Planning Commission Agenda 06-05-2001
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - June 5, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie. Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of nlinutes of the regular meeting held May 1, 2001.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of an interim use permit allowing a school to operate in
the 1-1 district. Applicant: Independent School District 882, Alternative Learning
Program.
6. Public Ilearing - Consideration of a request for a preliminary plat of the Monticello
Commerce Center 5th Addition. Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park, Inc./Shawn
Weinan.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the side yard setback
requirelnents to allow construction ofa new driveway. Applicant: James Herbst.
8. Publ ic Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the front yard setback
requirements allowing construction of a detached garage. Appl icant: Daniel Kellas
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the side yard setback
requirements to allow construction of a 23' x 15' deck. Applicant: Shawn Hall
10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to allow
expansion and remodel of existing Monticello-Big Lake Pet Hospital.
Applicant: Joel Erickson.
11.
Public Ilcaring - Consideration of a request for a variance to the front yard setback
requirements allowing construction of a garage. Applicant: Linda Obrycki.
-] -
.
.
.
12.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the setback requirements to
allow construction of a 24' x 40' dctached garage. Applicant: Chad Latvaaho.
13. Consideration of a requcst for approval of developmcnt stage planncd unit development
for two, 2 unit town homes. Applicant: Rick Anderson.
14. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to allow a 2,500
sq. ft. restaurant in a shopping center in the Central Community District. Applicant:
Silver Creek Real Estate Development.
15. Public I Icaring - Consideration of a request for a zoning tcxt amendment to allow a
second free-standing sign on certain properties in the B-3 District. Applicant: Jacob
Holdings of Monticello, Denny Hecker Dodge.
16. Public 1 learing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a
ground floor level, 3 story, 35 unit apartment building in the Central Community District.
Applicant: Silver Creek Real Estate Development.
17. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for development stage planned unit
development allowing multiple structures on an industrial site. Applicant: Blue Chip
Development Company.
18.
Resolution of the City of Monticello Planning Commission finding that the modification
to the redevelopment plan for Ccntral Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the
Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-28 conform to the general plans for
the development and redevclopment of the city.
19. Review proposal for development of a mixed use residential development at Wildwood
Ponds. Applicant: Fan Dcvelopment.
20. Adjourn.
-2-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - May 1,2001
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
and Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, 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 regular meeting held Aoril 3. 2001.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 3, 2001 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried with Robbie Smith abstaining.
..,
.).
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Robbie Smith asked for an update regarding parking situation at the Locust Street Shops,
China ButTet. Agenda item 9.
4. Citizens comments. None
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a planned unit develooment concept plan for
development of two. two-unit townhomes located at 510 West Broadwav: and
Consideration of a variance to the lot area per unit standard. Applicant: Rick Anderson
Steve Grittman, City Planner, presented the staflreport advising that Rick Anderson has
submitted a PUD concept plan that includes the development of two. two-unit
townhomes. The subject property is located at the corner of Maple Street and Broadway.
Variance from the lot area per unit requirement has been requested. The property is
19,316 square feet in size and contains a single family house that is planned to be
demolished. The property is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District.
Two-unit townhomes are a permitted use in the R-2 District. The proposed land use is
consistent with the zoning for the property.
The front of the property is defined as the boundary abutting a public street right-of-way
having the least width. By this definition. the front of the lot is the north side. which
faces Broadway. Based on this definition. the front and rear setbacks are insufficient.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/01
Based on the layout of the townhomes, it makes more sense for the east side adjacent to
Maple Street to be the front. Grittman listed the required and proposed setbacks based on
the assumption that the City would grant flexibility in defining the front of the property
with the PUD.
The property exceeds the minimum lot area and exceeds the minimum lot width, the
proposed buildings are compliant with the maximum building height and each unit
contains 1,402 square feet of floor area. Two-family structures are required to have
6,000 square feet of lot area for each unit. The site is 19.316 square feet in size and is
proposed to contain four units, resulting in 4,829 square feet per unit. The City may wish
to grant flexibility with the lot area per unit requirement as part of the PUD in exchange
for a high-quality design that is appropriate for the location.
.
The submitted project has many attractive features and has the potential to meet a high
standard appropriate for a PUD. Driveway access to the street is shared, reducing the
amount of pavement along Maple Street from four driveways to two driveways. This
creates more green space in the boulevard and increases the space available for boulevard
trees. The design of the driveways and parking areas creates an almost square area of
paving in front of the structures that lends itself well to being surrounded with trees and
shrubs and creating a courtyard atmosphere. Bedrooms are located on the second floor
above the garages. This tuck-under garage style presents an attractive architectural front
to Maple Street and diminishes the visual impact of the garage doors. The entrances to
the units are located on the sides of the units. Therefore. the front door to the unit next to
Broadway faces Broadway, increasing the compatibility of the townhomes with the single
family homes that front on Broadway. The ground floor plan illustrates a covered porch
at the rear corner of each unit. This would also add to the architectural detail and variety
of the side facing Broadway.
The concept plan shows the general location of proposed trees on the property. The
locations are well distributed on all sides of the structures and create an attractive setting
for the homes. Adding some evergreen trees along the west property line would provide
some privacy for the back yard spaces. When a detailed landscape plan is submitted at
the development stage, the addition of shrubs would further enhance the structures and
yards. Grading. drainage, and utility plans will be required at the development stage and
will be subject to City Engineer review and approval.
Jeff O'Neill added that there are many lots in the older part of town that could follow this
pattern, so this particular development could possibly set the standard for redevelopment
in that area and therefore, careful planning needs to be done to ensure good amenities.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Rick Anderson, applicant. was present. I-Iearing no
response. the public hearing was closed.
2
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/01
Richard Carlson about minimum garage size standards in the City, and does that apply
only to single family. Carlson stated the need to ensure these are capable of housing 2
cars. Carlson noted that he felt, according to the site plan, this does not meet those
standards.
Definition of the front of the lot was discussed with Grittman stating the front would be
the north, but because of the setbacks there would be a deficient and it would make more
sense to make the East side the front as stated in the report. It was asked of the applicant
ifhe could still have the same attractive design if the East side was switched to the front.
Grittman stated it was discussed at staff level and assuming these lots would be
subdivided and platted, there would be conflicts, but if the PUD is taken as a whole,
Broadway would be defined as front stating that as part of a PUD you can take the liberty
of defining setbacks.
.
'It was stated by the applicant that these are intended to be owner/occupied and
approximately $130.000 to $140,000 each. It was also stated that there has been no
response from adjacent neighbors regarding this proposal. Dragtsen asked that since this
is at concept stage, that there be architectural controls in writing stating this development
would match the area. The members agreed the PUD must be superior, stating the design
is favorable, yet concerned about the fit in the existing neighborhood. making sure it does
not stand out.
Twin versus townhome square footage was discussed with Grittman stating that by
definition we would have to catagorize as twin home with the proposed 6.000 sq. ft per
unit; but there is a 5,000 sq. ft. shortage in this case that several of the members were
concerned with. Carson also added that he does not remember granting this size of a lot
square footage variance for townhomes previously. most or all cases have met the square
foot requirement and stating he feels we are looking at a lot that would accommodate
three units which we are trying to put on four. Grittman states that onc of the things that
staff found interesting about this idea was that it is an urban development and felt we
would be likely to see morc similar requests in the older neighborhoods. Staff thought
that if we gct a design that the City feels is superior, there is a rationale for considering
this proposal. He also added that the City could stick to their density requirements but
staff feels that perhaps this as a good use and that the project is a design that is superior to
others that have been done. It was discussed that this could be combined into one
building such as a duplex. but Grittman stated by breaking it up it characteristically
appears to be more like a single family home which is more fitting in this area. From
stafCs perspectiw. this is a more superior design, although the variance request is larger
than most. and there is a discrepancy in determining a twin home versus townhome .
.
Grittman again added that they are working with the developer to design an entryway on
Broadway to make it look more like it is the front. and added that they are proposing a
wrap-around front porch to reinforce that front door look. Anderson stated his time frame
3
.
Planning Commission Minutes ~ 05/0 I/O I
would be as soon as the process can be completed, and it also depends on him getting the
financing.
Popilek asked if any of the other members were concerned about the shortage in the
square footage and Carlson stated that the prevailing attitude of a 20% deficit is
acceptable, although it that is the case the Planning Commission should look at the
current standards. O'Neill stated that is only with the trade off of getting additional
improvements to the site such as dressing it up, added green space, less paved surfaces,
creating visual value to the site. Carlson also stated that if the Planning Commission
approved this concept they would also be encouraging this type of design in other areas
of the City, which would possibly be okay, and O'Neill stated this would need to be
looked at carefully. Smith stated he is always in favor of improving Broadway as it is the
heart of Monticello and this concept would be an improvement.
.
It was stated that stafT is not recommending changing the ordinance, this type of process
gives the City a case by case process to review. Carlson noted that he would like to
incorporate into the conditions that the side facing Broadway be improved to look like it
is the front. Herbst questioned if it may be a possibility to redevelop as one large unit.
rather than 2 units. Chair Frie stated that assuming there is an attitude of the Planning
Commission to approve this concept, these issues can be incorporated and worked out
under Exhibit Z.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE PUD CONCEPT PLAN BASED ON THE FINDING
THAT THE PUD CONCEPT PLAN, WITH CONDITIONS, IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY
ZONING ORDINANCE. THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, WITH THE
ADDITION OF ITEMS NUMBER 3 AND 4, ARE LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS
FOLLOWS:
I. The developer submit a complete PUD development stage application in accordance with
Chapter 20. Section 20-4[B]5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the development
stage application be subm itted within nine (9) months of the date of concept plan
approval.
The PUD application shall include project design and landscaping features as described
in the Planner's report.
2. Comments from other City staff
3. Revise the site plan showing the Broadway Street side design to look like it is the front
side.
.
4.
Increase in garage size.
Motion carried 4 to 1 with Roy Popilek voting in opposition.
4
.
.
.
Plann ing Comm ission Minutes - 05/0 I/O I
6.
Review reC.ll\est bv Monticello School District to extend the conditional use permit
allowinQ operation of the Alternative Learning ProQram in an [-1 District.
leflO'Neill advised that the City has allowed the operation of the Alternative Learning
Program as an interim use in the [-1 district by conditional use permit. During the
previous review cycle, the School District was granted an extension to the CUP permit.
As part of the discussion, it was noted that the School District should seek an alternative
site. Due to difficulty in finding a suitable location, the School District is seeking an
extension.
Mike Benedetto, Superintendent of Monticello Schools, and the statT from the ALP were
in attendance. Benedetto advised that the school had spent a year looking at locations to
no avail, advising that they are in their fourth year as a non-traditional school mainly
educating "tough" kids. Some of the places looked at were store fronts and church
basements. Gene Garman. representative for the ALP, added that they did have a location
that they thought was a possibility but it did not work out. Again he stated the need for
an off-site location stating that it has been statistically proven that the average "non-
traditional" student does not progress when connected to a school. They have already
failed at a high school setting, school grounds are not the most appropriate. Garman again
described the types of students they educate and noted that they have managed to give
diplomas to 123 students so far that would not otherwise have graduated, and if the school
can't find a place to locate, they would not exist.
Chair Frie stated that the commission is totally supportive of the ALP staff and the
program. and that the issue is strictly the location based on the present ordinance. Frie
added that the Planning Commission's intent is to work with the school as long as we can
work within compliance of the ordinances and he feels that Administration has truly done
their homework at attempting to find a location. It was emphasized that the location they
are in now tlts their needs and it looks as though the attempts to find another location
have been made.
Benedetto explained how the school is funded and stated that the school is self-
supporting, salaries are determined by the number of students who attend advising that
this does not come out of any type of fund. He stated that if there were no students, the
school \vould not exist. Benedetto advised also that the schoo] is currently paying a very
reduced rent, adding that the owners contribute to the building as well but that they are
leery in adding amenities if the ALP would not be allowed to operate there any further. It
was also stated that the size of the current building is sut1icient at this time and that no
other buildings that they have looked into have come in anywhere near that in size. Also
stated that by State law the ALP cannot pay for a building they are using. they have to
levy for it and they are trying to keep the cost down as low as possible.
Garman advised that there are Monticello students who chose to attend the ALe in
Buffalo. advising that Monticello ALP has a substance abuse policy and because of this
policy. some students choose Buffalo instead. Benedetto and Garman advised that they
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05101/0]
have a difTerent mission than the ALC in Buffalo.
Dragsten again stated he feels there is a safety issue as this is located on a fairly busy
road, another site would be better. He asked if the school had looked at other cities,
taking the Monticello ALP to possibly Big Lake. It was advised that it would not be a
good message to send to the City of Monticello residents by sending their kids out of the
City, stating these are our kids and we would like them to stay in Monticello. Lynn
Haldy, staff member at the ALP, advised that it is their intent to keep programs that exist
within the community. Part of their work is community outreach and they want to
involve the students in the community. Herbst agreed that since this program was started
here, it should keep the Monticello students here. It was noted that they do have open
enrollment and they may have one or two students out of the district. There is a waiting
list for Monticello students, advising that they did take students on a limited basis from
other towns previously. Garman also advised that they do charge different fees for out of
town students.
.
Carlson and Smith agree that the City has been supportive and their concern is that the
school is operating in an I-I district. Carlson added that his only concern is that we are
taking a piece of industrial land away to use as institutional. He does not believe this is
the best site for the ALP, adding that it is probably a community problem and that we
need to come up with a site. He stated he is still opposed to this as a permanent site, but
not a temporary site, until we come up with something better. Smith also added that there
have been no complaints in the four years that the school has been operating at this site, it
is serving it's purpose with no problems. He also noted that there has been no one in
attendance at any public hearing that was opposed to or had concerns regarding the
school being located at this site.
