Planning Commission Agenda 02-03-2009
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009
6:00 PM
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Barry Voight
Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski
Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman – NAC
1. Call to order.
2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 6th, 2009 and the joint
Planning Commission and City Council Sign Workshop minutes of January 6th, 2009.
3. Citizen Comments.
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the
adoption of Chapter 6: Transportation Plan.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for final plat for Union Crossings Fourth Addition
and amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union
Crossings.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Chapter 3 of the Monticello
Subdivision Ordinance, Title 10 of Monticello City Code , as related to Final Platting.
8. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Chapter 6 of the Monticello
Subdivision Code as related to Parks, Open Space and Public Use.
Applicant: City of Monticello
9. Community Development Director’s Update.
10. Adjourn.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING — JOINT WORKSHOP
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
January 6th, 2009
City Council Members Present: Clint Herbst, Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta,
Susie Wojchouski
City Council Members Absent: Brian Stumpf
Planning Commission Present: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, Bill Spartz,
Barry Voight
Nlanning Commission Members Absent: None
1.
Call to order.
The meeting convened at 5:10 PM with a fiill quorum of the Plaiming Commission and
City Council present.
Consideration to review and discuss a draft amendment to Chanter 3 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance related to suns.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided an introduction to the
workshop. Schumann explained that the Planning Commission had called for an
amendment to the Sign Ordinance in advance of an anticipated full scale ordinance
revision due to the number of variance requests and inconsistencies within that portion of
the code.
Schumann noted that two public meetings had been held to gather input for the
preparation of a draft amendment. Subsequently, the Planning Commission held two
agenda item discussions on the prepared draft. The Commission recommended changes
during those meetings, which are reflected in the version distributed to the Planning
Commission and Council for this workshop. Additionally, Schumann related that a
presentation to the Government Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce was
held and additional feedback had been garnered during that session.
Schumann stated that the purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the
proposed draft sign ordinance to the City Council and to allow the Council members a
chance to ask questions and provide feedback.
Planning Commission Minutes — 01/06/09
Consulting Planner Steve Grittman provided a presentation highlighting the amendment
process to date and the primary changes to the sign ordinance. Grittman stated that the
sign ordinance would become a separate chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, rather than a
chapter included in the ordinance itself. He noted that the intent of the revision is also to
make the ordinance more readable and user-friendly for property owners, staff and City
officials.
Grittman stated that in terms of the structure, the proposed ordinance now includes a set
of definitions, a purpose statement, and a listing of permitted and prohibited signs. Then
two sets of regulations are conveyed, those for residential, and those for commercial
industrial.
Grittman noted that the two areas of most change were in relationship to temporary
signage and dynamic signage. The ordinance provides expanded flexibility for temporary
signage through sandwich boards and use of the Public/Semi-Public District for non-
profit temporary signage. In terms of dynamic displays, the ordinance provides
additional detail encompassing today's technologic advances in signs. Grittman
explained that the Planning Commission was not unanimous on some of the provisions of
the dynamic display regulation. It was also noted that the draft ordinance does provide
some incentive clauses as related to message boards and monument signage.
Grittman concluded by stating that the next step would be to incorporate tables and
graphic illustrations into the document where noted, then to bring that draft to another
public comment session. Pending outcomes of that session, the draft would go to
Planning Commission in a public hearing and finally to the City Council.
Grittman opened the workshop to questions and comments.
Bill Seefeldt, owner of Electro Industries, Monticello, addressed the Council and
Commission, requesting clarification on where "uniformity" discussed by Grittman was
conveyed within the new ordinance. Grittman responded that the uniformity comes in the
way that commercial and industrial districts are addressed and how the regulations are
applied.
Councilmember Posusta inquired about the City's ability to regulate proper orientation of
signage. Grittman indicated that was most likely a content issue, which falls under 1St
Amendment protections. He indicated that it is a gray area. Posusta also asked for
clarification on sandwich board placement and timing. Grittman noted that this
ordinance allows sandwich boards to be placed out every day during hours of operation
for each business. In essence, each tenant of a multi -tenant building could have its own
Planning Commission Minutes — 01/06/09
sandwich board in addition to sharing the 40 days per building of temporary sign
allowance.
Charlie Pfeffer, Pfeffer Companies of Maple Grove, inquired about provisions for pylon
signage. Grittman responded that pylon signage is still allowed and that the freeway
bonus district allowing for additional heights for freeway exposure purposes had been
retained in this draft.
Schumann stated that the draft ordinance would be placed online and that notice of a
public forum on the ordinance would be posted on line and in the newspaper.
3. Adiourn
With no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 5:56 PM.
