new standards regarding residential districts
prior to the first of the year.
.
Regarding Commercial Land Use Planning and the Chadwick 1-94 frontage area,
Grittman noted that this area is guided for industrial and there was discussion previously
on moving it to commercial. The owner stated no retail, but office/light industrial would
be a more positive zoning, visibility would be a positive. The consensus was to leave it
as it is for now.
2
.
.
.
Regarding the County 18/1-94 Interchange Area it was advised that the City is
participating with MnDOT in creating a full interchange in this area. Current comp plan
calls for industrial with a small amount of commercial in that area. It was asked if this
converts to a full interchange would the City want to include consideration of an
expanded commercial land use designation as opposed to industrial. Mayor Belsaas
stated he felt it would be more attractive to commercial; Grittman stated access to the
freeway would be beneficial to industrial and the traffic pattern brings so many people by
there. They support looking at commercial versus industrial.
.
Other Potential Changes - The Paumen property is in conflict with the City and MOAA
land use plans if it is proposed as residential/industrial; may need to look at buffers near
the golf course if this were to occur. It was advised to look at the land near Osowski's in
more detail as well.
.
Interchange Location Options - 18 and 194, as well as the Orchard Road area. Regarding
the idea of an interchange at Co Rd 39, it was noted that it doesn't meet the rural spacing
guidelines according to MnDOT. It was asked if there was any interest in actively
pursuing that as an interchange location. The consensus was to see what evolves with
the area near Osowski' s at Orchard Road.
.
Also discussed was collector/arterial road network to support local traffic as freeway
traffic is looked at. It was the consensus that there is a need to get 7th Street to the East
and West through soon.
Utility Service Area - Grittman stated they would request the City Engineer to develop a
utility service map rather than having to do a study each time a developer approaches the
City.
.
Optional Approaches to Boundary Adjustment Process
· Statutory Annexation
· Orderly Annexation Agreement Options. It was the consensus to work with the
township, and to identify larger areas outside of the City that should remain rural
in anticipation of future urban development.
Grittman concluded with stating it is staffs expectation to get something put together so it would
be available for the next development season and stated he would like to get something back to
City Council and Planning Commission by February that they could adopt. Would probably
need a few more meetings to complete it.
Chair Frie question where the Council and Staff stood regarding annexation at this time and the
Mayor stated there are only two parcels, Groveland and Remmele, being considered at this time,
the others are on hold.
.
Brian Stumpf added that the Fire Department is discussing the possibility of a new fire station
south of tovvn and 'vvould ask that the City keep that in mind when considering land use. He
3
.
.
.
stated that growth is continuing in that direction and there are good arterial roads that would give
them access through the City. Grittman advised they could include this area in their study.
Robbie Smith brought up the school district crisis with low enrollment and feels that the City as
the governing body should be in tune to this, and the need to keep working with the school
district. O'Neill advised that they would include them in the comp plan discussions as well.
Grittman stated that a standard format for the comp plan update will be available at the next City
Council and Planning Commission meetings.
The meeting was adjourned at 9 PM.
Recorder
4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/02/0 I
5.
Continued Public Hearinl2: - Consideration of a Concept Plan f()r a Residential Planned
Unit Development in a PZM Zoning District. Applicant: Silver Creek Real Estate
Development/Shawn Weinand. (JO)
The applicant requests the Planning Commission to deny, but allowing applicant to
resubmit at a later date. Jell will provide a verbal report at the meeting.
.
.
.
6.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a variance from the 30
foot front vard setback requirement within the R-l Zoninl! District to allow
the construction of a 1 stalll!aral!e onto an existinl! 2 stalll!aral!e.
Applicant: Scott Hamilton (JG)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Scott Hamilton (6516 Osprey Ct.) has applied for a variance to allow construction of
an 11 by 22 foot one stall garage. The rear comer of this garage would extend 2 feet into
the 30 foot front yard setback required in the R-l district, leaving 28 feet from the garage
comer to the property line. The total area outside of the setback minimum would equal
approximately 2 to 3 sq. ft.
Mr. Hamilton's property fronts on two public streets. According to the zoning ordinance,
the front yard setback shall be located at the boundary abutting a public street right-of-
way having the least width. This places the 30 foot front yard setback on River Forest
Dr. rather than Osprey Ct. The house actually faces Osprey Court so the garage side of
the house is considered the front yard. (Exhibit A) The ordinance also states that when a
lot is a comer lot with two public street right-of-ways fronting it, the side yard setback
shall be 20 feet from the lot line abutting the street right-of-way. Across the street you
will find a lot with side and front yard designations switched, which means across the
street the garage could come within 20 feet of River Forest Drive. (Exhibit B)
The Zoning Ordinance sets out specific criteria for the review of variance requests.