The members discussed the options of other locations, concurring that trying to locate the
school in the downtown area would cause problems and then the City would start to hear
complaints. Smith felt that if a complaint comes up in the future, that is the time the City
would need to look at this again, otherwise give them a break and look at this every other
year. Herbst added that he agreed with extending the school's permit, but he also did not
necessarily feel that the school had looked at as many alternate locations as they could
have. He also added that locating in an appropriately zoned district is important.
Frie stated his recommendation to the Planning Commission is that the school go ahead
with the application and public hearing, granting an interim use permit for two years, then
have the school come back at that time.
.
O'Neill stated that formal action on this item was not requested at this time. A formal
application and associated public hearing will be needed in conjunction with extending
the permit.
6
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01101
L
Consideration of a sketch plan review for development of 60 single family lots and 76
townhouse units on two parcels located southeast ofN.E. Jacob Avenue (CSAH 18) and
Fenning Avenue N.E. submitted by applicant Maplewood Development & Construction.
Inc.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report. He stated that the concept plan
consists of two parcels within the Orderly Annexation Area (OAA); One 17.3 acre parcel
is immediately southeast of the Jacob (CSAH 18) and Fenning Avenue intersection, while
the second 25.1 acre parcel is located approximately 500 feet south of the intersection
along Fenning Avenue. While the parcels are not contiguous, they are being considered
together as part of this PUD concept for the purpose of balancing density across the
project.
The OAA Land Use Plan guides these parcels for future development of low density
residential land uses. Evaluating the separate elements collectively, the overall project
density is approximately 3.2 units per acre, which would be considered low density.
Collectively, both parcels meet the 12,000 square feet minimum lot area per unit
requirements for the R-2, Single and Two Family District, with approximately 13.580
square feet per unit.
Evaluating the parcels collectively allows for the development of the townhouse uses on
the parcel directly adjacent to the Jacob/Fenning intersection. This more compact land
use type may be appropriate at this location given the traffic impact of these two major
roadways and the isolated character of this parcel. The parcel is somewhat isolated from
other surrounding residential uses by existing or planned park facilities and steep
topography to the south and east. which prevent through street connections between
neighborhoods.
Townhouse Site Design. The townhouse parcel is proposed to have two accesses, one to
Jacob Avenue (CSAH 18) and one to Fenning Avenue. The proposed access to Jacob
Avenue (CSAH 18) will require review by Wright County. The proposed access to
Fenning Avenue is 550 feet south of the Jacob Avenue intersection and 350 feet from the
south property line. The City Engineer should review if this is adequate intersection
spacing on Fenning A venue, as well as alignment with streets accessing Cardinal Hills
Sixth Addition to the west.
Internally, the townhouse project is served by a through private street. This street has a
60 foot right-of-way. The City requires a minimum 24 foot street section measured back
of curb to back of curb within townhouse projects. The City recently approved a similar
development that provided 30 foot street sections. This street section design would be
appropriate here given the through street function for all of the units. For the private
streets extending off of the main through\-vay. a 24 foot section should be provided with
concrete curb on all surfaces except for the asphalt pads leading to each garage. Hammer
heads also need to be provided at the terminus of these streets to allow for emergency
7
.
Planning Comm ission Minutes - 05/01/01
vehicles and garbage haulers to turnaround.
Due to the narrow width of the proposed streets and driveways, some accommodation
should be made for guest parking. The area in front of each garage would provide room
for one or two cars (depending on driveway width). Additional guest parking at a ratio of
one-half stall per unit should also be provided.
Setbacks within the project are 30 feet from any public right-of-way. A 30 foot setback
should also be provided at the east and south property lines. One building encroaches
slightly into this area along the south property line. The buildings should also be setback
a minimum 25 feet from the private streets extending off of the internal public street to
ensure adequate access and visibility if there are vehicles parked in the driveways. Most
of the buildings are only setback 20 feet from the private streets.
No information has been provided at this time regarding building design or landscaping.
The developer will need to provided detailed building elevations and a landscape plan
addressing perimeter, common area and foundation plantings with a forthcoming
development stage application.
.
Single Family Site Design. The single family portion of the project has been designed in
consideration of the R-2, Single and Two Family District performance standards. The
layout of the subdivision and lots ref1ects a minimum 12,000 square foot lot size with 80
foot minimum lot width. Absent any topography or wetland information. all of the lots
appear to have adequate buildable area within required setbacks.
The City may want to require submission of specific house plans for Lots 10, 25 and 28
showing construction of a single family dwelling with the ability to provide a three car
garage and attached deck or porch based upon the encumbrance of the lots by the gas
pipeline easement to avoid future variance requests. It should also be noted that the gas
pipeline company has indicated that they may restrict the construction of fences across
their easement. For this reason. consideration should possibly be given to designing the
lots such that the easement is across front yards rather than rear yards where fenced yards
may be desired.
.
The single family element of the concept plan has access to Fenning Avenue. This access
is centered on the parcel's west boundary. Again, the City Engineer should review the
proposed access location relative to spacing on Fenning and alignment with potential
future street extensions to the west. Secondary access is provided via a connection to
Wildwood Road within Wildwood Ridge to the east. The concept plan should also
provide for a future street extension to the south, which is planned for future low density
residential use. to improve access and neighborhood connectivity. The devclopcr should
also provide a sketch plan for future resubdivision of the towcr and exception parcel
northeast of the single family lots, including street layout and lot designs. Better to have
a winding. curving drive rather than angled turns. No access points have been reviewed
8
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01101
at this time.
The design of the right-of-way and street section within this neighborhood should match
those in the adjacent Wildwood Development and as may be recommended by the City
Engineer based on traffic generation. The streets within the single family area include
five eyebrows or shallow cul-de-sacs with islands. The design of these eyebrows would
require further review by the City Engineer to ensure adequate emergency and garbage
hauler access. From a public works standpoint, these eyebrows create additional
maintenance and snow plowing issues. Consideration should be given to minimizing the
use of such eyebrows or eliminating them all together. The developer should document
that the towers on the parcel to the north do not threaten single family lots in the new
subdivision.
.
The proposed street system in this project requires several turns from the northeast corner
where it connects with Wildwood Ridge. and the access point to Fenning Avenue.
Wildwood Ridge was intended to serve as an internal minor "collector" street for the area,
facilitating neighborhood tramc from both subdivisions between Fenning Avenue and
county Highway 18. Staff recommends a more direct connection, with sweeping curves
rather than abrupt turns as designed. One suggestion would change the Fenning Avenue
access point to a location farther south, eliminating at least one of the "eyebrow"shown
on the concept plan.
Park and Trail Dedication. Chapter 6 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires dedication
of 1 0 percent of the gross area of the plat for development of parks and open space or
payment of an equivalent amount of cash in lieu of land, subject to review and approval
by the Park Commission and City Council. Based upon the gross area of the plat,
approximately 4.2 acres of land is required to be dedicated for public parks.
The concept plan includes a proposed 1.3 acre park within the center of the single family
neighborhood. This parcel is encumbered by the gas pipeline easement, which may
restrict development and use of a neighborhood park. The largest contiguous area not
effected by the easement is 0.6 acres in size in the southeast corner of the proposed park.
There is also a 0.1 acre area not effected by the easement in the northwest corner of the
parcel. Provisions for trails along Jacob andlor Fenning Avenue should also be
considered.
Chair Frie was concerned that the homes fit in with the more exclusive homes just up the
way into Wildwood Ridge. He stated the applicant was aware of the City' desire to have
single family homes in that area.
.
The concept for the townhouse clement of the project includes paths leading to the pond
at the north\vcst corner of that parcel. Similar pathways, whether public or private should
also be provided to the east and south property lines to provide pedestrian connections to
the planned park areas. One such pathway should be considered which accommodates
9
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/01
bike/pedestrian traffic through the City's park area, extending through the tower property
to the single family project. This pathway ultimately would be intended to connect the
townhouse area, the single family area, the City's park and Water Tower park site, and
provide access to the school campus to the northwest.
Grading, Drainage and Utilities. No grading, drainage and utility plans were provided
as part of this concept plan review. Some indication of storm water ponding is illustrated
for the townhouse parcel, but no such information is shown for the single family units.
Consideration of a development stage application will require submission of grading,
drainage and utility plans, which are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Frie stated his concern with recommending park space versus dollars as there is nothing
out there for future park space, noting that starting from Wildwood Ridge to Rolling
Woods there really are no pathways. Jeff 0 'Neill stated that there is about a 5 acre parcel
'by the water tower site that is designated for park land, adding there are also
approximately 4 more acres available for parkland as well.
Popilek asked if the developer could take two parcels and connect them as a PUD and it
was stated that there has to be some unified concept and that the City would need to work
with the developer for that connection.
.
Dragsten added concerns such as the entrance/exits on Fenning which seem close to the
corners, and was this an issue with the County. The commissioners and staff also
discussed access, road grades, and adjacent land being developable.
One of the reasons the developer stated for proposing this concept is that there are some
radical topographical changes in going from north to south noting that the sites are
radically steep. The developer also stated they were not opposed to the items listed in the
conditions in Exhibit Z; but they did comment that they are trying to create some added
value, amenities. in regard to the "eyebrow" areas. They prefer to keep the parks private
and let the association take care of them, but would still make cash dedications for park
land.
.
The developer responded to the suggestions made to them in the staff report as well as at
the meeting. Mario Cocchiarella, President of Maplewood Development. stated that
parking per unit basis on twin homes is different from town homes (proposing 18
additional off site); these are full size garages and they don't think that additional guest
parking should be required due to that. The main thoroughfare would be public, otT
streets would be private, and regarding item 5 of the conditions in the statT report with set
backs of 30 feel. its 25 feet in private streets and they would prefer 20 ft. because they
would like to put in trails and plantings. He also stated that 80lVo of the homes do not
back up to each other creating additional privacy. Also regarding the 24 ft. wide street.
they are hoping to make them 20 f1:. wide, making the overall site creating courtyard
areas. Moving the access to the south is okay, would also like to see a trail extend
10
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/01
through this in the future.
Frie asked that if the Wright County Engineer did not approve access on Jacob Ave., do
they have another option, and it was stated that should not be a problem. They also added
that the Engineer had advised them they need some additional storm water ponding as
well. Herbst questioned the number of town homes that are being proposed in the City at
this time and would like to know some ratios, asking what would be a healthy ratio? Frie
asked for staff to bring that count up to date, including the Klucas property; O'Neill asked
how would we catagorize it versus values and what why would they like to sce thc break
down? Carlson stated possibly up to $150 value and above. Maplewood Development
has not identified a value at this time.
Popilek also added that the Planning Commission is constantly asked to approve PUDs,
making roads smaller, etc. and states that somehow we need to watch that we do not
make these too small. Also asked about garbage pickup in the townhome sections, and it
was stated they would be separate groups and are wide enough to accomodate.
.
The commissioners stated they liked the concept of more green spaces versus trying to
get too many units in and having very little green space. Herbst noted this is a very
accessible (or viewable) site, and it was stated that the city does have architectural design
standards to be followed, but also have the flexibility with a PUD.
There was further discussion regarding that the main thoroughfare is a public road, others
are private, and Grittman stated that the concerns with snow removal, fire access, and
other services would be discussed with Public Works and the City Engineer.
Herbst recommended to staff that they provide information regarding twin homes and
town homes in regard to ratios, etc., within the next two months.
.
O'Neill advised that the next step could be to go to the City Council with the sketch plan
or the applicant could prepare a preliminary plat, reviewed by Planning Commission,
forwarded onto the MOAA Board and then a public hearing process. He also stated that
the city needs a complete application before going further on this item. tie also stated
that there are some sewer capacity issues that Maplewood Development is working on
with the City Engineer. and there is a chance there may be problems. Herbst asked about
who would get the capacity first as there is also another preliminary plat submitted on this
same property. O'Neill stated there are no set standards as to who would develop this
property if that is the question: the question may be which areas would be served by city
services. Frie added that when he was on the MOAA board, the thinking was based on
the criteria for being annexed, common sense being the area which abutted the
sewer/water access would get the service. It was also asked which parcel was contiguous
and O'Neill stated both sites were contiguous, but the waste water treatment plant project
would have better access, however they have other factors to look at.
II
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/01
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL
OF THE SKETCH PLAN FOR A PUD CONCEPT PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH THE ADDITION OF CONDITION
NO. 10 STATING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW BY STAFF.
SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH. Motion carried unanimously.
8.
Review of the Mielke commercial PUD sign svstem.
Jeff O'Neill provided the planning commissioners with a modified sign system provided
by Dan Mielke. The subway sign height would stay at 30 ft., but location would move
slightly; landscaping modifications were made that would remove the over-story trees
and replace with flower pots and Christmas trees in the winter with lights; remove one
pylon sign but there would be two pylon signs along the Hwy. 25 corridor and would be
30 ft. in height to match the one at the Ford dealership (it was stated they this sign was
grandfathered in); but Mielke also added that the Ford reader board is 40 ft. in height;
there would be a 9' x 8' monument sign in place of a pylon, a smaller directional sign on
Cedar St. that would meet the minimums, another monument sign on Cedar St. as well.
The pylon sign in the back is proposed at 57' high with comments by Mielke stating that
they would like to match the Ford Dealership (electronic) sign and that the sign would be
blinking as an attention getting design. The Ford sign again was discussed and again it
was stated this is an enforcement issue and that Ford did not follow the city's ordinance
when installing the reader board. Mielke advised that the planning commission's minutes
from a year ago stated that Ford had three new signs and one existing sign, which is
inconsistent with what is being stated tonight.
Grittman added that there are a couple of monument signs instead of pylons, and they
generally encourage the use of monuments but there is a concern with one on Cedar 5t.
and the traffic visibility stating he would like to know the exact placement of this sign.
Dan Mielke provided the commissioners with a listing of the signs. The freeway sign
behind the proposed restaurant was dropped by 3 ft. because the same company that put
up the Amoco, Super America and Best Western signs would be the same and they were
all 57' in height. O'Neill and Grittman advised that freeway access sign height is 32'
along the interstate from the road surface and that the other 57' signs stated were put in
prior to this ordinance. Staff stated the various sign heights and whether they were placed
prior to the '97 storm and/or new ordinance. Staff noted that Dunlo Motors has a sign
that is 29', even with the freeway, and that it was installed according to the code without
discussions by the applicant. adding that Dunlo Motors was required to follow code.