Recording Secretary
3
Planning Commission Agenda –2/02/09
1
5. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for an amendment to the
Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the adoption of Chapter 6:
Transportation Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC/AS)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is asked to consider a recommendation on adoption of
the Transportation Plan as an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The
Transportation Plan is a general system document that provides a framework for
long-term development of transportation in the community, along with the
relationship of the transportation system to the City’s land use patterns.
The Plan inventories Roadway Conditions, highlights Planning Issues, identifies
Roadway Needs, and sets out the Transportation Plan for the community, with the
role of supporting the City’s recent land use plan as adopted in the 2008
Comprehensive Plan.
There are seven primary focus areas of the Transportation Plan that received
special attention within the Comprehensive Plan. They are as follows:
New interchange location with I-94.
Traffic management on TH 25 between the freeway and the river.
Construction of the Fallon Avenue bridge.
Establishing future roadway corridors.
Evaluating transit opportunities.
Facilitating the City’s pedestrian system.
Coordination with regional transportation efforts, including future river
crossing alternatives.
The Plan is structured to provide and analyze alternatives related to these issues
and others, and to present recommended options to the City wherever possible.
The Planning Commission should review the Plan and be prepared to make a
recommendation to the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
together with any specific recommendations relating to the content of the
Transportation Plan. Comments of consensus related to any of the bulleted items
noted above would be helpful to the City Council in their deliberation over
adoption of the Plan.
Specific recommendations on the Highway 25 corridor would be an area for
Commission’s specific recommendation. During the Comprehensive Planning
process, the community identified traffic congestion on the Highway 25 corridor
as one of the highest overall priority issues and the highest priority transportation
issue. Additionally, decisions related to the Highway 25 corridor relate directly to
downtown land use discussions and to any redevelopment or revitalization efforts
Planning Commission Agenda –2/02/09
2
for the downtown. Without a clear understanding of what the future
transportation system will look like in this area, a discussion of land use planning
for downtown is incredibly difficult.
As a part of the Trunk Highway 25 improvements, the Plan recommends an
upgraded roadway with a series of roundabouts to manage traffic flow through
and across the corridor from I-94 north to the river. It is acknowledged in this
Plan that there is follow-up work to do to facilitate this project. However, the
analysis of the alternative options for the corridor shows that this design results in
the best flow and the safest conditions for the area, including pedestrian use.
The Parks Commission has reviewed the trail and pedestrian components of this
plan and formally recommended adoption of the Plan. Their minutes are included
for reference.
The Industrial & Economic Development Committee will be reviewing the Plan
the morning of February 3rd and will provide comments and a formal
recommendation for the public hearing.
As a format note to the Planning Commission, City Engineer Bruce Westby and
consulting engineering firm WSB & Associates will present the plan components
during the hearing and will be available to answer the Commission’s questions
and to address concerns. Additionally, it is anticipated that Mn/DOT and Wright
County representatives will be present to provide additional regional
transportation perspectives.
If adopted by the City Council, the Transportation Plan becomes the foundation
for the City’s transportation infrastructure and capital improvement planning.
The full document becomes an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, incorporated
by summary as Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan itself.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan by adoption of the
Transportation Plan.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
with specific conditions and recommendations identified at the Public
Hearing. This motion may be based on a finding that the amendment
provides an appropriate transportation chapter for the Comprehensive
Plan, supports the proposed land use plan, and furthers the City’s land
use and development policies through the provision of vital
transportation facilities.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Amendment, based on a finding that
the Plan requires further modification prior to adoption.
Planning Commission Agenda –2/02/09
3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Plan as submitted. The Plan represents a
thorough analysis of the City’s broad-spectrum transportation issues and sets a
guide for transportation development both within the current municipal boundary
and into the City’s planning area. The Plan provides a balance between the
identification of needed transportation enhancements and the determination of
final alignments and improvements based on future study.
However, in regard to Trunk Highway 25, staff believes it important that Planning
Commission make a specific recommendation. Commission has previously cited
concern regarding this corridor, and as such, staff believes a formal
recommendation appropriate at this time.
In this regard, it is staff’s recommendation that the roundabout system merits
advanced study as the preferred alternative for long-term traffic management
along the Highway 25 corridor.
Staff’s recommendation for further study of a roundabout system is based on
increasing traffic in the corridor, the need to accommodate continued access to the
downtown while allowing for functional traffic flow, the ability to provide safer
at-grade pedestrian crossings, the limitations of the current configuration and
study data on the reduction of crashes.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Transportation Plan Draft, dated January 2009 (mailed January 16th, 2009)
B. Resolution of Adoption of the Transportation Plan
MEMO
TO: Monticello Planning Commissioners
FROM: Angela Schumann
RE: Draft Monticello Transportation Plan
DATE: 1-16-09
CC: Jeff O’Neill, Bruce Westby, Steve Grittman
Commissioners,
Please find enclosed your copy of the draft Monticello Transportation Plan.