Essentially, a property owner seeking a variance must show that the variance is necessary
to allow reasonable use ofthe property and that there is a non-economic hardship, not
self-imposed, in meeting the basic zoning regulations including the required setbacks.
The applicant is aware that there is an alternate option, which would be to angle the
garage from 9 feet out to 11 feet, in order to stay within the front yard setback.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Motion to approve the variance, based on a finding that the irregularity
ofthe shape of the lot and the orientation of the house have impeded the
homeowner, providing the hardship needed for approval ofthe variance.
2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that the applicant does
have reasonable use of his /her property without granting the variance and
that there is an alternative option.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staffhas no recommendation on this item. There are good reasons for either action.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A- Site Plan
Exhibit B- Area Map
Exhibit C- Pictures
.
- - ---\ - -
30'
\
m _". ...__. _ __ __ ___
6519
/'30'
120'
~
"
~
\~-- -1----.....
Front Yard Setback
Osprey Ct.
~#
..
~
651 6 I 30'
~
o
......
~
Q
~
~
~
i;)
.~
~
nt Yard Setb ck
--J
.
.
.
Plann ing COIllIll ission ^genda -10/02/01
7.
Consideration of a Conceot Stal!e Planned lJ nit Development for a 30 Unit Townhouse
Project in an R-2 Zoninl! District. Applicant: Front Porch Associates. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mike Cyr of Front Porch Associates has applicd fiJr approval of a Concept Stage PlJD
consisting of 15 two-unit buildings (a total of 30 dwelling units) on 4.3 acres of land. This
parcel includes 2.65 acres belonging to Ron RufC 1.4 acres of unbui1t City street right-of-
way, and a standard single farnily lot. The project area borders the Ruff Auto property to the
west, 6th Street to the north, Minnesota Street to the east, and the new apartment building
cornplex to the south. The northeast corner of the project area is occupied by two single
family homes and one vacant single family lot that are not a part of the proposal.
The project relies on the City's vacation and sale of its right-of-way interests, consisting of
Th Street and Vine Street. The Vine Street right-of-way adjoins the west side of the project
area, and the 7lh Street right-or-way splits the private property into north and south parts.
The project proposal would consolidate the various pareels and street rights-of-way,
replatting it to accommodate the townhouse project. 'rhe design relies on an internal private
street that \vould access 61h Street just east of the current Vine Street intersection, loop south
through the site, then curve west to an intersection with Minnesota Streel. Groups of fi.)ur
units are designed to share an internal driveway that accesses the private street. lIoVvever.
six ofthc units have individual private driveways that front directly onto thc puhlic streets.
rour to thc north and two to the east.
I ssues raised by the proposal include the fi.Jllowing:
1. Vacation of the public street rights-of-way is not assured. Staff has discussed the
need to retain the Th Street right-or-way from Minnesota to the boundary with Ruff
Auto. The City has had discussions relating to the eventual redevelopment of the
Ruff Auto site. converting it to residential use. Preservation of the street access
through to Minnesota may be an important connection for future neighborhood
development. Staff has discussed this issue with the developer. and modifications
to the plan may be considered that would preserve the use of this right-or--way. The
Vine Street right-of-way appears to be less important to neighborhood traffic
circulation, and may be an appropriate candidate for vacation.
2. T'he plan lays out pairs of two unit buildings that are just ten feet apart for a distance
of nearly 90 feet in four locations. Other dimensional issues show buildings 20 to
25 feet frorn the private street, but with one building corner just tcn feet from thc
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -10/02/01
private street. A traditional grid pattern with townhouses fronting near the street may
be appropriate, however, this layout sets the side ofeaeh building toward the private
street. The narrow dimension could create a problem area between buildings for
maintenanee and landscaping, and pairs of windows appear to be aligned directly
across from cach other.
The applicant has noted that the building plans being considered include an area for
private open porches for each unit at the center of the building pairs. The plans
appear to show an exterior wall, however. that line represents a roof line, not a wall.
^s a result, some lighted open space would be available, and the illustrated windows
arc higher openings lor light only - they would not allow views from unit to unit.