Frie asked stafhvhich part of the signage being proposed by Mielke is of concern and
Grittman stated in summary the 57' sign should be 32', the 30' sign should be 22', and
stated that the monuments are in compliance. O'Neill stated that the 30' signs previous
stated were in place prior to the ordinance and the city has not allowed any new signs that
are not in compliance, naming Dunlo Motors, K-Mart, Cub Foods, Country Grill,
12
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/0 I
Americ-Inn. etc. all met code and the city has held to the code.
Grittman also added that all the above-named signs have met code. some with concerns
who wanted more sign height and/or size, but no variances were approved, stating all are
in compliance. Herbst stated he felt that as long as this is a PUD, the city can allow any
size they want, but Grittman stated the need to have findings as to why this would be
allowed and are not as intlexible as a variance.
The commissioners discussed further that they did not feel the city needed to put in more
larger signs adding that there are freeway signs installed by the Transportation Dept. as
well that are used for advertisement, and the commissioners wondered the effects of such
sIgns.
Frie stated signage issue has been a concern since day one with this project and asked
statT why the 22' sign height was determined. O'Neill advised that sign heights were set
by speeds on the roadways. Frie stated that he does not see having all 30' signs along
Highway 25 to be a problem, but did not feel that having some signs at 30' and the rest at
22' was the answer. O'Neill advised that the reasoning for this is that once
redevelopment occurs, it is the thought that they would all be in compliance with the 22'
sign height.
.
O'Neill added that they need to look at how they want their city to look in the future,
adding that we have a CCD in the old part of town, then to the south is newer, may want
to look at signs at that point.
Mielke stated that they are in jeopardy of losing some clients if the sign issues are not
resolved. He stated some of the clients coming in need certain signage, and that
aesthetics are important. What they are proposing is what seems to fit with what is
already there and would be effective, also adding that they made modifications since the
last planning commission meeting. He feels the freeway pylon would fit with what is
there. and that having a 30' sign would be odd with the existing one that is 57'. Mielke
also stated that the national chain they are looking at for this site would not approve of
this. Mielke also pointed out the aesthetics with putting in the monuments versus the
higher signs. Also added there will be trees planted all around this site, and that it is
more expensive for them to do this signage proposal. but aesthetically it is better. Stated
need signs that are effective.
.
It was noted that the issue is with the proposed 57' sign as well as the other one proposed
that \vollld place several signs on one post. Mielke stated he is hoping to get approval of
this signage program based on its merits, it is a PUD, and also addressed the proposed
building signs noting that due to the changes in access to the development. all customers
will come in the back off Cedar St. and therefore are requesting that when those people
come in from the back that they have the same signage on back as on the front side.
Grittman and O'Neill stated that the wall signs are not an issue.
13
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/01/01
O'Neill again advised that the presence of a non-conforming sign (Ford reader-board) in
the area should not be used as a reason to allow a higherlbigger sign at a neighboring site.
He did ask Mielke where the electronic reader board would be installed if at all, and
Mielke stated it would go where the existing UltraLube sign is, replacing it. Mielke still
feels they are undersigned compared to what is across th street from them. They want
this approval based on the merits of their proposal. O'Neill stated that there is not
anything unique about this travel center which would allow larger signs. and Grittman
added that non-conforming signs is not a good reason to allow these larger signs, stating
that they are trying to get rid of the non-comforming signs and by approving this plan, it
is defeating the purpose. Mielke states what makes his project unique is the signage
around them. O'Neill stated he agreed with Mielke on the issue of the pylons that are
exposed to Hwy. 25, but again Grittman stated that if the planning commission feels the
3D' sign height is appropriate on H\NY. 25, the code needs to be changed. Richard Carlson
asked if these were 7 individual businesses, how many signs would be allowed and
Grittman stated for 7 individual lots there would be 7 signs allowed.
.
The commissioners concurred that added building signage for the back of the building
was acceptable; Ford is a separate issue that needs to be looked into by staff; sign height
on Highway 25 should be looked at if staff feels that 3D' versus 22' is more acceptable,
but Popilek, Dragsten and Smith did not feel 57' should be allowed; Dragsten added that
if several businesses could be listed on one sign it may make the project look better
stating aesthetically it looks better than 7 individuals: Carlson added that Mielke needs to
pull the electronic sign as well as the center sign from the proposal; Smith stated he feels
the sign project needs to be uniform with what is there but also that by allowing a larger
sign in this proposal the city could be opening itself up for more requests for larger signs;
Herbst did not feel that the other businesses who are in conformance will come in to
complain if this sign proposal is approved, but also added that whatever the planning
commission recommends he would be in support of.
.
O'Neill asked if the code would need to be changed for the 57' sign height, and Grittman
advised that there would have to be some rationale for this and that it can not be because
of the other signs that are in place as they are non-conforming. Herbst asked if the
rationale could be that the other signs there are 57', and if you can' t put in a 57' sign there,
does it drop down to 32' and if so, would that be visible? It was stated it would not be
visible, but if that is the purpose you buy freeway land. O'Neill also asked Mielke if
there was a height somewhere between 57' and 32'; and also for Mielke to justify this
request so as to not set a precedence. Mielke stated they came up vvith 57' because some
of the national food outlets came out and looked around and were attracted by this being a
growing town, but not on the population we have. theref()fe the need to attract from
freeway. Mielke stated the sign company they worked with came up with this height and
that they also indicated how the sign needs to be turned to an appropriate angle for
visibility.
14
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/0 I/O I
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MIELKE
COMMERCIAL PUD SIGN PLAN AS PRESENTED. APPROVAL BASED ON THE
FINDING THAT THE TOTAL SIGN PACKAGE FOR THE AREA UNDER THE PUD
IS SUPERIOR THAN THE POTENTIAL SUM OF SIGNS HAD EACH PARCEL
DEVELOPED INDIVIDUAL SIGNAGE. THERE WAS FURTHER DISCUSSION BY
ROY POPILEK AND ROD DRAGSTEN NOTING THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE 57'
SIGN HEIGHT. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried 3 to 2
with Rod Dragsten and Roy Popilek voting in opposition.
AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH
AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
TO RE-EXAMINE SIGN ORDINANCE AFFECTING SIGNAGE ALONG THE
HIGHW A Y 25 CORRIDOR. Motion carried 3 to 2 with Rod Dragsten and Roy Popilek
voting in opposition.
O'Neill advised Mielke that this item will be forward to the city council on 5/14/01 and
they will get the planning commission's recommendation with their rationale, but this
will not be on the consent agenda due to the two opposing votes. O'Neill also advised
that the council needs a 3 to 2 vote for approval. The PUD will then be ready to proceed,
with the development agreement to be worked out.
9.
Parking at China Buffet, Locust Street
leffO'Neill advised that stafThad reviewed the parking prior to a restaurant locating
there, they then required the developer to provide funds for parking. O'Neill also stated
that they knew there would be parking on the street and according to the CCD guidelines,
the city should allow parking on the streets. This is consistent with the downtown
district. If it had not been for the wide street and being in the central community district,
we would not have this restaurant there at all. O'Neill stated that the city is getting a
greater tax base with this development and it does follow the code. One problem with the
site is the way it is configured as far as traffic flow, and people have a hard time
understanding that they can park on the street and that the city actually encourages it.
Herbst added that he understands that this project was approved prior to the restaurant
going in, noting that the one that might be hurt by the parking would be the restaurant and
no one else.
10. Adjournment
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
Recorder
15
.
.
.
Planning Conlll1ission Agenda - 06/05/0 I
i:
Public Hearing ~ Consideration of an interim use permit allowing a school to operate in
the 1-1 district. Applicant: Independent School District 882, Alternative Learning
Program. (.10)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Monticello School District is seeking an extension to the interim use permit allowing
operation of the Alternative Learning Program in the 1-1 District. The applicant is
seeking a two year extension. As was noted at the previous meeting, the School District
has made an efIort to find a suitable location in another district. Technically, this type of
land use is only allowed in the Residential or PS (Public Semi-public) zoning districts
which limits the ability of the School District to find another location.
City statlhas not received any complaints regarding the operation of the facility in an
Industrial area.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to approve the extension of said interim use permit for a period of two
years based on the finding that eonfl icts between school and industrial uses have
been kept to a minimum at this location, and based on the understanding that the
School District will continue to seek an alternative site during the term of this
extension to the original interim use permit. The following conditions apply to
the interim use permit:
1. The interim use permit will expire on August 31,2003. Extension ofthe suhjeet
property for public school use heyond the termination date may only be allowed
hy re-application to the City.
2. The District agrees to expand the parking area at the direction of the City. 'fhe
City will direct expanded parking based on its observation of parking demand
which may cause the use of on~street parking at any time.
3. The use of the subject property will be during normal school hours only.
2. Motion to deny approval of said extension.
.
Planning Conllnission Agenda - 06/05/01
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends approval based on reasons outlined in the finding under
alternative I.
SUPPORTING DATA
None
.
.
2
.
.
.
M
MONTICELLO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Independent School District No. 882
302 Washington Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Telephone (763) 271-0300
Fax (763) 271-0313
March 28,2001
Mayor Roger Be1saas
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mayor Belsaas,
As we discussed at our last meeting, we are having a difficult time finding a suitable
location for the Alternative Learning Program (ALP). During the past few months we
have looked at the following sites as possible locations for our program:
KMOM Building - We will need a considerable amount of upgrades and permission
from the township and county. The owner is not interested in making the financial
commitment to bring the building up to school standards. This site was our number one
alternative for quite some time and it is unfortunate that we lost so much time waiting for
the owner's decision, who originally was very agreeable and then turned cold to the
proj ect.
Old St. Henry's Church - The potential sale of the property for future development is an
entanglement that could present significant problems for us if we relocated a school to
that location for any length of time.
Old Methodist Church - I have spoken with representatives from Sunny Fresh. The
compa.lJ.Y has other plans for the building and they are !lot interested in renting the site to
us.
Golden Valley Furniture Building - The building is currently occupied and, therefore,
is not available to us.
Kjellbergs Building - This is a building behind the Golden Valley Furniture Building.
The building is currently occupied. The owner would have to make a significant
investment into remodeling the site in order to make it appropriate for a school setting.
There have been other leads that we have received but once we have looked into them
they have never become legitimate possibilities for a school site.
Sit
. Because of the difficulty in finding a suitable location and the time lines that we have, I
am respectfully asking the Monticello City Council to refer to the Planning and Zoning
committee our request for an extension of the conditional use permit at our Turning Point
School site. I am certainly willing to attend your council meeting and a Planning and
Zoning meeting to formally make this request and answer any questions you may have.
Please know that we are in jeopardy oflosing this very important asset to our community
if we can not find a suitable location for these students.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
MB/ja
Cc: Board of Education
.
.
.
.
.
Planning ConHnission Agenda - 06/05/01
6.
Consideration of a req uest for preliminarv plat approval of the Monticello Commerce
Center 5th Addition. Applicant: Monticello Industrial Pad\" Inc. (0)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Sean Weinand, represented by Charlie Pfeffer, is seeking preliminary plat approval of the
Monticello Commerce Center 5th Addition. The Fifth Addition consists of 3 parcels
located along Fenning A venue. Lot 3 will become the site of Integrated Recycling
Technologies, Inc., which is proposed for construction this year. Each of the parcels
meet lot minimum requirements and all are located in the I] zoning district. No public
improvements are required with this development.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve the preliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce Center 5th
Addition.
2.
Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce
Center yh Addition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends Alternative] .
SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of Preliminary Plat
.
.
.
STREET
VARU':S. _ _ __,
,~r~.r"l---" :........
:j.._-s,-,. =ti
VI ;_1 If I .. ~
~ .. H I It I ~ .---
~ 6 :MII '_,~:.---
-l ., , 0
~: I.. .-~-::~ _: --l
VAllil!:s
~.t
"'1
1::.'
.., --..
?
l j f ~~H l
9i'1 /:;( f r . ~ ~~i :
i~ I. I ~ i ;~~ ~
21 ' ~ ~; H~ i
'.. i I ( ! m "'-
II . ~ ..;!!. i
It I.., lili~:;
... I i I m tl
E~ i 1 in S
iii I
I
a:::
o
z
~
t--l
()
M
I-Ij~
t---I~
t-rj
~O}l
~O~
O~
:J>!:7"'l>-
t:J'=;::"'~
tj~"U
t---lM,;
t-3~-l
t---l()
Otrj
Z
o
trj
.Z
t-3
tJ:j
~
.....llfH Jilt
IU,"~I: 'II r
11..11(j1 h~f
h;;h~1 n~
llllm iii
Iii: ;(8 I(i
If I ..ij 1.8
iehJ!i !~
'!II.II~~! ~l
II (r.. ~
hiiIf! Ii.
~11t'~f III
nafil {
lfo1lo:i
rf
r~~l
lJftJ s~1
~ J1 ' 1
uA
.
.
.
Planning COIl1Il1 ission Agenda - 06/05/0 I
7.
Public Ilearing. - Consideration of a relluest for a variance to the sideyard setback
requirements to allow construction of a new driveway. Applicant. Jim Herbst. (FP)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The properties located at 519 and 531 West Broadway shared a driveway for several decades.
Last year the property located at 531 West Broadway was sold and both the property owner of
531 and Mr. Jim Herbst, the property owner of 519 West Broadway, decided to discontinue
the sharing of the driveway. The shared driveway was an existing non-conforming use in that
residential driveways are required to be setback at least 3 feet from sideyard propery lines.