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding the plan during its
regular meeting on Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009.
The Planning Commission is holding the public hearing in fulfillment of State
statutory obligation as follows:
M.S. Section 462.356, Subd. 2. Compliance with plan.
After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been
recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing
body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality
shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be
authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any
other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until
after the planning agency has r eviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or
capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other
special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to
compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the
comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to report on
the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other period as
may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied
the require ments of this subdivision. The governing body may, by resolution
adopted by two -thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this
subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed acquisition or
disposal of real property or capital improvement h as no relationship to the
comprehensive municipal plan.
The Parks Commission, Police Commission and Industrial and Economic
Development Committee are also reviewing the draft Transportation Plan. They
will be providing comments and a formal recommendation to the Planning
Commission on February 3rd. Outside and regional agency review and
comment may also be provided during the hearing.
City Engineer Bruce Westby and consulting engineering firm WSB & Associates
will present the plan components during the hearing and will be available to
answer the Commission’s questions and to address concerns.
Planning Commission will be asked to consider a resolution recommending
adoption of the Transportation Plan to the City Council, as well as a
recommendation on the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the
inclusion of the Transportation Plan. If adopted by the City Council, the
Transportation Plan becomes the foundation for the City’s transportation
infrastructure and capital improvement planning. The full document becomes
an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, incorporated by summary as Chapter
6 of the Comprehensive Plan itself.
As Commission reviews the plan, it is recommended that emphasis be placed
on the following initiatives highlighted within the Comprehensive Plan:
Evaluating of the feasibility of a new west interchange or interchanges
with I-94.
Ongoing management and mitigation of traffic on TH 25 between I-94
and the River.
Planning for the construction of the Fallon Avenue Bridge, the
reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the related expansion of municipal
utility systems.
Coordinating development projects to protect future collector street
corridors.
Evaluating transit opportunities to maximize the use of the Northstar
project and other transit opportunities.
Ensuring that pedestrian facilities are provided throughout the City and
across major transportation corridors.
Coordinating with regional transportation efforts.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of the plan. Staff looks forward to
hearing your thoughts and comments on this document.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PLANNING COMMISSION
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009 MONTICELLO
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 2008 and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan cites the completion and adoption of a
Transportation Plan as a Next Step in achieving the goals of the plan and
WHEREAS, the City has seen dramatic growth over the last 10 years and with an
increase in population and development comes an increased demand for adequately
planned infrastructure improvements within the City and its planning area and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the final Transportation Plan and finds it to
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and
WHEREAS, the completed Transportation Plan serves as the City’s guide plan for
infrastructure investment and improvements
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello that it hereby recommends adoption the 2009 Monticello Transportation
Plan.
Adopted by the Planning Commission of Monticello, Minnesota on the 3rd day of
February, 2009
_________________________________
Rod Dragsten, Chair
ATTEST:
Dawn Grossinger, City Clerk
Planning Commission Agenda –2/02/09
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Final Plat for Union
Crossings 4th Addition and amendment to Conditional Use Permit PUD for
Union Crossings. Applicant: Ryan Companies. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking a subdivision of the existing Union Crossings Lot 2,
Block 2 to create two parcels from what is currently one. The purpose of the
subdivision is to separate the property occupied by the Office Max building from
the easterly remainder of the property. The Office Max parcel will be Lot 1,
Block 1 Union Crossings 4th Addition, and the remainder will be Lot 2. Lot 2 will
be set up to accommodate future development, and may be split again at that time.