With this arrangement, the remaining space between the buildings would be less
daunting, but would requirc some detailed attention with regard to landscaping or
other improvements to avoid aesthetic concerns.
"l
_L
^s it is currently drawn, the site plan visually leaves the most "open" space for
vehicles, with private green space only at the perimeter of the project or along the
street in twenty foot wide strips. Buildings arc very tightly clustered. Planning Stafr
has discussed this issue with the applicant, expressing a preference I()!' a
consolidation of open space into large. more usable and visually appealing spaces.
As a part of this discussion. it was recommended that the applicant consider lesser
setbacks from street surl~lces where possible, and planl()!' one or t\\10 open plazas or
"village green" areas. The applicant also suggested that other amenities could be
added to the units themselves to create a more urban look, including slnall courtyard
fences or other similar site treatments.
4.
^ "Park area" is shown in the southwest corner or the site, with a narrow path
leading between buildingsjust 15 feet apart. This open space is smaller than the size
of a single family lot. including all of the land that might normally be a part of the
townhouse private space. Staff has suggested that this area be consolidated with
other open space. as noted above.
5.
As discussed above, the building design and site layout provide for porch or patio
areas at the "backs" of the units. The "fronts" of the buildings are occupied by
driveways, and the rear sides are planned to be within just a few feet of another
building, as noted above. StalTwould suggest special attention to the driveway areas
in attempt to avoid the parking lot-like view of these areas. ^Iternative paving
materials. slnall fence sections or other improvements could help to enhance thesc
spaces, creating a small courtyard look, rather than the asphalt parking lot feel as
found in many other townhouse projects.
2
.
.
.
Planning COI11I11 ission Agenda -10/02/0 I
6.
The three buildings that face the street are required to maintain a 30 fi..10t setback.
Setbacks shown on the plan are 25 feet from 61h Street, and less than 15 feet from
Minnesota Street. Because these driveways face directly onto publ ic streets, the
setbacks should be maintained. As with the other units, Planning Staff would
recommend consideration of significantly lesser setbacks if the driveways could be
oriented away from the streets.
7. The private street appears to be approximately 24 feet in width, adequate for two way
traffic without parking. lhe plan suggests one way traffic flow. Staff would
encourage a two-way pattern as the safest and best way to distribute traffic.
8. Staff recommends additional visitor parking be provided in developments with
private streets, since no (1I1-street parking is available for overflow beyond the two
private spaces in front of each unit.
9.
The west boundary line with RulT Auto is planned for a densely landscaped berm to
screen the project from the salvage yard views. A 20 foot setback is proposed. lhis
distance would accommodate a berm of only about two feet in height not accounting
for drainage issues. Landscaping would need to be extraordinarily dense to block the
views of the auto salvage area. Moreover. the City's bufferyard ordinance requires
additional buffering and setbacks in such conditions. J\ fence may be appropriate to
help mitigate this issue.
10.
Utilities and drainage may affect the layout of the concept plan. lhese issues should
be further investigated, particularly as they relate to building layout and the street
vacation proposal.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the Concept PUD, based on a finding that the
density is reasonable in the context oCthe surrounding land uses, and that. generally,
the layout of the project provides an acceptable base to proceed to the next stage of
the Planned Unit Development process. 'fhis motion should be subject to the
Planning Commission's comments on land use and design, including those listed
above.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the Concept PUD, based on a finding the site does
not accol11l11odate this nWllber of two-family, rambler units, required parking,
circulation, open space, and reasonable building spacing as the density proposed by
the developer.
.,
_,
.
.
.
Plann ing COlTlln ission Agenda - 1 0/02/0 1
..,
_L
Motion to table action on the Concept PU D, subject to submission of additional
information.
C. STAfF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Concept PUD to the extent that the use and density is reasonable, but
with the condition that future site plan layouts reflect the comments made in this report, and
others at the Planning Commission meeting. The 7th Street right-of-way may be imp0l1ant
to accommodate other area development. and as sllch, staffwould recommend designing the
project around this street. It should be noted that based on staff's discussions with the
applicant, the subsequent site plan may be materially different than the one presented at this
level. The applicant has requested the Planning Commission's reaction to the general
concept I<'Jr townhouse development. PUD l1exibility, and density.