That portion of the shared driveway located on the 531 side of the property line will remain as
is without expansion or intensification of the non-conforming use. Ilowever, Mr. Herbst
intends to widen and pave that portion of the shared driveway that will remain on the 519 side
of the property line. Widening and paving of the driveway on the 519 side of thc property
line is an expansion and intensification of the non-conforming use and is not allowed without
providing for the required 3 foot sideyard setback.
Mr. IIcrbst is seeking a variance to allow a two (2) foot reduction in the width of the sidcyard
setback for his driveway. Mr. Herbst would like to preserve the two large maple trees on the
driveway side of his house. By reducing the sideyard setback for his driveway to one foot,
Mr. Herbst will be able to install a paved driveway nine feet in width, one foot away from the
trees and one foot from the property line.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to allow a two (2) foot reduction in the sideyard setback from the west
property line at 519 West Broadway to allow the construction of a paved driveway
based on the following findings:
a. crhe installation of a paved driveway in the width and location proposed
will preserve the large maple trees on the west side of the llerbst
residence.
b. Paving of the driveway will confl.mn to the subdivision regulations of
the City.
c. The new location of the driveway will be more in confl.mnance with the
Zoning Code than the previously shared driveway.
2. Motion to deny the request fl.)!' a variance from the required sideyard setback for
driveways.
Plann ing Com III ission Agenda - 06/05/01
,)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission allow the two foot variance, Alternate 1
above.
SUPPORTING DATA
Sketch ofthe site plan of the properties showing the location of the existing shared driveway
and trees.
Aerial photo.
--")1
..
~~
---,
2
t
"T"
<t
14~
\JlU;
~'O
.4.:"'"
:~
\/'IQ.\,
\
~u.(
~t.(/\
t! ~ j
<: <i ~
::t<t:t.
~U
V\
.-......----
o
(\
1
J."
I'
-~
{-
C/)c.d
c::()tI\
OJ oj
\U ~
:::t:..~
,., -.~:~t.."..
C:Od
I
~
\~
~~
o -\
QJ.
~\,
__t-- _ _ --.___
o.
,~
ot
~
,..
t-~
"'~
cwt .ot
~l
:t:.~
IJA
HO~.:l
. ::r
~~'-1 Cd __ ~
<)~(.U ~ A"
f&I \) r.u. "-' ~ ~
&. ~ ~....J. ~
~ f{J 't-. >- fLI 'l
~Q(C{J~~$
~ ld -...) ClJ. Cl.l r-
::..- ':Q a. <:l.. .::)
-.J '( .......
~t~ ~ ~~tt
~Wci.~~J
'-.:.J d. ~ ~ ~
>- -( Cd' \J t) ~
~ ~~ ~ 3 ~
(d. ~ 1L.. i-:- ij;
=.?a ~+-
.;. (( -"1- ~ ~ r
") ~ (JJ. - 0 i- t-
o~ <.'~ ~
co aJ - ~ ~-'<J
~lt....J. ~...j
<101 1- ,,1
"t. ~ >-t,L ~ ~
~ v ~ ~~i- '*
>-.. ~ ~
~ ~ ~ >...... {' <J.
q - ~. /Q ttJ
- to) ~ QL '}. c:L (tl
~ Q Q... \J1 Q~
~~ ~ ~~tf
~uJ Q.lQ ~
~ at"t"'" ~
<t c..L ~ --- ~
~ ~ ~ t-~
~ ~ ~ v'IIr
:::t. 'V <t~
",Ai. ~ 1, fCl ~
{{ f ~ ~~liL
i {..; {.!t-~
-. \) ~ ~ ~~
t ~ ~ (.L
~ d::~ uJ a:
<-{- t~~~
H~6E:6 l00C:-Vl-S
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/0 I
8.
Consideration for a variance allowing the construction of an accessorv structure
in the front yard. Applicant: Daniel Kellas 00/.10)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Mr. Daniel Kellas has applied for a variance to allow the construction of a 26 by
28 foot detached garage in the front yard area which is contradictory to the zoning
ordinance which states; "3-2[Dj(2) No accessory building shall be erected or
located within any required yard other than the rear yard." Staff feels that the
ordinance was written with the purpose of preventing garages from being placed
in front of homes. Staff does not feel that it was the ordinances intention to deny
such a request as this, where the applicants lot is unusually large and the principal
structure is set back at such a great distance.
A property owner seeking a variance must show that the variance is necessary to
allow reasonable use of the property, and that there is a physical hardship in
meeting the basic zoning regulations. In this particular case, the applicant does
not meet these requirements, however staff feels the uniqueness of the
neighborhood (unusually large lots, sizeable front yard setbacks) and the fact that
the request for the variance is not contrary with the intent of the Zoning Code
should be taken into consideration. The following are additional reasons why the
request complies with the intent of the ordinance.
. Construction of the garage will bring the property more into
conformance with the development standards of the City, since the
applicant currently has a single car garage that docs not meet the
minimum 480 sq. [1. of garage space needed in residential districts.
. The structure is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood
in that it is setback no closer than adjoining structures.
. The accessory structure will meet the front yard setback.
. The accessory structure will meet the side yard setback.
. The acccssory structure is set to the side and does not interfere
with sightlines on either side of structure.
. The accessory structure will not impair property valucs.
8. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve the variance, based on the fact that it is a unique
situation that complies with the intcnt of the code.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/01
2.
Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that there are adequate
options available to the applicant in placing a garage, and that the
requirement for hardship and reasonable use is not met in the
application.
3.
Motion to table action on the variance, subject to further study
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Stail recommends approval of the variance. The request complies with the intent
of the code.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B -.- Aerial Photo
Exhibit C - Digital Photo
.
.
2
-.
1803 River Street W.
A
~
Q; - l'
/~ ",2P 0
\ V w
' b"
'~'\f'tY ~ x.
~ -I
:; 'v
-\-. '
.()"
.t.".
Vf
.
'.
-t\- ~
'0
\ :, )
~
0-.
'"
C)
a
a
~
\: . CJ) \
~~ ' ~..... '"" """,. ..- "'
.
~
t.,
<.c
...,
<:0
,.,.
,.,
( \ '.
.. ",
\j/
r I
16 6 1
'l':
i~
'0
/
74 69
62
EnSTING
I-/OUSE
,,-
=
""'
""
I...I} 11 (!! "
" ()tJ -;
~
- . st<1. -\
~j~J~
5 86.41~OO" W
\Vv'
\'0
'"
;<;;
J.0027 ACRE
63 81
~
I)..
\ 'j..
\'.
/
\/
\: "/
I
f... ~
..." I
~o. l
175. 00
'<>
...
~
"
I
/J
!
~
\Q
~.
~
(f
a
C)
'6
l!)
iC'IJ
~
~
..
'-
...
~. ~ ~
\ '" ~
~ .-.. .. ~ ~,., , Cl:
r 'a
. \ -,..
, "'Ia f' <;..
I n I
I _ _ ,
--~e-Tt~
l:j
~
<\J
...
""'
'"
<:0
'"
n".
'"
rr
.,:
t>t
\
SA
. __ ,...1"\
I'-? 0 19 0
.
.
.
Page 1 of]
file:// A:\MVC-002F.JPG
B0
05/02/2001
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/0 I
9.
Consideration of a request for a variance from the 10 foot side yard setback
requirement within the R-I Zoning District to allow the construction of a deck.
Applicant: Shawn Ball (.IG/.10)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Shawn Ball has applied for a variance to allow the construction of a 23 by 15 1<.)ot
deck. This deck would extend 4 feet over the 10 foot side yard setback allotted in the
R-l district, which would leave 6 feet from the deck to the property line.
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 of the property, and that there is a Non-Economic
hardship in meeting the basic zoning regulations, such as the required setback. ]n this
case, there appears to be other options for the applicant, one of which is constructing a
23 by 11 foot deck, which would meet the setback requirements.
With the availability of other options, the requirement that the City find a hardship is a
difficult one to meet. A variance in this case, based on the materials presented, does not
appear to be justified by the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the variance, based on a finding that other options for
the deck location do not provide a reasonable use of the property.
2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that there is adequate
space available to construct a deck that would meet setback
requirements.
3. Motion to table action on the variance, subject to further study.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
StatTdocs not recommend approval of the variance. Although the 4 foot extension onto
the side yard setback may allow l()f increased lIse of the applicants property, the
standard for hardship and lack of reasonable use of the property is not met in this
appl ication.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan
.
-7.
L._
<(
()
,.
<l
..... :
:>
....-
00.
r"
.
CXJ
"'.
-
.\ .J
. J
f',' t.
c151 ~~
. 34'-0"
.....
.
~O.l'
:I:Vl'>"t-
, 057,'7
~.. .
.
o
.q-
~
10/
~
o
o
.
to
f'..
-
)
OJ.51
~p
58
'J
) ~5i
-
- "-
--.... - ...........
~)(~ibit A
gA
- -........ .. -
.
lQ.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6-05-0 I
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of an animal
hospital in the B-3 Zoning District. Applicant: Monticello-Big Lake Pet Hospital.
(NAC/JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Monticello-Rig Lake Pet Hospital has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to aIlow
the expansion of their hcility at 1260 Cedar Street, between Cedar Street and
Highway 25. The expansion will accommodate new reception, waiting and
examination rooms, and a remodeling of the existing facility. The project will
include extensive exterior building improvements as well, consisting primarily of
hurnished block and stucco.
The site plan illustrates 29 parking spaces, in compliance with Ordinance
requirements. All other dimensional requirements of the R-3 District are met, with
one exception. The section which establishes Animal I lospitals as Conditional Uses
in the B-3 District requires that side yard setbacks are to he increased ffom the
typical 10 foot requirement in the B-3 District to a minimum of 20 feet. The south
boundary line constitutes a side lot line, from which the building expansion would
be set hack about 12 feet at its closest point. The existing building is set hack just
10 feet from the line, an existing non-conforming condition. To avoid tabling the
proposal to consider a side yard setback variance, the applicant should revise the
plans so that the expansion meets the 20 foot requirement. It should be noted that the
requisite hardship to approve a variance request would likely be difficult to find,
since reasonable use of the property can be made without the variance.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, based 011 a
finding that the site complies with the B-3 District requirements, and with a
condition that the plans are revised to show compliance with the 20 side yard
sethack for the building expansion.
2.
Motion to approve Conditional Use Permit contingent on applicant obtaining
a variance or zoning ordinance amendment allowing construction at the 10
foot setback.
Under this alternative, the applicant will need to request a zoning ordinance
amendment allowing a ten foot side yard setback fl1r animal hospitals in a B-
3 zone. This request is supportable given the many other uses that can have
a 10 foot setback in the B-3 zone. If the owner is working a short time frame,
a special meeting of the Planning Commission could be held immediately
prior to the City Council Meeting scheduled for June 25, 200 I.
Planning Commission Agenda -- 6-05-0 I
.
'"
-, .
Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on
findings to be considered from information provided at the public hearing.
4. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit, pending submission
of additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the Monticello-Big Lake Animal
Hospital. The only condition relates to the side yard setback, which is required to be
20 feet for this particular use, under the terms of the zoning ordinance. Although the
existing building is established at the B-3 District's 10 foot setback, extending the
addition into this area would require a variance or a zoning ordinance amendment.
As noted in this report, it would be difficult to find a hardship necessary to approve
a variance for the setback encroachment so a zoning ordinance amendment may
make the most sense.
.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit H - Building Floor Plans
Exhibit C - Building Elevation Drawings
.
--.--1--1 HLHO-~1:6-;:19"1 1.~~9-~\:6";;19 "1"
.t~.. '11111 ","01~lIU'lU
- 9lC 'ling l .....,3,'1 9;:9tl
"II' 'SJ.J3J.IIIJl!Y
13111"'1 , 11'.11"'0. 'IIOP1,q. 'lIo.lIqo[
-.. ."iF;ic' "ON 'I]" -
'V J.OS3NNlj
JQ .:In'U
AI ttJ:~,~A,~~;o l~~::'1r "~~l~; ~~~~~ \
HId".:!!! !II:I 'NJ1,l,Y:;lTJ'r:J:;i~ 'Non.. 11M! IV1'~ .I.JI.I.IIJn 1.]~~..
[ ---
N'Vld 3.1.1<; Q3
'IIllJ
'VJ.os;aNNIH '011;a?IJ.NOH
...
;;;/,
JUli
I.i,
:~I~~
1'0' J.ldSOH J.3d 3::l'Vl ""'" 0113?IJ.NOH
l~~rDa..
(!),,~, 0,.,
"-- ^ ~"< 7 C
. ~ '" )~ ~,y "-
~ 0-
I>:; s ">
;i;~' '-
~
-:::--...
'"
~,
M "OO,6Z.L S
ZO 'fr~
I
~ ai91
LDI
C"\J
OJ
CJ
C"\J
lu
~
CJ
~CJ
CJ
P
())
OJ
<:
~\
"
I
II
I
II
I
-"
........
........
~
J!>0.
,0-,'(,
~ C;.:~
~ ~
~ ...41
.--:t~9,
L~ ........
"
,
I
I
I I --
II --
I'
I
II
I
I II
II
I
1--
I I ---
----
'>'
f
if
Bi
t;'
d
_______ 1
. d -- . Iii IU
~~I !~~
~~~ 9r
1~'E:r! ii..;
~ll.iII() !~G1
..~~~ ~.' i
i. h ~~ '
'~b! i!= .~
~~~ i~~
~ '~I! li~2
~ia fh~
- ~
~ I
! i.
'j
r~----
--
()
--
--...
.........
.........
"""
"""
""
'" r)
'--
flf"
~i
I
I
-]
__oj
~,. - "j I
---j
--- -'
--.
i__
I
f-'
~
l
I
I
I
.J '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
____ j J
~~1~61~IV=VW ~~::~~ - - - -
~p-rr' -
1 . . I
~- -.
~
! 1/ ~ .
~~ fi~.
il! li~
., Hi ~u
5 G G
z
II.: - - .. - - - - -I
g
- .. . j ~,
R
~n
! I I
i ~ ~
I ~ 8
/ ; "
I "
f ,~ 'J ".