Union Crossings was developed as Planned Unit Development to provide for a
variety of retail buildings in a shopping center arrangement. The zero-lot-line
subdivision in this case does not raise any issues from a planning standpoint, since
the site was developed to provide utilities and stormwater control on a
comprehensive basis, rather than lot by lot. As such, the engineering staff have
recommendations as to easements and similar issues, but there is no concern with
forgoing the easements that would have otherwise
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Final Plat and Amended CUP-Planned Unit Development for Union
Crossings 4th Addition
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Plat and PUD Amendment, based
on a finding that the applications are consistent with the original PUD
approvals for Union Crossings, with the recommendations of the City
Engineer.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Plat and PUD Amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval as submitted, subject to the comments of the City
Engineer. The proposal is intended to accommodate the expansion of the retail
project as anticipated with the original PUD.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Final Plat
B. Certificate of Survey
C. Approved Preliminary Plat
D. Approved Site Plan
E. Engineer’s Memo – dated January 28th, 2009
AREA SUMMARY
LOT 1: 1.53E ACRES
LOT 2: 4.701 ACRES
UN/ON CROSS/NGS FOURTH ADDITION
CENTER LIVE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILP, DAD ---'' � / IL
/ AV 7\ v AV / A In
V L,/ / 1) 7`L7 L-) A 1
h NEL YL/NE
BLOCK OF LOT 2
2
UNION CROSSINGS--,_
S{y'L Y R/CH7 OF WAY LINE OF ---
BURLINGTON THE —
( - 430. BS NORTHERN RAILROAD
-----___ 21542 ^/Jc w
-----_3 39„w 4°0035 W
171111--. 7111�
_ 0 5
576 —_ _ 21543
125.01 _---- --\\ —
--DRAINAGE
— _ PER_UNIONAC_ROSS/N S EASEM-N
,s” -1 — — C
511E—_
5.c �, 412.73
NA
` PER l UN1p VACROSS NGS EASEMENT S54 °00 35 E' — — — - _ _ _ T �� ^ P I
I i
_ 033'45'
— — — — N ------ - -=�
02008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
s
sVo
0
`C/
\
9 �
6• \ ' \ \ yrs' �.
0414
\
0- Qhs 10 \
9J
\GO
'o"
tv
A
/ 0
`V
le
all. v�JIC
\ e•
s /
\ VV fL.t/T .;
44.79
SO
i
Westwood Professional SerAM Inc.
3701 12th St N., Su}te 206
SL Coad, MN 56303
PHONE 320.253.9495
W FAX 32o•zs3-e737
TOLL FREE 1.800-270-9495
V� wwvscwestwoodps.mm
I aarery amry that thla plan was Ftpared try me or u-3 my
dims aapelvtaion and tlfnL I em a duly llcmaed LAND SURVEYOR
[;uad�la� the staoe
&eviai
mew: DH
Prepared for.
Ryan Companies U5, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
xxc
H, culson
0= yiom,d No. 45873
R --d--
SEC. 13, T. 121 N., R. 25 W.
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
LEGAL DESCRIP770N:
Lot 2, Block 2, UNION. CROSSINGS, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in
Wright County, Minnesota.
SURVEYORS NNES:
Proposed Lots 1 and 2 are based on the proposed plat of Union Crossings Fourth Addition
and will become valid upon the filing and recordation of said plat.
Area Summary.
Proposed Lot 1; 1.53 acres/66,669 sq, ft.
Proposed Lot 2. 4.70 acres/204,578 sq. ft.
Total (EXISTING LOT 2, BLOCK 2). 6.23 acres/271,247 sq. ft.
BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON THE PLAT OF UNION CROSSINGS
50 0 50 100 150
Scale in feet
o Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron monument
set and marked by License No. 45873
Denotes found p.k. nail
Unionpates 1/19/09 20095000Cif
Crossings Certificate of Survey
Monticello, .Minnesota
02004 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
\ "r\ Coll 48 Hours before digging:
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL
\ /
0,01" Twin City Area 651-454-0002
\\ Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-11652-116
6
/ E 5E
A n J�° of
€X\ANC\\ 1N \X/SANG U!�(N � /��--_-- _ __ ( '�. )' '��•r<� IQ
------- ----------__ CSA.H. No 5
---------------
75
,�
8-A !.� \ O
t \ -I x �g5'o' (, \ l�r�`f"'exa "vRAaRo�p � �' � � 9 _ ____--____--_----•_--_� \ � 'C�
70 �
/ _ _ -- ---�---------- _____ 94 S�7E
_
7- o _cEv
%� / �7 , = �\� ' ;\` 1 h 956 SS < BURt,NG mo,,RA/(ROAO 39
ss �/- 10/NC selsAcr _ (� y2 21-9697 9
`\\\ '° A n \ i'1. �1 1° E\I'S. 431 s$4o O, E se ORTf/ERIV/(�Afl \7- �R. i c\ a0+a
54 V Of E � $' i --- 9/S3r
' - \ ' " I - _ / 11.17 _ 9� �1• _ MOIV77CELLO p
,- �or-10 95 / �I 9567 S-
'10 1(1
s f' ✓ / / \ °i ND unuN RFAN,ffyar - 67 g55 -�&r 752- \ 9� ih -CL a�w.