Planning StalThas discussed alternative layout options with the applicant. Rather than the
specific layout shown on the attached concept plans, it is recommended that the developer
consider a more traditional urban design, with close street setbacks, larger consolidated
common open space, and high-amenity private spaces, including parking bcilities. With
these changes, the project density and building style could result in a unique, attractive
project worthy of the use oCthe Planned Unit Development f1exibility. 'fhe developer has
expressed an interest in pursuing these ideas, and the building 1100r plans he is working on
appear to fit well with this type of concept.
To proceed with narrow setbacks with tight building layouts, staff encourages a design that
utilizes a more traditional urban plan. A more suburban-style layout with deep setbacks and
fewer units would be suggested if the subnlitted concept is to be pursued. Under that
alternative, the discussion points raised above should be addressed to provide guidance to
the developer as plans are prepared for the next stages of approval.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Letter IhHll Mike Cyr dated 9/26
Memo from Jeff O'Neill in response to Cyr's 9/26 letter
Initial letter 01'9/17 from Cyr to staff
Area Location
Site Plan
Building Floor Plans
Property Ownership
4
.
.
--
MEMO
MONTICELLO
DATE:
September 28, 200 I
TO:
Planning Commission Members
FROM:
Jeff O'Neill
..P
RE:
Mike Cyr's Icttcr of 9/26/0 I
Mike Cyr prepared his initial concept plan without a prc-planning meeting with City staff. I f he
had met with staff first as most developers do (espccially when requesting a PUD), hc could have
avoided all 10 comments.
StalTis quite positive about this project. we regret that Mikc got ahead of himself on a PUD that
requires vacation of a City street. lie could have savcd time if he had met with staff carly in his
design process.
?A
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite I, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 . (763) 295~2711 · Pax: (763) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 . (763) 295-3170 . Fax: (763) 271-3272
SEP-27..01 THU 08: 09 AM MLC BUILDING & REMODEL
.
FAX: 6122953227
PAGE 2
.
Front Porch Associates, Ltd. - Michael Cyr
722 West 5th Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Phone: 763.295.0717 Fax: 763.295.3227
26 September 2001
Jeff O'Neil
Steve Grittman
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street South
Monticello, Minnesota, 55362
Re: Response to points raised during meeting of 26 September 2001.
Project
West Village Courtyards - present working name
Market rate townhome development on 6th Street West at Vine Street
Gentlemen,
Thank you for your feedback at our meeting. Rather than respond with counterpoints to the
issues you raised in your staff report, I would like to solicit your input to create an attractive,
efficient and profitable infill development.
. Some of the defining parameters for the homes are as follows:
A density of 30 dwelling units
Approximately 1350 square feet of house on one level
Basements that should be at least 1000 square feet but need not be full size of main level
Approximately 528 square feet of garage attached to each unit
Or a single car garage attached with additional single garage size storage
units in close proximity
Preferably a neo-craftsman, "bungalow" style of design
Fronts of houses on 6th and ttl, garage entries from rear alley
Some critical issues are as follows:
Assuming 7th Street r.O.w. is not to be vacated
Reducing the th Street r.o.w. to a minimum
Vacation of all of Vine, with the entire '.O.W. dedicated to this project
Vacation of the triangular shaped piece of Minnesota that is unused due to the curve in
Minnesota Street
Access to the main interceptor sewer on the south boundary of the property
HRA participation in the full amount of the costs of purchasing, demolishing and financing
the Grubbs home during the course of time TIF takes to pay back these costs, less
$30K Note that HRA has already approved the concept, without levels of funding
however.
.some pertinent comments:
Purchase agreements are in place for the Lots 8,9 and 10 facing attt Street
1 of 1
'If>
SEP-27"0.1 THU 08:10 AM MLC BUILDING & REMODEL
.
FAX:6122953227
PAGE 3
.
Purchase agreement is pending as of this writing for the balance of the property that is
facing both sides of in Street
Financing is in place for purchase and development costs, and for construction financing
Have a verbal agreement with Randy Ruff of Ruff Auto regarding the property line. His
business has encroached on the Vine r.o.W. and the end of the -rh r.o.w. If the project
moves forward, it will be my responsibility to move his fence to the proper location and
screen the Ruff Auto yard from view of the development. He also expressed his willingness
to work with my company to develop the Ruff property west of this development and east of
Elm Street, possibly as early as 2005. after this development is closed out.
In closing I would I.ike to say that time is of the essence. Part of my frustration that came through
during our meeting is that there appeared to be an official tone of resistance. I know that on an
individual basis, each and every staff person is enthused and supportive for a project such as this.