I 1'1 ,
. I 1/ .I -.."-
" '" - .
:f. It.' " ~',
,';/ /
I'
,7 ' ,
I /;:/.f\ /
- '/, 11 j:
r~~ ~I " ,
:*, Il;:,~~''''
',- ~' ~ ~
""~~
-~..,
,"';
.t/1 c:>I-,QI.
z
<(
-!
lL.
It
C)
()
-!
lL
D=
Z~
() -'
()'
ill =-
\f)~
\~
~ ~J;.~,
"- ."1; -
"
"
",'I,I~, ~.
-' · . - ,*' ',...L ....~.
. .J!.-:'if~ ..
'r' -:'1' --<$
~. , ~
~,~ ~
',: ' I -~~
. ! -r-
-~\A~
'"
('- _.-
. ,;::-
"'\\
<>
.4;:.
~
~ ~~ PI ~
L" ~~! ~i g ~ .
i ~ i iii ;11 ! I !
i ~ ~ ~i~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0000 0@0@@
NOl.lIQa'o'
~-
I
II
~
~
a:::::l
a:::::l
a:::::l
CJ
'i ,',' 0...1\."
~
~
!
z
C)
1-
<(
>
III
-I
UJ =
:to
, I
l- :.....
(t' II
~I~
~ '
~~
I~
~~
l ;n
~~
~
!!l
i~
t~
~~
~..
<(
., " .
'I';;',~:':)::i,:'r:, ". . .. '
> It, ",' i i
1;{~~~t U ! I
\::V~::<>, ~ ~
l " .. .1, !(
;~"::,~.: i:.: ~"~'I'.
:L\), II N
. .r} ~~:/~>:~<. ,. .
~ .:~
....'.
.
.
.
LL
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/0 I
Public Ilearin!2: - Consideration of a request for a variance to the front yard setback to allow
the construction of a detached garage. Applicant: Linda Obrvcki. (FP)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Ms. Linda Obrycki, the new property owner of the residence located at 401 Front Street is
requesting a twenty five (25) foot variance from the required thirty (30) foot front yard
setback and from the requirement that all detached accessory buildings must be located in the
rear yard (See Exhibit B).
The lot where Ms. Obrycki's residence is located was originally created from the vacation of
that portion of Front Street lying 165.76 feet west of Linn Street. The vacated street was
combined with a remnant wedge of land that formed a portion of formerly Block 62, Original
Plat (See Certificate of Survey, Exhibit A). The house was built toward the 1ront of the lot
and oriented to take advantage of the view of the river.
The location of the proposed detached garage is in the 1ront yard and would likely cause
vehicles to be parked in the boulevard. It would sit hlr forward of the adjoining residence to
the south and be the predominant feature at the corner of Linn Street and front Street. Several
alternate locations are possible however, after visiting the property it appears that the most
practical alternative is to attach a 16 foot by 24 foot garage onto the east end of the existing
house. A single stall garage in that location will provide for a front yard setback of
approximately 20 feet and will not intensify the encroachment into the 50 foot setback from
the ordinary high water level mark of the river (See Exhibit C). In that location, the garage
would be in line with the house, appear to belong in the neighborhood, and preserve the all of
the trees on the lot. Setbacks in the area suggested are 50 feet from Ol-IW of the river, 15 feet
from top ofblu1T, 30 feet from 1ront/east property line. A variance would still be required as
the garage would be constructed within the front setback area and into the 50 foot setback area
from the ordinary high water level mark of the river.
AL TERN A TIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to allow a ten (10) foot reduction in the front yard setback, and to allow a ten
(10) foot reduction from the fifty foot setback from the river 01 IW to allow
construction of an accessory structure in front of the residence at 401 Linn Street
according to Exhibit C, based on the following findings:
a. The construction of a garage will bring the property more into
conformance with the development standards of the City requiring the
construction of garages for the storage of vehicles.
b.
The existing residence is positioned such that locating a garage to the
rear of the lot is impractical.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/0 I
.
c.
The construction of the garage in the location described hy Exhibit ^ is
harmonious with surrounding development and will not detract from
the value of surrounding properties.
2. Motion to allow a twenty-five (25) foot reduction in the front yard setback, and to
allow an accessory structure to he constructed in front of the residence at 401 Linn
Street according to Exhihit A, based on the following findings:
a. The construction of a garage will bring the property more into
conformance with the development standards of the City requiring the
construction of garages for the storage of vehicles.
b. The existing residence is positioned such that locating a garage to the
rear of the lot is impractical.
3. Motion to deny the request fix variances.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Alternate 1 above.
SUPPORTING DATA
. Exhibit ^ - Land Survey of Subject Property
. Exhihit B - Applicant's Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit C - City Recommended Site Plan
.
2
~""
/"I-
, I
. ' ';?/ Of.
I
I
\ t:
\~~
~~
!) ~ rs
~~
........
11"- (y
~ 8<';
, ~
I~
/
/
(
"
~o~
t'- / .....
"'\ "- __ }J .) /1 J
< .- . Z/
~(").<:.. .... ~11~C' · ev-
,J I ~j) '1.:f.. 14'
I) ~~
'"+ '" 9
~ <-J
.5"/ a::
/ ~~ ~
.y 7 8
>-~
I" · 0'0. ~
"' 'JJ l-
<.~,') "00 t;; ~
.. 1"" ' ~ o~
...... -.. ...""..- '- c:> :E a.... ::c\J
~~. '-; ~ro It! I "---
,,?-- ~ A '''-..
~. -- 0, .- '} "
~ ".... '-...J" :\ '0_ / ~
II ... ~...~~ ',;' F /j ~
i!> '?; ,_' . j. /rY 1;; ,
. It) I / 't t'.j( t,L
I :I)v /
-).. '-'l
.ry \lJ &:
\1
-1...!)
~
!!~
/
~/
c'!
~/ 06'
/
/
I
I
"'....;. .
"'-
""-
""-
""-
""-
:t r
~\~ /
.. s-
I ,,~ "" *" . 00.... '~. / ~
~:t~ 7 ,~
,~ /'~
, ~~ ~
.v "'- / ~
t \ t' "'- i ~
I I "J "'" /
.' It............... I '0
/ .-. - ' J / "'" ~
.~. ~
........ / '-...... \~
s................../ "'-
6' J" . 7 ............
~J,l\~\\"b
. 30 /:
.:.>~
". ,;~
(!)
~ ~
~ ~
(f) ::i
..-:~ ~ ~
- ~
CD
~
CD
...
.'
~.- .
~_. ...-
-';:. ~
- ,..
~-- ':;~./
-- ~.
30 ~.- '.
I .
.
.
Q:
Lu
~
~
ct
.
..,
2:
..,
C.I)
C.I)
l-t
C.I)
C.I)
.."
~
I,.,.W".: i..J ...~
.... ........
v
"-..~
"-..
~.
::::-9'
'..J
/
/
("
~
+.
..
(D
<.0
,......
w
z
.:J
w
lr
o
r
U)
..............~
$'.
6".
.........................
I
/
/
/
/ 6> .".~
"
............ ~
......
401 Front Street
.
r-...
N
A
\:
~C
.
.
.
lb
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/01
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the front yard setback to allow
construction of a 24' x 40' detached garage. Applicant. Chad Latvaaho. (FP)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Mr. Chad Latvaaho, owner of the residence located at 9 Riverside Circle, desires to construct
a twenty four by forty foot (960 square foot) detached accessory building between Otter Creek
and his driveway, in the front yard area of his property. In order for him to be able to do this,
he is requesting a variance from the required thirty (30) foot front yard setback, and a variance
from the requirement that all detached accessory buildings must be located in the rear yard.
(See Exhibit A).
In addition to the variances, and only if the variances are allowed by the Planning
Commission, Mr. Latvaaho must apply for a conditional use permit to exceed the 1,200
square foot maximum allowable area for garage and accessory building area. If the new
accessory building is allowed, the total garage and accessory building area on this property
will be approximately 2,256 square feet, 1,056 square feet in excess of the maximum allowed
as a permitted use.
The lot where Mr. Latvaaho's residence is located is at the end of the cul-de-sac and lies along
the sensitive environmental area on the north shore of Otter Creek as it Hows into the
Mississippi River. The property lies in the shorcland overlay district and is regulated by
Chapter 27, Regulating the Management of the Mississippi Wild, Scenic and Recreational
River System and the Shoreland Areas of the City of Monticello.
While the location for the proposed accessory structure will support the size or the building, it
would be in a location that is relatively remote from the principal residence of Mr. Latvaaho.
Because the accessory structure would be in front of and along side of several adjacent
residences, the primary aesthetic impact is against the neighboring properties. The front yard
view from the residences to the north would be directly at the overhead garage doors. The
residence to the west would view the side of the accessory structure rather than the vegetation
along Otter Creek. The area where the accessory structure could be built blls outside of'thc
50 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark elevation for Otter Creek; however. the
area is filled with trees and natural vegetation that would have to be removed to allow for the
building.
If an accessory structure is to be built in the area desired by the applicant, the Planning
Commission would have to allow a front yard setback variance of approximately 10 feet, and
a variance from the requirement that accessory structures must be located in the rear yard.
Thereafter, the applicant may apply for a conditional use permit for in excess of 1,200 square
feet of garage and accessory structure. The impact of the structure on vegetation in the
shoreland district may be considered at that time.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/0 I
~l
The shape and situation of the property, the setbacks from the ordinary high water mark
elevation fl)r Otter Creek and the River, and the drainage easements on most of the lot area
south of the residence do not appear to allow for a practical situation for the type of structure
desired by the applicant.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to deny the variances based on the following:
(a) aesthetic consideration for adjacent residential properties,
(b) the sensitive environmental conditions of the area along Otter Creek, and
(c) that reasonable residential use of the subject property is not being denied.
2. Motion to allow variances requested including a ten (10) foot reduction in the front
yard setback, and to allow an accessory structure to be constructed in the front yard of
the residence at 9 Riverside Circle according to Exhibit A.
(Findings of Fact to be Determined By The Commission)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.,
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Alternate 1 above.
SUPPORTING DATA
· Exhihit A - Applicant's Proposed Sitc Plan
~
2
-I w'll III I --.I
1~lul~l~ ~I=
I l"""I"-'Ill-lI"""I.... "'-'
I 1'-' I ~ 1
.
.
/~
" '
.
I"
-~
/
i
/
\
~t y/
It /\
t/~
+
,
\
,\
I
\
\
I
, \ \ I
'} " \ \ \ /
/ I I I , /
I I J ! (
I / / / /:/
'" I I,
~ .' ( / " ,t';'
~/ I ~/II
( /ii i /,,, '\
~{V~ ,:' ~ \ r~I~;$ -
I \ ' \ \ [I
, \.- \ \ ,\
, \ \ \ '
, \ \ , \ ,
\ '.... \ \ .....
...... \ \ '\ .....
'\ '\ ... \. "'-
\ \ ",,,,,,,, ", '"--
\' " I" l-
I " '
I \
I ,
i " ii,
;1\
I '
I
I
I
I
/
I
i
"
I
/
I
I
(
/ (
I
/
/
I
I
I
!
~
iJ
~
~
'14/
;
I
/
I ,I
,.J ..... ,-
,,~....-"" --. ......
,
\
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
/
m'~n
.~
I ,Ii ,. I
~
.
.
.
Planning Comm ission Agenda -6/05/0 I
13.
Consideration ofa request f<:lr Development Stage Planned Unit Development for two, 2 unit
townhouses. Applicant: RA Associates. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Rick Anderson of RA Associates has requested Development Stage PUD approval fix his
proposed project at Maple Street and West Broadway. This project was previously approved
as a Concept Stage pun, although there was some signifIcant discussion on the density
issue, since the project needed a variance from the strict lot area per unit requirements, based
on the type of unit being proposed. However, the four units was approved, with the
understanding that the unit style would better fIt into the character of the neighborhood, and
that the project design would be sensitive to both the existing development and the exposure
to Broadway.
The applicant's plans illustrate an orientation toward Broadway for the corner unit, with
doorways facing that direction. T'he garage orientation is toward Maple Street, but as noted
in the Concept Plan report, the driveway combination allows for less pavement and
landscaping that de-emphasizes the garage component.
The landscape plan illustrates a site treatment that should help to create a "courtyard" feel
in the driveway area. Planning stafThas two recommended additions to enhance the plan and
help to justify the use of PUDin this case. The first would be to further emphasize the
Broadway orientation of the corner unit by directing a short segment of sidewalk to
Broadway from the front door. The proposed landscaping could then border this walkway,
instead of interfering with the front door view of the building. The second suggestion would
be to install a small open fence along the front property line, between the two driveways.
This visual separator would also help to dc-emphasize the view of the driveways and garage
doors.
B. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage PUD l<:)r Maple Street
Townhomes, with conditions related to sidewalk placement and fencing described
in this report.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Development Stage PUD for Maple Street
Townhomes, based on findings related to the use ofPUD and development intensity.
3. Motion to table action on the Development Stage PUD, pending submission of
additional inf<:)ffl1ation.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -6/05/01
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StatT recommends approval, with the site planning enhancements mentioned in this report.
The emphasis of the Broadway frontage is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan, and the small
section offence would add to the aesthetics of this site with minimal added expense. A well-
designed project in this location could serve as a valuable standard for other Broadway
housing development.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B - Building Elevations.
Exhibit C - Landscape Plan
.
.
2
51 0 West Broadway
N
A
-~~_._'"'^....,-'"-,._.__...~/
.
iTl
o
OJ
D
[\)
[-. - {"".
_\,.\\ IY In
~ ~.-_:
[; 1/1\(~~-
.30'-0"
+.~~.
.1
56'-0"
;;'.0'-
<}-- i:jf: ~
-----~---.-----,~~
I
~.-... '''',
SIOE'f AFO --:' ..... 1
=,:~ACK '7-'''-_, '-",
30'-0"
---1-
1-
.....:\~.::-
1~t ':'
I
c~
I
c~_
r\!