O
is
1?
k /
/2 I s \ GAS _ ---- 1_ s�sa59 VICINITY MAP
'r -1J: / .ase I O 2 I 9 a s J \ .5S 26 W NO SCALE
fA 58
- AI/ V \ 956 I� I Sys e 00
✓
L -- !f \ g56 I ' ( \, - I 5 15100• Rpo s 10 S
DEVELOPER:
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
50 South 10th Street,
�Y ' • - - - - - - �\Y\_ AN lra,A/NAGf _I �. . • a W Nf�. n - ca. Q �I� Suite 300
W&vr' I 4aEt 'c- Minneapolis, 55403
612-492-449898
/ 2 I 95a l
OPLANNER - ENGNEE
R:
% cr_ SCHOELL & MADISON, IN
C.
10580 Wayzata Blvd.
PR-15
25Minneapolis, MN 55305V
952-546-7601
I
956 r` \
\ `2�
\ " SURVEYOR.•
pip WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
3701 12th Street North
tJy0
0 Suite 206
211 St. Cloud, MN 56303
! S6" • 0 1 / 9s6 "N / / /5 m \ 320-253-9495
1 t1�AC/ 1 e _
�+ \ \1 v ( i (� i
1 / _/�os� EPSE / \ \ DEVELOPMENT 1NFORMA770N
m \ \ OCURRENT ZONING. � w 1 J
PROPOSED ZONING;! 8-41 N(BUSINESS) - 1N PROGRESS
='' /•/`/ \ \ \?60 `/`��,)V \ Iz `l1 0.•!�5 - / .\ _ 5 \ \ PROPOSED LOTS = 2
/ 99 a OPOSEO.EdNAi' / \ \ V I I 12
_ y PROPOSED OUL075 = 4
o� d �)
9 d, ,p T' FAQ � \ \ \ °' c5 � W`C s p . a.
(` f � I I `� µ Tr \\ I F .� A `/ l J � �1,�� , , v-
/ 67 \ - - 846 - - - -r' x 6 L0 \ �y,i _
- - - - - tt R AREA SUMMARY
� teff e54 gsz spm LOT 1, BLOCK 1 = 613,657-+ S. F. = 14.09± ACRES
\'C / trEcT may- +� �� 5b - ,�;',6 LOT 1, BLOCK 2 = 453,1991 S.F. = 10.40± ACRES
0�}1 C EAST -1
77Y -
LOT
L1 _`\ n �5� z -94z \ ° L0� 2, BLOCK 2 _ 271,2471 SF. = 6.231 ACRES
/ 94 e4 ' _956 �� yes 94 WCE /5 0.7 FEET
F \ \ l ' 6� yu 5{ 94c -94 r pF pRoaF wh'•9+ . \ LO 3, BLOCK 2 - 55,1071 S.F. = 1.27-+ ACRES
\ ,9 III`_•.ffel+YMCiN1:6��-9948�-
� �g--
99 h
Cf- l - �_ _ !9y2 - - - - - - - - _ 95_9 - 9 5\ OUTLOT A = 46, 930± S.F. = 1.08± ACRES
6 1- JI - --8::O.asi> .-- -. - - .- - -
', )r - - - - -9 Qom- Q 95 X9$0 - _ �Sa _ °s 94 A i ;C me or err.-' P�,ce \ OU7LOT C = 167,924-+ S.F. = 3.86± ACRES
/ �_ _ l 0• + 952 fL aP 0P u"E -9sp- 9 - 1 / N�• �\ \ ell OU7LOT D = 21,386± S.F. = 0.49-+ ACRES
�95 INTERSTATE
\ 54 PR. ROW 279,7341 S.F. = 6.41± ACRES
_\
5.1 \
/
956 'Ity OF PROP. UNE
956 1 TOTAL = 2,075,768-+ S.F. = 47.65± ACRES
` g56
c' \
LEGAL DESr,RIPAON FOR PRtZIA!INARY PLAT USE ONLY I pr
\ A
That port of the Northeast Quarter of Section f$ Township 121, Range 25, Might County, Ntnnesota, described as tallows \rf \ I
Canmenc/ng ai the northwest comer of sold Northeast Qutrter, thence South 89 degrees 39 minutes 28 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northeast Quarter o distance of 172.24 feet to a line parallel with and distant 50.00 feet southwest from the center If,, of the r•, •Iy
Burlingtan Northern Cos.- measured at a right angle from m/d center line, said parallel line also being the southwesterly right of way line o/ the Burlington Northern Rollrood,• thence South 52 degrees 1.7 minutes 59 seconds East along said parallel line, a distance of 915.77 feet to the actual J
point o/ 6eginrting; thence South 28 degrees 45 minutes 01 seconds West a disfanee of 577.80 feet; thence South B4 degrees 32 minutes 25 seconds East a distance of 619.14 het more - less to the farmer westerly right of way line of County Road No. 18, formerly known as Interstate No. 94.