However, the resistance is demonstrated by thafact that 10 out of 10 points made in the report to
the planning commission are negative. Each negative point becomes an objection that has to be
overcome. Each objection that has to be overcome becomes a barrier to timely completion of the
entire approval process.
I am anxious to work to achieve a successful, attractive project that is profitable for me and for the
city. Please bear in mind that in order for a project to happen there has to be willing sellers,
willing buyers, an investor willing to take risks, and the developer to bring them all together. The
risk takers and the developers are the engines that make this process go. City staff. commissions
.and council can't make it go. They can only supply some fuel or grease some bearings to help
make it go, or they can definitely make it stop.
Sincerely,
~(1r4r+-
Michael Cyr
.
2 of 12-
'If>
.
Front Porch Associates, Ltd. - Michael Cyr
722 West 5th Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Phone: 763.295.0717 Fax: 763.295.3227
17 Septemp~r 2001
Monticello Planning Commission
"'ontic~Uo C;W Council
505 Walnut Street South
Monticello, Minnesota, 55362
Re: Request for approval of pr,liminary plat
West Village Courtyard Townhomes (Name is tentative)
Thirty dwelling development, 15 twinhomes, three year timeline
Market rate, one level, easy accessibility
1450 square feet, 2 bedroom, 1 % bath, private covered patio
Townhome association
Targeted selling price $169,900.00
Greetings,
Introduction:
. This preliminary plat application has been prepared by Mike Cyr, Front Porch Associates. A
professional surveyor has not yet been retained because of several issues that must be resolved
before this project can be given a green light by the developer. This request is before the
Planning Commission in order to ascertain acceptance or denial of the concept and to request the
strong recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council for approval.
Since precise surveying has not yet been done, many of the details that the Planning Commission
wants to see on preliminary plats are not on the site plan but are described herein.
The site includes approximately 2.65 acres belonging to Ron Ruff, who has recently relocated to
Arizona. It also includes a city lot owned by Ellsworth and Doreen Grubb, and has a home located
on it that can be considered blighted. The HRA board has approved the concept of creating a
housing district to provide TIF funds for purchase and removal of the buildings located on the
Grubb property. We would request that the TIF Housing District apply only to Phase 1 of the
proposed development. Contingent purchase agreements are in place on both the Ruff and
Grubb property.
The site also includes approximately 1.4acres belonging to the City of Monticello. These are
unused street right of ways that terminate on the Ruff property. To the best of our knowledge, the
right of ways contain no utility or city services, nor are there any plans to improve them. No offer
. has been made to purchase the City property. We win request that the land be sold at a price that
fits our purchase objectives and indicates the City's desire to develop this property.
1of3
'Ie.,
The site including the Ruff, Grubb and City property contains about 4.3 acres. There is enough
land for 37 dwelling units in a Planned Unit Development based on 5000 square feet per unit.
. Because of the shape of the property and the configuration of the proposed dwellings, thirty units
will fit. Thirty units is also the minimum density that is needed to support the project
The entire project will be an incorporated Townhome Association. Individual property owners will
own only the land that their home is located on, The balance of the common property will be
owned and maintained by the association, including streets, driveways, sidewalks, landscaping
and the exteriors of the buildings. The association will be responsible for lawns and snow
removal.
The property in the project, including the Grubb homestead, currently contributes approximately
$2,800.00 to the city tax coffers. After buildout, the assessed market value of the townhomes
located on the property should be approximately $4,500,000.00, with a contribution in tax dollars
of approximately $45,000.00 per year.
General Requirements:
The site is bordered on the North by 6th Street, on the South by private property that has recently
been developed with apartment buildings, on the West by the Ruff Auto Parts property and on the
East by Minnesota Street.
The private street is planned to be 20 feet wide, one way from 6th Street to Minnesota Street
. Because the street is planned to be one way, it will allow parking on one side of the street for
temporary overflow from residences. .
Existina Conditions:
The site is relatively flat. It is covered in grass and smaller trees. Most of the trees are cedar,
scrub oak, box elder and aspen. The majority of the existing trees will be removed in order to
facilitate development.
There are ongoing discussions with Randy Ruff, the current sole owner of Ruff Auto Parts. Randy
is in favor of the development. He has indicated his willingness to work with us to facilitate
relocation of fences off the current City street right of ways. Earthen berms with dense vegetation
will be used to screen the development from the view of the salvage yard. Randy is also not
opposed to working with us in the future to develop the salvage yard property if the timing and
conditions are right.