Iv
c'C
I
o
I .\~I it
01 -.......... 0~.
OJ ___."/ ..',__
---- ..", '. -
I .." / .,
GJ~ I \
I.,)
GJ
en
. ~
m
-0
I
.c II )>
W
0 Z
z
0
:0
-I
I
'"
0,
I
S
Ul
11
AI
()
-n
sl
.::~:::.~I
~-.-;m;.t"
h~ ~J-/ -
.. ,
o. I
I
o
D
I
0-1
Ol
I
Ol
-P-
....
.... ,
"~~J'{ ~ i
~ ..~::~-~~
~
Ol
~. [lD
'jl
'J'
'"
t~
I
I L~'I.:~.:i
IN _._ --'_. '.ce.....] hJ
---:c', 'C.c-- O.
i/'. I(~)'
I
----'"
_"."'.'--,-,,---c--- ,.____--.J
Ul
m
m
l.--.
.
WEST BROADWAY
.J
--..j
ehiblt- A-
>-
<( Ul
~9 UI
--'
,..1
071 7"
I
<(I~ lD
O- f-
--'
a:: -1
',j cO I
lL
. Ul
Z <f
0
~I
w
-1
UJ
I
~
a::
0
Z
r'-
.
..1~'-,9Z
----t
UJ
,~ <".-r\-..---(~
( r--'l.c_'~" (
(. 1
'I r?~-
"\ ' y'--
\-vV'~""N\ /"". ~r ~-'i~j.~;.
,_, .._" I. ~ \---
,,' i. .j ".--
--' J ' . \ --
4 ~ 1J ) ~
!:::U'O "\.\
G()tiJ
'::::10--'
U'()>-
()()~
~.3>
Ul
("\J
(/___'_'c)~r'/;'t="'-(<,
/ 1,<:
I ~d_~_~
C, 17----~
'~.-./,<r'''.1 /"-
\ ?--
-,'--'",~'-_.:..
.
<l
OJ
u
f'-
r
!
,,~- -- ,:,~=
is--,.
.,-~.-<:'\
;.
CD
I
I Ul
I
-'
wlo
-11-'
~~
2
.q
~
CJ)
<(
UJ
('")
\\1
re- (r-,:::,
t ~/
('
l
"'- [\
\f~.."-'';:-->''''---..r;
'. ,1--
'----.,.-r-~
<
LJ
l1J
r~'lb\~ b
10M
..
Ma'=!. ~"?!?l_!,~ :.?0PM Pi
RA Associates, Inc.
FAX NO.
763-682-2440
.
n"i ' , :..:} .1:,'.
--
-,l (SI UI .... Ul IU ~
G\~~""(b:~~
Ul ~ U\ ....O>~t>- \Jl ~1~~ii~~~~g!~I~i~~
", "-'
C'I
-...J
30'-0-'
30'-0"
'"'";.
i ....~___ t.~
~.:,,:..
I
<;
~..l
<~)
-"'-
,.
. en
-I
m
-0
r-
,,' ),>-
....
<.)1 q :z
;z
~
:i!
'"
'<
,
"
m
ul
,,'
U'
...,
,.
1
-=:',- ~;'1 ...,
-;;~ ,~- '(
! c ~
-,'"
",.c','. ','-':; ,,--,,,:,-.-, .; 'd'/ ,:,:.;:",/.'"c:';"", ,'::,::::.;),:::, :';':":,:::id,,;::~},/,,:!
~..
"
WEST BROADWAY
...... . -
co
co
.
~...
>'.....
SITE PLAN
MAi'Le STREET TOWNHOMCS
RICK ANDERSON - OWNel
.. ~ ~~l .~-:;\i"J,"l. \,ifP.I'il - IU IliIIK~~:...
~._, ~ ~ i
Paul R. Olson Architects, Ltd.
t.:~Ae 1t15.':. s..a.e~~ O'"l\/\._ ]lIi"I-.r1. .....'i...II'"'... &=>'11.2 (~20>7".r~-~~.7~'"
_ l:n.}i1c4N ~>wtI.OP~I>.I" ~.UJI!roIIIT,.;,;.
CD
[Xhlbi+ ~
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/05/01
14. Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 2.500 square foot
restaurant in a shopping center in the eCD zoning district. Applicant: Silver Creek
Developmcnt. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Silver Creek Development is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
establishment of a restaurant in the Town Center shopping center, a parcel zoned CCD
between Walnut Street and Highway 25. A previous Conditional Use Permit approval was
granted to the shopping center for a parking space deficit based on an anticipated retail use
of the building. Restaurants have significantly increased parking demand, and as such,
would require the City to grant a new permit for a greater deficit. Restaurants are, otherwise,
permitted uses in the CCD zoning district, and as policy, would be supported by the
Comprehensive Plan for this area.
.
The issue in this case is parking supply and demand. The approvals were given to the
original project with an understanding that the shopping center north of the central driveway
(5 Y:: Street) would be 29 parking spaces short of the total demand (65 estimated required,
and 36 supplied). The liquor store lot would be developed with an additional 3,000 square
feet of space, with a portion of its 41 space parking demand to be accommodated by both the
liquor store parking lot and Walnut Street parking.
The original permit was supported on the basis that under ajoint parking arrangement, the
actual parking demand for the site would be less than that stated in the ordinance. Some of
the overflow could be accommodated by allowing rctail access to the liquor store parking lot,
and other parking could be located in the Walnut Street area (displacing current Community
Center parking to the underutilized wcst parking lot). The City had also negotiated a
requircment for the shopping center developer to add overi1ow parking on the north side of
the railroad tracks if demand dictated. Finally, the City included a fee for the parking deficit
in its price negotiation on the property.
Converting 2,500 square feet from retail to restaurant would result in an increased parking
demand for that portion of the building alone from II parking spaces to 38. This would
increase the deficit on the north side of the site from 29 spaces to 56 spaces (not including
the additional retail demand on the liquor store half of the block).
Planning staffhas been supportive of cross-parking arrangements that reduce the amount of
space devoted to parking in the CCD area. This is based on research indicating that mixed
use projects with cross-parking activity can reduce actual parking demand to as little as 60%
of the demand when calculated on a building by building basis. For the block in question,
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/05/01
a typical requirement of approximately 150 spaces could be reduced to as little as 90 spaces,
particularly when there is a reliable overflow supply.
There arc some limits to this site, however. The design of the block eliminates em-street
parking on Highway 25, and severely restricts it along 6th Street (south of the block). Walnut
Street's supply has already been factored in, and the overflow to the north is separated from
the block by the railroad. Complicating the issue is the fact that the liquor store relies on a
significant level of boat/trailer traffic that utilizes parking spaces at twice the typical rate
during peak times. As a result, adding an additional demand of approximately 27 spaces to
this block would appear to be diflicult to handle without some other accommodation.
There would be two options to consider that would minimize the impacts of this request -
increasing supply, or reducing demand. To reduce demand, the restaurant size could be
limited, or the retail expansion on the liquor store building could be reduced in size. To
increase supply, the applicant could attempt to add parking in proximity to this site.
Improvements to 6th Street would be one possibility, although this may impact the business
parking in that area. Other improvements have recently been made that assumed 6th Street
parking improvements would not be necessary. Acquisition of public parking easements
over the existing private parking lots south of 6th Street may be another option to pursue.
B.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
I.
Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a restaurant
that increases the parking deficit on the Town Center site by approximately parking
spaces, based on a finding that adequate parking exists in the surrounding district.
2.
Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to alJow the
restaurant, with the condition that the applicant both maximize available parking
under the original CUP approval, and facilitate the reduction in the parking deficit
through increasing supply and/or reducing the demand.
3.
Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that
inadequate parking supply in the area will have a negative impact on the adjacent
streets that can not be mitigated by the applicant's plan.
4.
Motion to table action on the CUP, pending submission of additional information.
2
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/05/01
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StafTdoes not recommend the CUP as presented. As noted in this report, the parking supply
on the block appears to have been essentially maximized under the original permit. The
addition ora net increase in 27 parking space deficit would be difficult to manage, when the
site is already relying on cross parking to accommodate its actual usage. The options
mentioned in this report, including reducing the sizc of the retail center, constructing on-
street parking improvements in the 6th Street right-of-way, and acquiring puhlic parking
rights to the parking lots south of 6th Street could help to mitigate the concerns raised by this
application.
D. SUPPORTING DAf'A
Exhibit A - Town Center Site Plan
.
.
'"'l
J
.. Ii I
II ~iI
II~
~ ~;ull
:'~Ii t VJ.0S3NNI" '0T130lI.N0fi
Itl,'
.,t .. 11~
f. I NYld f>NIcJV:lSONYl lN3"dOl31\30 NMOlM3N
lit !'I - - 'OM ONY 3JJS ..uNN1"rn~d
_ I.t -
. . . .--......--
~
II
~~
III
ii-
Iii
I~~
s S~
il~~
~ ~ ~~ t;
Jjj
I~ I I!I! I
1lI
- - - -
Ii ;1 I I
"I I
II .. i~
I II ~ I~
Ii I
~13
..
Ii I
I ii~ n~ Iii
[
.
15.
I.
. 2.
~
.'-
4.
5.
6.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -6/05/01
Consideration of a request to amend the zon i ng ordinance to allow a second freestandi ng si gn
on certain properties in the B-3, llighway Business District. Applicant: Monticello Dodge.
(NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Monticello Dodge is seeking approval of an amendment to the text of the sign regulations
that would allow the City to approve a second freestanding sign on certain property. The
request is made due a concern that because of the large size of the site, and the two primary
exposures (Interstate 94 and Chelsea Road), one freestanding sign along the freeway would
not be adequate to direct customers to the site from Chelsea Road.
The rationale behind the request is based on the need to communicate with two types of
traffic (freeway and street), and that one sign is inadequate to do both jobs on large sites. If
such an allowance is to be made, staff would recommend that the following conditions be
attached to limit the proliferation of signs where they are not "needed" to accommodate the
concerns raised by the applicant:
Only B-3 property would be eligible.
Only property that 1ronts both on the freeway and on a second major road (collector
or higher status)
The site must be at least two acres in size, and the signs should be no closer than 300
feet apart.
The sign fronting on the access road should be of monument style design, including
limits of 10 feet in height and sixty square feet in area.
The sign fronting on the freeway should conf(mn to the requirements of the
ordinance regulating freestanding signs (32 feet in height, 200 square feet in area).
Second sign allowance is applied to individually described parcels, not business
occupants, and does not apply to sites seeing development flexibility allowances
under PUD provisions.
7. Both signs must meet all other standards of the sign regulations, including size and
setbacks.
Please note that the Dealership has ordered a pylon sign (22' high) for Chelsea Road that
meets current standards. Unf(Jrtunately, this sign will not be useahle without modifications
under the proposed amendment.
An amendment with these provisions would allow a second freestanding sign to a limited
number of properties in addition to Monticello Dodge. A sophisticated inventory was not
conducted, however, Gould's Chevrolet would be an eligible site, and Hoglund Bus may be
.
Planning Commission Agenda -6/05/01
another on the south side of the freeway. Other sites are likely to be too small, or already
subject to PUD allowances.
B. AL'TERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment to the sign regulations allowing
a second freestanding sign on certain property in the B-3 District.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the current
sign regulations adequately accommodate business identification needs without the
additional allowances of the proposed amendment.
3. Motion to table action on the amendment, pending additional information.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff would recommend the amendment with the conditions listed. While signage is clearly
important for business identification, too much can easily lead to an ugly landscape where
individual signs are lost in the clutter. The amendment as drafted attempts to limit this
possibility by allowing two Ireestanding signs only under a narrow set of circumstances
along the freeway.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA
1.
Draft Ordinance
.
2
.
.
.
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-9 lEI 4., OF THE
MONTICELLOZONINGORDINANCERELATINGTO FREESTANDING SIGNS INTHE
B-3 ZONING DISTRICT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS
AS fOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Chapter 3, Section 3-9 [E] 4. is amended by adding the following:
[E I 4. (1) In the B-3 Zoning District only, certain parcels may be allowed to construct a second
freestanding sign on the property when the following conditions are complied with:
1.
The property directly abuts Interstate 94 and one other collector (or higher)
status street.
11. The property in question is no less than two (2) acres in area.
111. The second freestanding sign shall be located no closer than three hundred
(300) feet from the first freestanding sign on the same property.
IV. Only one of the two freestanding signs may be located within any yard (front,
rear, or side) of the property. This clause shall be interpreted to mean that
each sign shall be required to have a separate roadway as its primary
exposure.
v. Where two freestanding signs are allowed, the sign that fronts on the road
which serves as the primary access shall be of a monument design, with a
maximum height often (10) feet and a maximum square footage of sixty (60)
square feet.
VI. Where two freestanding signs are allowed, the sign that fronts on the freeway
exposure shall conform to the provisions of Section 3 [El 4. (c) above.
VII.
This section shall not be applied to the calculations for signage when an
applicant is seeking development design flexibility under the City's Planned
Unit Development provisions.
.
.
.
VIII. Both signs allowed under this subsection shall meet all other applicable
provisions of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
Section 2.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
/ /s/ /
.
.
.
~
Planning Commission Agenda ~6/05/01
Consideration ofa Conditional Use Permit to allow a multiole family structure with ground
floor residential units in the CCD District. Applicant: Silver Creek Development. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Silver Creek Development is requesting a new Conditional Use Permit to allow the
construction ofa 35 unit multiple family apartment building on a 1.7 acre parcel along East
7th Street. The parcel has multiple f~llnily residential uses on both sides, and abuts a
commercial parking lot to the rear (north).
Multip]e family building density is calculated based on a formula which requires 10,000
square feet of lot area for the first unit, plus 2,000 square feet for each additional one-
bedroom unit, and 3,000 square feet for each two-bedroom unit. With a total lot area of
74,052 square feet, the maximum number of units (if all one-bedroom) would be 33. If all
units were two bedroom, the maximum number of units would be 24. A mix of unit types
would result in a maximum density between 24 and 33 units.