thence North OT degrees 44 minutes 25 seconds East along said westedy line, a distance of J00.2J feet more or /"e to said line pare//e/ with and distant 50.00 feet southwest from the center line of the Burlington Narthem Railroad a•
North 52 degrees 37 minutes 59 seconds West, along said parallel line, to the point of beginning. s measured at o right angle from said centro Erne,thence
AND LEGEND
That port of the Northeast quarter of Sectlon f,; Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows: NOTE:
Commencing at the northwest corner of saftl Northeast Quarter, theme South 89 degrees 39 minutes 28 seconds East assumed bearing, along the narih line oI said Northeast Quarter a distance of 172.24 feet to a fine parallel with and distant 50.00 lest southwest from the center line of the
BuNingtan Northern Railroad as measured at a right angle tram sold center line, said paroflel line also being the southwesterly right of way line of the Burlingtan Northern Rokroad,• thence South 52 degrees 37 minutes 59 seconds East, along said parallel line, a distance of 915.3t feetthence 0 S7EELIWOOD POST STORM MANHOLE
au degrees 45 minutes 01 seconds Wast a distance of 577.80 Leat to the actual point of beginning; thence South 84 degrees 32 minutes 25 seconds East a distance of 619.14 feet mora an less to the former westerly right of way line of County Road Na 18, formerly known as interstate BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WRIGHT COUNTY
No. 94; thence southerly along said former westerly right of way fine to the northeasterly r/ght oI way fine of /nterstote No. 94; thence nathwmierly along said northeosfeNy right of way line to the intersectlan with a line which bears South 26 degrees 45 minutes 01 seconds West from the point SIGN-7RAFF1C/07HER Q TELEPHONE BOX COORDINATE SYSTEM NAD86 (96AD✓.) THE LEGAL
of beginning; thence North 28 degrees 45 minutes Of seconds fast fro the point of beginning. DESCRIP770N BEARINGS MUST BE ROTATED
GAS ME7ER (0 TELEPHONE MANHOLE Ol SCRIP 7 CLOCKWISE TO MATCH THE COUNTY
AND ' S7REFT LITE + TRAFFIC LIGHT
COORDINA 7E SYSTEM.
at part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows: GUY W1RE Da GATE VALVE
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Northeast Quarter, thence South 89 degrees 39 minutes 28 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 462.72 feet; thence South 52 degrees 37 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 1268.37 lest;
thence South 37 degrees 22 minutes 02 seconds West a distance of 174.92 feet mora or less to a line parallel with and distant 50.00 feet southwest from the center line of the Burlington Northern Raf7road as measured of o right angle from said canter fine, said parallel lino also being the A' POWER POLE HYDRANT
southwesterly right of way fine of the Burfingtan Northern Ra/Iroad, being the actual point of beginning; thence South 52 degrees J7 minutes 59 seconds East, along said parallel line, a distance of 79.46 feet; thence South 37 degrees 22 minutes 02 seconds West a distance of 46.55 feet' thence E ELECTRIC BOX
southerly along o f County
ttal curve cm18, to the east homing a radius of 94,' feet and a central ongle of J5 degrees J7 minutes 37 seconds for an arc distance of 47231 feet; thence North 88 degrees 15 minutes J5 seconds West a distance of 15.00 feet more or less to the former westerly ® UNKNOWN MANHOLE
right of way line of County Rood Na 78, formerly known as Interstate No. 94; thence North Ol degrees 44 minutes 25 seconds East• along said westerly line, o distance of 613.52 feet mare or fess to said line parallel with and distant 50.00 feet southwest /ram the center line of the Burlington ELECTRIC METER
Northern RoAroad as measured at o rfght angle from said center line, thence South 52 degrees J7 minutes 59 seconds East, along said parallel fine to the point of beginning.