It is our intention to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between new buildings and existing property
lines. Townhomes adjacent to 6th Street and Minnesota Streets will have driveways onto those
streets.
Private drives will be 12 feet in width, with turnarounds provided at ends. Sidewalks will be placed
between front porch entries and the private driveways.
. Lot and Block Plan:
20f3
'1c'
The property will be planned for three phases, and platted as such, Blocks 1, 2, 3 and common
. areas as Block 4, 5 and 6. Each resident will own the building that they are in and 3 to 5 feet
immediately surrounding their home.
The majority of the homes will be separated from each other by approximately 60 feet. The
separation will include lawn, landscaping, sidewalks, private driveways and the main private
street. The exception is the "back-to-back" twinhomes that will be 10 feet apart at the back, from
building line to building line. This configuration allows us to build more attractive buildings with
less roof. It also allows us to provide a private patio at the rear of each home with access through
the 10 foot separation. The patio is also accessed from the kitchen area in the home.
There is a corner of the property that will be developed as a gathering space for the use of
residents. It will likely include a picnic shelter, play area and be landscaped to provide a
welcoming feeling for the residents of the association.
Gradina. Drainaae and Erosion control:
The private street will include curb. The property in general slopes slightly from South to North. It
would be our intention to utilize the street as the collector for storm water, directing runoff to the
6th Street and Minnesota Street sides of the property for collection in existing storm drains.
It would be our intention to raise the grade of the property slightly to accommodate the excess dirt
generated from basement excavations. A significant quantity of the dirt would be utilized to build
. the berms on the West and South sides of the development.
Erosion control would be accomplished using silt fencing on the 6th Street and Minnesota Street
sides of the property until sodding and I or seeding has been completed. During construction of
the berms, silt fencing will be added as the berms are completed.
Utility Plan:
There are currently no City of Monticello utility services crossing the proposed development.
There are water taps located adjacent to Lots 8, 9 and 10 on 6th Street.
There is a major sanitary sewer interceptor line running along the South side of the property.
John Simola, City of Monticello engineer, has indicated that there is a standpipe located close to
the Southwest corner of the proposed development that can be accessed by our main sewer
lateral. Individual sewer lines will be run from the new townhomes to our main lateral. Tentative
manhole locations for our main sewer lateral are indicated on the preliminary plat drawing.
We would plan on looping a main water line from 6th Street to Minnesota Street and accessing the
main line for each of the new townhomes.
Sincerely,
./?t,J4~
Michael Cyr
30f3
'1v
.>-
SEP-25-2001 16:47 NRC
, '. .t..:., .!..,:~~:t:?I't..~."~~~~..::?,~"~",::<:.,....:...",, :, '/~ .t~rr;::~ 1iiJ-/ / ?~l
~~., ,'" N4f~"".''':'::''''''''''l:f:':l:,.:~..::" ~',~, "~' '11':' ll'..~i -~. / it .-!....:" ... I
~ . " , .. ~,". . "j" fZ.U:"\ Z,:r'dI""'~~. r" ~...... ~.. ..
<"~ . '~. ',.', '" .,' " t ,~,l ... ' . . ,- j !fi~' ..:......t... /' l .{ .:-.,,-;~ .-.......; ."
.- '. ' " j" ,.1/" t ~ . .... ;>..",~ · I .. .- ......... "
...,,~ , , .j "T!"~. 'n ....,~~-.~ f!. ;:; '....,~ .........
e)- ,..-.... '''',., :~, ; .!' ,f r" l...j l .: --;.
" ~"". 'V ,~! -4'. '!f- .. ! .:: . 1':0..... . :' /' ~.
"<' ~. i:o. (") ~. -.r ;: f ' !fri:::" ..) , " 'r.', ; .- ; r >-
. ":i,. '!,:" ....... '<J" ' 't' . ,. . '--).;, , " I .'
--;. _ - ...., :" ~r i , i 1'- ~.' II" ~. ."-.~ / . .,t'
, . f, .L.. ,-- ,. .. , ',. ~, . , ~ . . ......, I L.r
_.-t'-~ /':.;;:' ti ~ ~I .i ;;.i l~ .-. '-.z...= ,/ ./ ,/ AfIij'-:'"
.. i ~ :....., i ~,: .., , .J l i l: !;;::"'-.:.' i ./ l .'-"
.. : ..... ' -:- ! !. r' ....~~...; ./'''''
6 .. ~ ' J f' -- " ;,:
tUI f l' {. i, ~ \Q.1l- f3f1I,' ~~:/. ,// / / ,,~~ ,~./':
. ~J ! · j " .. ~ , '~~ -/ - \.. -...".:. / / ! ; ~ '.