The site plan shows a layout that places the building along the west boundary line, with a
parking lot in the middle of the site, and a series of tenant garages along the east boundary.
The plan includes a stormwater pond in the northwest corner of the site, along with a "tot lot"
north of the apartment building. An enclosed refuse room adjoins one of the garage
buildings. 'rhe existing site conditions, based on the survey submitted with the application,
indicates a heavily wooded area in the northeast corner of the site. The north one third of the
property is sloped dramatically down to the north. T'o accommodate the grade, the applicant
proposes a retaining wall along the north houndary which would support the parking lot and
the garage buildings.
Staff has suggested an alternative site plan that relocates the elements of the project, based
on a slightly downsized apartment building that would comply with the density allowances
(assuming a mix of one and two bedroom units). This building would he placed along the
cast boundary, and when shortened up to eliminate a few units, would save most of the trees
in the northeast corner, particularly when combined with the retaining wall.
The parking is relocated as well, and the garage buildings are combined to hreak up the long,
continuous wall created hy the applicant's layout. The same numher (24) of garage spaces
arc preserved, although surface parking is reduced to meet the 2 space per unit requirement.
The tot lot is also retained at the same size. However. the revision allows it to be moved 30
south, away from the slope. Less retaining wall would appear to be required, and more green
space would be preserved.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -6105/01
finally, this site would lend itself to a basement parking garage. The slope would
accommodate a garage entrance on the north side of the building, with more than one
underground spaee per unit. Such a design would preserve even more green space by
eliminating some of the surfaee parking needs. Staff would encourage the applicant to
eonsider this concept.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval ofthe Conditional Use Permit with the proposed site
plan, reducing the unit count to meet Ordinance requirements.
2. Motion to recommend approval ofa Conditional Use Permit, with a revised site plan
as discussed in this report, or an underground garage concept.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that
the proposed coneept does not comply with the intent of the CCD zoning district.
4. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit, pending submission of
additional information.
.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that any CUP issued for this project include a condition that the site plan
is revised to preserve the existing trees, where possible, and that the density meets the
requirements of the zoning ordinance (based on the number and bedroom count of the
proposed units). Staff's alternative site plan would help to bring the proposal into
compliance with the code, and a basement garage parking plan would go even further in
improving the quality of the project. In the CCD, structured parking can increase the
allowable density of the project.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
1. Applicant's Site Plan
2. Landscape Plan
3. Building Elevations
4. Planning Staff Alternative Site Plan
.
2
.
.
O",lIl
;QZ'"
l>0fT1
::;:-
._ Z n
Z"'-
0"'<
{J):::uF
15~ ~
" s:::
>! :t>
::::!
o
l'1UJ
/'--
",--1
.. fTl
-,
--0
r
:t>
Z
\
-un'"
l>OX
Al;;::lIl
;;><;;;::--1
z",-
OAlZ
n"
r- -
ol>
--1'
.......
J:
.......
-u''''
rX
QUi
:::!
Z
o
N
\
\
\
i\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Q
~
(J)-...J
--1 --1
-----------~~---~p---
1'1 -
--1
r " ."
3 ~ ?o
~ ~ ~
'" ,.. "
,.. ;0
'" r
,.. 0
--<
" '" '"
... " J." :" .'"
'" "' I.n '" I.n
I.n <D '" '" on
'" '" 0 0 0
'" '" '" ~ '"
!:> D P 0
.., .., .., .., ..,
;-< ;-< ;-< ;-< ;-<
~ i;I :
. ~ "
; ~ :
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
m:t>fTl
c -ux
r= :t> U)
Q~=!
z z
G)~C)
Z
--1
I
I
I
I
J
SchibH- A
., m V)
0
-4 ...:~. ,~ C0 ~. c
I"r: G ---I
r ,-, " 0 " Z fTl
0 " " :p " 0-,
., 01 :.(1 " '"
01 '" -,. " C) 0
>- "" ';': " ."'1 Cl
;i] " 01 " < fTl
01 " V\ to 01
>- A' r Z " Z
,'1 " -; "
p , " en
rr,
. --,
r~ I.H --<
~ ,., .,'
-'" :~ ;:, '-"
" (.0 ,~ 0 m
D 0
;:; ;'.; 0 "
in ,", VI
," UI :=> 0 q
:=> 0 '1 -')
T,
:'1 '1 -; ., -;
:-...j
-----
.
o f'l (11
;(I Z f"'I"l
):. Q 1'1'1
~8~
VI ...0 r
.
:1 VI
C)
:l
" f"ll
~ ......-
T )>
:::!
(j
!] ~
:;, I
. 1]1
II .01::
I' r..-
(~ "1.-.:-
I :..~-"
o. ~:.
------
---------------
~ (rJ-.-.!
--1--1 _u_________
~~--~ ,...
_---~---- ~ III ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~-1
- --1. ..
---------------
---------
E ~
~ ;)
~ ~
~ m
~ ~if;' ?
A
.i Z.
~ ~ ii' (}> \}' ~ \}' \ll -J IJl ~ t;hl it-- 3
"l
(,.J N~ () If) If)
(J1 n n
--4 00 0 I I
0 ~~ Z rTl [Tl
...,
)> rr ~ ~
r r- c:: ()
c zZ I'l )> )>
Z CJCJ --I -4
--4 cC U n n
III Z~ ----1
::.::j--4
y!Y! C [Tl rTl
)> Z )>
N:J 0 If)
Z:;u I --I
Olll rTl
--4 ,- rTl
R'" I'l rTl ,-
GJr X < rTl
:;uO <
00 ----1 )>
:;u --I )>
I'l
~R' ::::0 0 --I
0 0
00 - Z
:;uO 0 Z
s:
s: ::::0
c
Z
--4 I'l
-<
;;0 I 'i
0 I'l q
0
s: <
)>
----1
0
Z
(J)
III
o
)>
,-
fTl
-........
co,
I
0,
G\tivlt
( ..,.r.
, ("":llll",,,,,r-
Architect:
")
MRY-30-2001 16:35
NRC
612 595 9837
P.02/02
19- _______________
..0- ----......._.
-.-.-....~-
I
I
"
I
I
.
,
I
/
I
I
,
,
f ~ , ...........'lq,.
" .....,~
,/ . ~ ........... :"" ""'
l~.
/ ....~
A,
<0.1'
J
I
I
I
I
I
~/
~
\
:;~
959__-..._
~
...
"t
_I
'"
'"
...
.
....
-'
!l56
. ......
.. ~.-
~ _t...........".".,.... __--"'"
S4------~. ~_.... _ L-1
~ ;<~-. - h .~",1.
------'IlEiID& _. -9JV
. s:: .... _ _--- R-990
"tsl. t ~._,__
...... -
::> -::-.....
~ ... ""
........--
"
- -.
'->-,.::'.~-_.- '55
Gh\b\t D
~lNb ~
~~
.,~ p~
TOTRL P. 02
.
.
.
12
Planning Commission Agenda -6/05/0 I
Consideration of a request for development stal2:e Planned Unit Development allowing
multiple structures on an industrial site. Applicant: Blue Chip Development. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Blue Chip Development is seeking approval ofa development stage PUD for its complex of
flmr industrial buildings along Dundas Road. Previous discussions with the applicants had
raised an issue of the location of the loading docks to the south, and whether it would be
possible to reorient the buildings to move the docks to an area that would be less exposed to
the residential properties to the south.
The applicant's architect supplied two optional layouts showing the buildings turned ninety
degrees, and placing the loading on the outside and on the inside. Both of these drawings
are intended to demonstrate that even with redesigned buildings, the space is too narrow to
accommodate the truck turning movements on the site. Planning staff believes that the
options are reasonably representative, and would agree that the loading can not be reoriented
as stafT had hoped.
The applicant has relocated the central driveway from Dundas to avoid the sharp curves
shown on the original site plan, and the preliminary floor plans illustrate compliance with
expected parking demand on the site. Neither of the buildings propose outdoor storage, and
the lighting plan appears to show that there will be almost no spillover light onto the
residential property. The approval should specify that there will be no yard lights on the
south sides of the building, and that wall lights will be shielded to avoid direct glare.
With regard to the landscape plan, the applicant proposes a bufferyard planting in a rear yard
of just over 20 feet in depth, in compliance with the requirements of the district adjacent to
vacant property. The adjoining residential property is being developed by Eagle Crest, and
will also include bulTeryard plantings in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. lIowever,
the requirements for this district are at least 80 "plant units" per 100 feet of property. This
would require a total of 344 plant units along the bufTeryard area. The proposed planting
includes 12 evergreen trees at 15 plant units each, and II deciduous trees at 10 plant units
each, for a total of 290 plant units. The addition of a berm, an opaque fence, or more
evergreen plant material would bring the bufferyard into compliance. Because this is a PUD,
staff would recommend a fence to augment the plantings as the most effective screen, as well
as increasing security.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -6/05/0 I
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage PUD for Blue Chip
Development as proposed, with the condition that the bufferyard be intensified with
fencing, or additional landscaping at the discretion ofthc City, and that lighting is
consistent with the comments in this repo11. Motion is also contingent on site plan
modifications necessary to comply with restrictions relating to the storm sewer
easements on the site.
The current plan shows encroachment into an impo11ant ponding/drainage area. The
size of parking/building will need to be reduced slightly in order to keep the
developed area in the upland area.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Development Stage PUD for Blue Chip, based
on a finding that the project would have an unacceptable impact on adjacent
residential development.
3. Motion to table action on the Development Stage PUD, pending additional
information.
.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the PUO, with the conditions as stated. Although we had
sought changes to move loading activities away from the residential area, the alternatives
provided by the architect are persuasive to show that the limitations on truck turning
movements would significantly impact the use of the site. Because it is zoned and guided
for industrial use, the site should be able to be put to a reasonable industrial purpose. To help
mitigate the impacts of the loading docks on the south, the addition ofa fence would increase
the effective screening, particularly when combined with the bufferyard plantings of the
residential property.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan/Landscape Plan
Exhibit B - Alternative Layout A
Exhibit C - Alternative Layout B
.
2
~
"l
~
<Jl
~~ ~~ i &l
j Ii: ~ i ~Il~:' I
il; ~i!
~ : i ~~ ~
I~I" H!
j 11 i
Ii:
~ ~ ~ ~ i! ;;
i I I ; :
III ~~~ I:~-=~~-=I
"L--J _..~...~ , .
" -
.. II
..
i
~
I \ ~
'I : i .
11= I ;;
~I" ,u i
'" I I',
! I
! I
\ I
III
\ jl
I~
\ \s
\ \'
11\
: \ \, !
~ I~ I
__1____~_+---l
~
[I!]
-- ~
I
I
i
i
~
i
DUNDAS ROAD
:' ~
~ ~
I All : ~~ IIUE OF llE'oe-a'MENT
- .{'>/O, NCHIlQ3..LO~'"
'Ili ~ i= ~
I~ . ~~
lit ~:p-tJI
.~ 6 ~.iIJ .
i ~ l!'!
. '"
'ii
<;!
Sckib\t f\
(]\fO~ SVCNOO ~O~
IN' ~.,
r\~----~ - --~- ~ ~l
i ~1! i ;
, "I I I
'II i u:'- ~!
~I :
, ':ll I
I I :
, I
I I
I i
, ~
I
i
i
i ~
"u. i I
I ,
I
I
i
i
~
I
i
I
i
i
I
----.:::.-:~-- i
....~'" ,
~.:! .~i I'
.... -
---~------~
I~
i
i
~ ..... i
i
i
-j'
L_J_t_.t ~_ ~_ ~_ ~_ ~_~ ~_~_t~ ~ ~~~ - ~- ~-~J
\
I
I
B
WJ
ffi
m
~
.
2
~
'"
~
po
lD~ln
~X:;
. a>
~ ~
.
!
~
I
I
ft
I
I
I
I
I
-1=
~
~~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I-._________~__J
..a
~~
I
-or+--t
- I
VJ I"
'" :
U I',
o /1)
o "
...1 "'//'j
~l-o I'
<
<[ ,
~
w
U
~
w
VJ
,OZI
ro'O['t
~ I
:i " Ii
~ ~ I!
~ ~ II
dI B
<{
~
~
!
i
!z
w
~
o
~i
~I
C;:Xhibit- b
OVOI:! S\f~na ~o~
J}-." J}-~'
[W-K'"
,
I
~
,
I
i
,
,
.0.'
1-\-j;J----~--
i ~i ~
I 0,;) :
,:z I
I I
i a:
, "I
I "I
I
I
I
-- -----, -
~ ~
IS
~
~
I
,
d !
ji'", I
I I
L____~_______....I
J}-.~lr~.,1 ~
, lli".
I ;)!
I ~
'~ I
j\ \
I'
i
I
~ I ~
~ i ~
~, Iii ~
~ I ~ ~
i m ~,,~
;;;',/ ,~"
~II
I I
>- II
~ I
l!i I
8
~ ,
_ If I
~ :i-.;r~ i
,
.
I ft
\ I
8 i
WJ
~
.____J
~ I
!
5
~
~
.
N
~
I
I
I
I
I
--I-
.
t
.. -.---.-
-----1.
i ________~u
i
~ti
n~
J:[]
_ to "-
I.&.I~V)
-c :J ln
~ )( ~ I
~-.d- ~
.... ~
g~ ~
m....'"
.... -
[J:1
..,
.
I
-----+
I -----------
,
.--+
I
i
ro"ort
~ I
~ ~
~ (,
~ ~ I!
o - I!
ill C
m
z
~
~
II:
~
~
z
w
~
o
-.I
~~
~I
o~
~~
m::E
~i'oit-V
.
.
.