AND
ELECTRIC MANHOLE -aAs- GAS UNE 100 0 100 200 300
®S SANITARY MANHOLE-Pbra-- POWER OVERHEAD
Those parts of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quorter of Section 13, Township 121. Range 25, Wi-fght County, Minnesota described as follows Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Ouarter,
co SEWER CLEANOUT -pus:- POWER UNDERGROUND Scale in feet
thence an an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 39 minutes 211 seconds Eost along the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 17224 feet to o /fne parallel with and distant 50.00 lest Southwest from the center line of the Burlington Northern Ralroad CURB &GUTTER -SAN-
as measured at a right angle from said center line; thence South 52 degrees J7 minutes 59 seconds East along said parallel ling, a distance of 192.14 lost to the point of 6grees SANITARY SEWER
line, a distance of 72717 feet, thence South 28 degrees 45 minutes 01 socands West a distance of 868.39 feet to the Northeasterly right of way line of /ntersicte Highway No n94;g thenceh North 63 degraess' JO�miinutes 18 slecondsco±West along said Northeasterly right ofswaysl/ne, agdisold stonce�fel
68208 feet; thence North 26 degrees 5J minutes 52 seconds East, a distance of 1004.14 feet to the point of beginning. ® CATCH BASIN -Sro- STORM SEWER O Denotes Set Iron Monument
AND
CONCRE7E SURFACE -ria- TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND • Denotes Found Iron Monument
-WAT- WA7EM.4AW
Those parts o/ the Southeast Quarter f the Southwest Quarter and Goverment Lot 1 of Section 12 and the Northeast quarter o/ the Northwest Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter oftSectionQuart 13 all e Township 121, Range distance
WYlght County, Minnesota desline pbed as follows. 6 BITUMINOUS SURFACE
Commencing of the northwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast - mea thence an ig assumed beartai o/ South 89 degrees 1.9 minutes 28 seconds fast along the north line of said Northwest Quarter o1 the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 172-24 feet to o Ikfe parallel with and -X- FENCE UNE
distant 50.00 feet southwest the
the center line of Burlway line
Northam o Hrood os measured at a right angle from sold center line; thence South 52 degrees 37 minutes 59 seconds East along sold parallel line, a distance of 915.31 feet• thence South 28 degrees 45 minufm 01 seconds West, a
distance o/ 868.39 feet to the fartheasterty right of way Ime o/ inters to Highway Na 94; thence Nrvth 63 degrees 30 minutes 18 seconds West along sold natheastarly right of way line, a distance of 683.08 feet to the point of beginning of said land to be described• thence continue North 61. GRAVEL SURFACE GUARD RAIL
degrees 30 minutes f8 seconds West along said northeasterly right of way fine, a distance of 823.50 feet: thence North 28 degrees 45 m/nutes 01 seconds Cost, a distance of 115580 feet to a line parallel with and distant 50.00 feet southwest of as measured at a r/ght angle from told curter ••tt•t •{t�/ ,t
line of the Burlington a Northern Railroad, thence South 52 degrees 1.7 , minutes 59 sacands East thong said parallel /Ins, o distance y 799.4Jhereof feet it the intsrsecfian of a line beortng North 26 degrees 53 minutes 52 seconds East (ran the point of beginning,• thence South 26 degrees 53 minutes -�- ACCESS CONTROL 70 MNDOT Date: 11�1:JJ OY
52 seconds West, a distance of 1004.14 teet to the point of beginning, aaeof and 1 -ding to the Un/ted States Government Survey thereof and situate /a WNght County, Minnesota
�/� • • 20032629.01PPFO1.DW0
1 h -by -tif' tfu! th4 gtm - � by „" a: "'� my t Prepared for ® RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. Monticello Retail �rf�
ansa �° sn�lof c LAND svRvsYox R•15/04 50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300 (Sheet S-6 )
��.3701 1
Westwood Professional Services, Inc. i/1S/04 -LOT LAYOUT Site
St, C 12th St. North, Ste. 205 ,z/01 04 - ROTATE SITE To COUNn COORDINATES SAG Minneapolis, MN 55403-2012
St. Cloud, MN 56303 / n,,,.S sws Preliminary Plat
Phone: 320-253-9495 Fax: 320-253E737 Gy zhoe/os -Lor urafT �/ 612.492-0000 tel
TI-- Na. 233002 listed
612492-3000 fax Monticello, Minnesota
BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIPS WWW.RYANCOMPANIES.COM
0 C4
L:
..... ------
E
z
8' TRAIL
--tONNIECT-TO
C GSSIN
"*qw RAILROAD
(6Y'CYTHERS 'ILERS�
tjtAVT._
4.
�10 .7 '7
1 120' 1. MODULAR uU., - I � ; I - — c
..... .. ... w
TRU C 9?rrAIwINr IN I - 0
7 PAVEMENT AT
I TURNING ---------- ........ c
pe FRONT DRIVE --------- cc
al Cc
AND SERVICE AREAS
0
(TYP-) SID
AREA
WILL CALL SL 7 --
PATTERN A L
0
-momm0 ....... 0 c
l SIDEWALK H04fFDFq0;, BUILDING LOr2 -.1 0
MATERIALS •7, 122
PLANTERS OYP.) 102,500 S)C- STORAGE
E
SURMOUNTABLE m
FENCE. 8' HIGH LIGHTS
HOME IMPROVEMENT WALL PACK
ODD SCREEN' 4000 HOME
SIDEWALK -EA EMERGENCY
WOOD SCREEN
CONCRETE
TRAFFIC ISLAND SEE z
H RETAIL
E WIT TRUCK EXIT Z. LIGHTING PLAN 20
2' FROM CUR& SCORING PATTERN . ... ........