1 ' f:-" ';; {l '----f ..f ~ ., ; '""t-... j ~; " ~
j, ~ J f. -, i ~ ~ .-]" t ;1/ / !' .. X )') /~.,.: ./ ,J/
.~ t--+ ---r- ~ i -{.,j l / I~ ... '-\ / ,/1<_/;
c"' \~_ ~'''~-'7t tJ' ;. '\_~,' /' '..- I k..../ l~. ~/~/"-- 1''"':' "';' /~.
" .................. ':"'$ .(-'. /' l I ~ ./ /";~ i .......... ;,., J" l'
'~-El.)./:' -\ '''''-'' ~ fI' , : ~ ,""'-......~ /, '--......i / llZr~r ."N:.. / I:' / ....'.Zl,
.. , -...." . '. t' ...-:........~, ......', >. "'" I
.': .. . (, ~"-"y..
- ~ ~'1 '/::I J . J '" .~. ~/,t, ~
1 rr.-1 r ..r- ~- ~/ (/, ~/ ~-'7;, l';-
/~ ! t~ WI! ';'. ~../~!( r"~Z,
:~~:,..._{ ~. ~~f~' · " ~~~,Ii l,'--'".
.~~j.' ;, :~ ',' . !' .f'''D.ft'"L ././ l~" ~.' ,': /"
~. ~-ti<,''''-'n~'~.;' C?/J(}lJ~1i~: ~'-l .i / ,~j""l ~./'/ 7">- ~l;
.;..1 I e J --''If I"V ""'- t; .~;.. " ," ""...,. ""'.: '
~; - I I 1 ........<.'" "'L:;ol,r ..... ~ , ,j ,~....... '....
~ ..~. ~ I'~" .~- 4~ -'-'-:~ .i~' ".7 -;i4.......~~l ~.! ~/ /' . ~:.', .
. ...... "'~, ~,; I ; " ,- -:~ i:~ " ~ ......"1 ,i ' ,:,:::--""
"., l~' ~ . .o'~.;~ ~ ! ~~ r-;...;;,. / .! ~; ,. 't~' I~ .... ,~ .......
" ' . , ... " ..' 'I... -"'- ' ~;' .....' ,""
...... .~; J ,; 'i ..' " ..... '.....! . . ,".x' .' .,'
, ~ , ,/ .: ~ II"", '" ......,_:-. /' '. -":'.t. . ":
,__ ::i." '" # ~ ,.:J -..'..... ""'--:~ fM ~ .- . _.~.~ .. ..
.. .,.. f ... , ": ..,....-' r. -~CIO __c.-__lll_::J,~_~_
, ..... :i .'"~. /,t /" '. , -' " t] 1 -'-......,/;' ',,., "-
-2:::=. ..... fJ) , , '. '"
T-~-"'~-' , .....r" ' t' ,., .
~ \ .......~ '-.;" /.. " \ i. . "'..-.~"
\ ~ > /, U~NT\Q3J.D<t llt ~ -,... '''''-'
l;V.,/~ // ... \J l\"~ ..... f It ..
v,.. J ... at t
/// " ,Hr?'l (/)' 1 f__
\ ..",'/ // ,~'lo.. ~ I.~'l\ t-.--n----;--....::::=>---_
'\,l/ .....~ 7~ u.Ii~. .... ,-
.~ /" ..... .. T.. ~ -~ . ~&-
% ~ }-_---.. f 't:i t
.....,! .
~\ t
"'1 \
\ f-
t '.
; i
I .
. .
------- !l'! f
------ \
L.....________
612 595 9837
P.05/07
'~-.
\
;'.,
....----- .--......- ..- ....~
~
'!:!'
'a,-
.
I'
'. ,
~
HIGNtlAY
...
....I--~,
..-.-....................... ,..-...,.
.,.. - .-
~-. .
i..........-.... .~.,
~ .... \.....".'...
,-_ .........-...-...' 't., ..' --~'...
'; ... '1' b -';"'-'~' ,. .
,
....,...
".-
'-:~
v-
.
.
'i
.-
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
i...
.;
..
.
.
-
...
.,.
...
.-
" ....
...1
,
.
. ....
. .
.~..
r-
.I
,
.....,
.