18.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/5/01
Consideration to adopt a resolution finding the modified Redevelopment Plan for the
Central Monticello Redevelopment Project (CMRP) No. I~ and the TIF Plan for TIF
District No. 1-28 to be consistent with the plans of the City. (O.K.)
A. Reference and Back2:round:
The resolution for adoption affirms that the Planning Commission finds that the "Plans" are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Monticello. The "Plans" in this case
refer to the Plans of the CMRP No.1 and TIF District 1-28, and not the site or building plans
of the redeveloper. The Contract for Private Development between the HRA and the
Developer states that the site and building plans shall comply with all Federal, State, and
Local laws and ordinances.
Enclosed are excerpts from the Plan of CMRP No. 1 identifying the parcel intended for
development. TIF District No. 1-28, an Economic District, is being established to assist with
the write-down of the land cost. Integrated Recycling Technologies, Inc. recycles platinum
group metals from spent auto catalyst. The company plans to construct a 10,000 sq ft
steel/brick office/manufacturing facility on a 2-acre parcel along Fallon Avenue. This parcel
is zoned 11 (Light Industrial). Construction to commence mid to late June. The project will
create 5 new jobs between $12 to $18 per hour without benefits. The City Council will hold
a public hearing on June 11 for approval of the TIF District.
The Planning Commission is affirming that the "Plan" is consistent with the general plans
for development of the City and its Comprehensive Plan.
B.
Alternative Action.
1. A motion to adopt the resolution as proposed.
2. A motion to deny adoption of the resolution.
3. A motion to table any action.
C. Recommendation.
The proposed development located in 11 zoning is consistent with the land use zone within
the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed economic district is located and consistent with
the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1. However, the building and site plans
have not been submitted to the City as of May 24. Final plat approval on the June 5 Planning
Commission agenda.
D. Supportin2: Data.
Excerpts from the Plan of the CMRP No.1 and the Plan for TIF District No. 1-20 and the
resolution for adoption.
/
.
.
.
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
and the
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the establishment of
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO.1..28
(an economic development district)
within
CENTRAL MONTICEllO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing: June 11,2001
Adopted:
This document is in draftformfor distribution to the County and the School District. The Plan
contains the estimatedfiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The City
and the HRA may make change to this draft document prior to the public hearing. If changes
are made, a revised draft will be sent to the County and the School District.
e
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
(651) 697-8500 fax: (651) 697-8555 WWW.ehlers-inc.com
EHLERS
& ASSOCIATES INC
,/r
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Integrated Recycling Technologies, Inc. proposes to buy two acres ofI-1 property. The two acres of land
are to be subdivided from a larger parcel of land which, within the last five years, has been in green acre
status. The 10,000 square foot steel structure consists of production and office space. The company
recycles platinum group metals from spent auto catalyst. The company plans to create five new jobs, within
two years, for the City of Monticello.
The tax increment assistance is planned to be in the form of a pay-as-you-go note and is expected to be
approximately $40,000 plus interest.
APPENDIX
A-I
r
il
, . 6.
!
7.
.
.
to finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the Plan or pursuant to
MS., Chapter 462C MS., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or MS, Sections 469.178; and
to accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest
on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to MS, Chapter 462C, MS., Sections
469.152 through 469.165, and/or MS, Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by MS, Section 469.176, subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Wright County to the HRA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The HRA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an
amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds
will be used for HRA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs of public improvement
activities outside the District.
Subsection 2-21. Excess Tax Increments
Pursuant to MS, Section 469.176, Subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount
necessary to pay the costs authorized by the Plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy
as provided in MS., Section 475.61, Subd. 3, the HRA or City shall use the excess amount to do any of the
following:
1 . prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor;
3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bonds; or
4. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the Plan in
order to finance additional public costs in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 or the District.
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and
any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of
the development with City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to address
other issues related to the development.
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176. Subd. 5, no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the Plan shall at any time be owned by the HRA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 10 percent of the acreage, the
Monticello I.lousing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No.I-28
2-13
re
1
.
e
~ ........ .
. ,',:".;,,' '.._., .'. '."_' 0..""" ' J: ,. '. ..: . 'W.. " .'". ,', "..' "
..,.,"'.,:.1...-.:..:' '..:"''t,,::'.:i~~:......i~'''':-:'';~~'':'';'~~~~~''''''''''h~'......... ;':'n-,', ~_ . ''1'
.,,,,".~_.........._,.,. ':...- '. -,' ". '"'~..i...'~._^..._.._~'.'N'''''''~''_~'_'''''''_''''__'''_...~... ..-"-.' ...~.......
APPENDIX B
MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND THE DISTRICT
APPENDIX
B-1
~. ..l'~ "~';'''',"I'''~';'''''''~..lo.''''',; ". ~'. '~,;,.:.::":'~ .':. .. \.~_. '.~.- -, ... '",,- ----................... ..-.
" _._.............~..~.._.~.,.~..,,- ....~...._,..~,.._...
~
OZ~
~~
e co ~...JI-C~ .'
N ~rj~~
I
.-< ~UOt--
0 ~~...JU
z Z~~~
f-! ~Z>~
U UO~O
H ~O~
po:
f-! ~~
<:n
H ~
0
~
H
f-!
~ .~;~ ~?~ ~~~..
r.
. :'" ~.."
. ~:
.\.
. ~_"\. _0-
'-:-. \.
i : 0 " \.
0".( __..
\
: .:~ ".'
--.
. ".
0"
"\.
,
--
.~
\.
""
0.-
.--
;-:
~
e. ;;
p'l ._
f::: ' ,
. +!
.."
,
.#1' ....
.
.. '....
>. 0 e ..;
..;
-0 . - ,
'. u - ....
... ;:;~
:J ID .
c: , :.:1;:
,2 .; _.0 f.:
Cf) i:: II
- ;0;. ~::II'
,- . '-0 .. ..:..
C 5 - ~: ... .
-..'
.0 2 .t: ~~~~
'- 0
-- .N
en 'E l o~
- .&
x 0 .'-PI
OJ t:
L: >- 1: ;::; ~..;.
c VI ~ " .
.9' . "..:
<( 0 .:;. ><
....1- ~. "-W
.
..
...
.
6J
z:
.. ..
... E
c..
E C>
--
- ..
>
;....
6J"'O
- ..
Ute
I ~
~
.. -.
., :':~."-IIo...,-~,., <_'~-;'.....J
t<I'k,,"'~' .....L~.....A..:' ,~I.o..
. J."'-' ~.",'",.....""",..~ .,..,
. "_',,",''h
_..................,...----.~-~
.,..;,;..;......-~..
. Vl
0::: W
W c::
~ k' u
W <X:
U ;; I
0 --.....
W ~ =:l +
LJ a...
u:: ~ c:: .......
w r- IX)
"'L ~ I"") Q'\
VI ..... ;;C \n .
~ ~8z ~ . Ol
0) ......
2:: U .0
E5 00-
....J-.J~
Z co-l.....
~ wo
...u Cl
W M_cC
~~ 0) I-
I-Zp ....J
0 o~1,() 08
t- -l .
t:ilo ....J :z::
...J u
~o L&.f Vl
U
.~ /:?t:J -au
-Zo J- ....J
~~ %0
~~ .....<..i 00
L?~ ~-
U rv~x x
~ c&~ ""
~~
U ~.
~ - .....~
(.) "
- .-
W c: l..
ev't;i
:21 E .- co
. evC~
A ... C'l T"" SNUSV;) 310
U c: .
c: .- 0 All) NtMl
.0 -uZ
>< c:
U tC tC -.J
I- .: Cl
u.. o:::C:::>
0 o:r::
_u
~ :z;Vl
W:::c
~6 v>(.!)
~cl ......
::c
z
O~ 0
E=:g -J E
ca: 0
.... 0
Zll.. IX v:I <(
t- ~
O~ Vl ::I:
:::J (.) ~
0 c( 1L
::g~ z: LL
.-. ,
- 0
.... + w
::c (/)
<.!) U") 0
...... lEl
-J LO IL
. ....J 0
c( 0 C) 0::
.-. \D ZO IL
, ....... ;:r;
I-"" cx:u i
r-- VI
z:
~>-
o c:::
L ""
t--
N i r-~ Iii; wz
.. ..JW
f ~ ij t--- ~
J~ . t- W
0:: 11 -oJ
VI ...J W
Z
S
<~,- < . .,..
.,'~,. ,~,_~,.~,,~.ft..~' ""Jr.'~' ':.-,,~._
.
.
.
W
::l
Z
w
~
~
......I
-J
c(
U.
. '-,,,~., ....
.._.,'__,_........~........_.&..,........__.....~-~-^'."-,..-'--_.~'-.;,.........~1..~,. r._
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-28
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
- 4"? .90.
-rin
N
vi
'.....
LOT 1
3.15 A~'RES' ~
- G'>
11)'
cO
,...
('If
-. . ..
~
.......,.
.~
, .
-,fg
....'
,
,
..
CD
o
N
-
10
M:1 -
.g.
.co
~
N
.
LOT 2
~ -.
2~OO ACRES
..
: - C
.0...
Cd
....
N
, ,
40.
~"-I"".~.,,,::. . .~,.." . _..'~ . .. ,. ., . _~.,. ..." -"~ ~,'...~~-.;.'-._m__---':_~"_~~....
.
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights~of-way identified by the parcel listed below.
Parcel Number
A 2.00 acre portion ofPID 155-011-000171
Proposed Le~al Description
Lot 3, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center 5th Addition
.
.
APPENDIX
c.]
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PRO.JECT NO. 1 AND
THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-28 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to
adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project NO.1 and
a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-28 (the "Plans") and has
submitted the Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the
City.
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: June 5, 2001
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
.
.
.
.
19.
Planning Commission Agenda -- 6-05-01
Review proposal for development of a mixed use residential development at
Wildwood Ponds by Fan Development. JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission is asked to comment on a Farr Development proposal to
develop a mixed use residential neighborhood at the 38 acre Ralph Hermes property.
The original preliminary plat/development concept for this site prepared by the
developer envisioned development of single family homes. Due to extraordinary
development costs associated with this site, there is the need to increase density from
approximately 2.7 units per acre to just less than 4 units per acre. Please note that 4
units per acre falls within the category of)ow density residential. The proposal calls
for 27 single family lots, 28 detached townhomes, 38 attached townhome units and
40 units in 5 eightplex structures.
As part of the research on this matter, Dick Frie and Steve Grittman participated in
a tour of similar developments. They will be providing a verbal report. Due to the
length of the agenda and the number of items, staff was unable to provide a detai led
report. Generally staff supports a mixed use concept including single family and
townhomes, we arc not as supportive of the proposal for eightplex units. Last of all,
statfis working on providing the information requested regarding the city's housing
mix.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion supporting development of a mixed use concept at this location.
2. Motion withholding support of said concept.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports this concept if eightplex units removed only if strong design and site
maintenance standards are adopted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Preliminary Plat
~i
! I
, .
I I
i
: I
i I
'- " .,-~' I di'
'-...,.............., {
\
I ................ _, __~.....
i r~lIl/
~\
- - ~XCEPrjoN-- ~
I
I
I
I
18
.1 1O
DEVELOPMENT
GENE~AL
SCALE: 1....100
-
I I
I I
~ / ~ I
", YU "'/ ~ cr.- ~ ..--
· 'IV ' ,~~~ r / 7; '\ r I _! I
' "^ '): I ~', " <- / ^ "-.. ,J ^ /
1:\~ '\ ~ f'~K:f,,"~ '-I / / / (' y / \ J j
~ \ ~\" ", ,,/ / / I / L 'y ~ I J
I, I \ I "-.: '" "z. I / \ -- ) f -+- I
--Ii f--tlll ";:~,.} 1/ l~ ... ---I
I ~ i fvl [); "-'. .} ..;: \ ~'_
'- J I · ill.... '''.. ~ _ ~ \~\._-"'C f- _
-= Il~ !~ .. J"". \.. _\_~_ \ 1-1
I:~ 1l- II.. y ,~\ --" /1,> "-. " '.." r _ -l)-"- L-
1..1 IT"" - ~ ""'~ r- i\ \-- _'- _
- --.L IL - '- I . ..i" -- ~ "~,, .." ':<. L _ II i I I
' " .., _Ii!! ---l " " ~" -"A-\- __ ---.{II)-. __ -j
I " ~ " "-' J:.... II; /J I L_
I - ;0 "" ~" I 1-....
\"".. '. ",v
I r-'''lib' --- 0'--'--;;--< ,.;:, ~~;- ~ J- _
~, ;r tI 1 /.'1 ',0-.... '"
--~- I ~ , /h. ~ " ", "-
" I lit- "7- 11' ~ ~~ '- 1,-,1'-0,
' tl I · , m", "., 1'---"':
/ - I L- " , .' ~:::><: ::ll\.l~ '/.()O ~I "'-1'---".
----.:> I - ~ I" '.... S. 4... ~ x.. ~ "-
,01:0, ')WF~~I 1Sl1'<~~~ ~~ "'X"~
~'. ~-~-~ :~~
- , '. ' '- - \ ~~ ~'1l~1
' :; ."ZW '\\~~IL..
1"'-.. . .. -'- U '~___ ' ounm. ~ .... _ _
I "'-.. -=-- 3 , 4 At ~ II_"!I -M
t. ~ "\;~\ tl , . ~ 'II h Il j~ ~'h m I t II
I 'L' ~,..,. fFI ~ _ -'- ~
- I /1 'II . ~ t1' '~....~ I~rl
" "~ -, · I ~ - - r. -~ t" lU
- 8 ,. .~ . ~ ~H'.. 1I\[Jr I
"~.~ 1- , _ = _
.--------'" ~ - - """' I' ~ ~ ~ i]l '"t :J I _
;(' I 1 _ _ t- Jlr"hl ..,..., "
. ... t!S~
" . .
I
3 I I
I
.
-
.
I
I
DU DEVEIDPMENT
GENB&WUI
'if ALE: '....00'
I
I
L
-