>.,
1i
o
...) '::D
l ':'
.
.. .
.
""...~ .
. <.. /..... 1'7:.....
..'
.
J
j:: -r
~H~t'!;
'"
,..
r.
'"
~
~
.~
~
~~
,
1IIo..'..,...Ji,..Ir.""'---........ ~
G'
I ,~
I:'
r
/1
,I I
,;
..i~~""Irl.~.'.
'~
"..-........"...
.
~ I
H
",'/iJ-
fl
I
J
............--..-.-
'lit#' t '':;l;>C~i:n
/
..:;.-
z <f----.-.C:I
,~HlH
i '
i ,j
,
V
'^ :,",', ,..,,'
~ f '0 -,
~ ~ ~,~
I_~;
M ~I
~~
:',:-;
.
(i .~
;1,-
~1 f.~
I;; ~
""-
'1[,
.
f
.
.
&.
~
~
,__._.i
I "-
I
,
I
!
,
!
I
,
I
I
-- ._-~ ---~
I ". - - - -" - i
~#~ )-- -- -- -- -.- --
~~9 /
/ "- !if)f. :;::::;:-] ,
5=;l /), fOI n ~..-\. 0
~"-/ ,_--1 \/
"- F7r! I . )< ,r:
LdJ ,--J / 0 '-!
~_~ CJ '~ r~\
/ L
i
i I !
I I !
i I !
.,/.
I I I ./
,
i I I ~~ ./
i I ....~ /#'
f-- ~- .-- .-- L ~ mQ ,/
, .~-(11
i I I' - -, "
I
i I I '-.
,--~ "-
, "-
i _.n --- -too
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
j
i
j
i. /
,....
",5:
8a
J{j
"~
"
I ~_ _&~/ 'j
I
/
/
m._.. _..._..,...._.
,
I
oDil
q~ I
o f
~
o
T-JB -l
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
/
"
II
II
/I
, "-
" "-
,,~ ----. ~
i',,:7 __ ~
,:(0<5 '
-----_Iz{i--- '"
_ _ _ _ _ ~.IIt - r - - - - -
'" ~~~--~)1J--_::::
( ~/ I
c&
I
I
I
i I
i I
I I
I
::-..-
"- -l
" I
,
" ~ ~
, . (;)
I', 5~
,"'0
I '~m
I ".
,
I
~
:;!1!
'"....
!:r
q
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
-- -~ __ -J
:::::=::======
"
,/
"
"
~
'"
~
I~
\
"\
/1
/ .
ti
--_:::::~~ ::::::::::,
<i /
!
I! J
1'/
/
/
1
i
i
i
,
j
,
i
I
I
,
1
,
,
-',
/
/
/
/
/
/
/'
/
./
"
/
/
i i
, I
/
/
./
.'
/~-
"-
/
,/
/
,/
-',
,
"
/
/
"-
" I
" i
__m 1- -- ------- . .- .. --- ..--"-----,......,.. .-............ "__m -.... '___:J
~. ~...~ --.~. -..
- - 0.. ~ .._
u'.".. ____...y_ __'~...
I
{,
I
!
!
!
I
I
-1---
I I
I I
I I
I I
, I
I
I
I I
I I
~~I==~:
r I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
I
-r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
./.
I
j
I
I
i
I
,
\
v
-,
c..
~
o
L-,
~
?
5"
S
a.
~
'IF
09;26"2001 Oi:20 fAX
SQptemb~r 25, 2001 3:33 PM From: GOEMAN REALTY, INC.
.
.
.
Fax #: (763) 295~SS
Page 2 of2
To Whom It May Concern:
We the property owners ofland abutting the 7th Street & Vine Street Right
of Ways, lying between Blocks R. S. & T and other parcels ofrecord~ in the
Village of or the Townsite of Monticello, here-in request that the City of
Monticello Vacate subject Right of Ways for implementation of the
proposed Multi~family Subdivision by Michael L. Cyr.
Reference attached plat map and proposed Sub..o.ivision drawing.
Z1:/t;/;:~,M ~ate9~1
~~a::;, ;P;dDaI
Date
'1,- ).S,p I
141 01
'1&
.
j !
ill
i~
, I ~o
Jl l!'",
i J
Ii
!
u
. ~
0
t>:
~ I
ill
~
~
i
l!'
~
~
'"
~ ,
IiI
Hit
:=1::
f-
a::
10
-;c:
'.......
.
'1G