I BLOCK CORRIDOR 2OW Sp �c
3.75- Sf1lo—=R rARG&—r (TYP-) TRUCK V
AT LOADING FLUSH WITH TURNING
DOCK d.N�, BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT' 1 0 PIC P RETAIL 0
5 78'
-CANOPY PIC RET
AIL
AREA - CO RETE TOOL 20M 3F 174, JWSFIr
•
4u.17• WITH STRIP11 G RENTAL 8000 SF
AREA
FRONT CONR
ErE LL
-
SID AND w 1; -�-1 - ....... . ..
-
PUNTERS
140* z
BLOCK
FRONT CON RETE
SIDEWALK AND LOT I -j�.RELGCA
PLANTERS (TYP.) 3w WUMINO S z
26'
�i -z " 7
6 'TRAIL: t.
r4' ROLLED CONCRETE '�IaY OTHERS) I ERS) z •
E 7
CURB AND GUTTER AT
572--
i 13UILDING FRONT
-- �:� z
CC
AR
; u
CO LOA- 0
c
1 VE DRAINAGE. z
AND TRAIL
PA 12 ET EASEMENT SS 6
tks
RB -ISOIL PROBE AR
k, btENVIRONMENT
C� .......
CL
ry
EG
-4z
ITUM S U)
Z
C; AT ac A IBIS 0% S z
SA EA, -P %
it
T4
(U MO CONCM7E
LLJ
P R) H r—NUM T
------- ......
Z
UTILITY TRAILER
DISPLAY AREA L U)
4
L9
27'
ROW
--ll --------- ----------- ---- ON- 'j
P.)
G
a 63. NOU
rn RETAIL 8- BajpjV ENT o m m
-PARKiNG
-------- ARD
FUTjjp (By 2nrs)
--- - ------ G LAN a
OFF. DEDICATION ,
MONUMENT
'G
UNUN
AENT%-
;N - 12'
BOULEVARD ' .,, - trF; N
SIGN - 6" :1. -j-,;�'TTYPE I <
........ ALJURN LANE CONCRETE
'HERS)
LAZA AND
P AND
MONUMENT
MENT
. ........ .
12'
204 PARKING SPACE'
EXISTING.
INlj
%
ONU . MEiir --- --- -
. ...... ......... - - --- ----- ...... . ------- PEDESTRIAN c
OLIM40T q; M -------------------
--- -- -- -- -
SIGN -
f�' TRAIL BRIDGE AND
,l)?E D ---- ------
---- ------------- .. ----------------- ------
--------- - ----- RELOCATED TRAIL ---
MONU NT -----------
(BY
BACK OF CURB
---- SIGN 12-� ----- ------ rc.
—::" .. - - * . 0' BOULEVARD OTHERS -
-----------------
-------- ----- TYPE -------
100, %
vff RECONFIGURED
000l STORM POND ------ ------- -- ------ ------------
OFF PQ --------- ---------
- ----- ------ 0
...........
6' BOULEVARD ------------
Z AT TURN LANE ----------
8' TRAIL ---- - --- tA &
PYLON 10' BOULEVARD (BY OTHERS) ----- ------- --------------- ...
------- ---------
SIGN - 50' HT. (BY OTHERS) ---------- ----------- .. ... . .. ... ..
l000l --------- -------------------- w
TYPE A ------------------------------- -
---------- ----------
-------
w.
-------------------------
.. .. .. ... .. ..
. ... ... .. ..
.. ... .. ... ... ZE,
OVERALL SITE
BLOCK 1, LOT I SUPER TARGET SITE BLOCK 2, LOT 2 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C
EXISTING ZONING: 1-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
c�-
PROPOSED ZONING: B-4 (BUSINESS) IN PROGRESS LOT AREA: 14.089 AC LOT AREA: 6.227 AC LOT AREA: 1.077 AC LOT AREA: 3.855 AC
BUILDING SETBACK FOR 8-4 0' PER CODE 3.3.0 BUILDING AREA: 174,550 SF BUILDING AREA: 54,000 SF BUILDING AREA: 5,000 SF BUILDING AREA: 19,200 SF Q
PARKING PROVIDED: 827 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED: 309 PARKING PROVIDED: 28 PARKING PROVIDED: 205
BLOCK 1. LOT 1 AREA (ACCESSIBLE PARKING INCLUDED, (ACCESSIBLE PARKING INCLUDED) (ACCESSIBLE PARKING INCLUDED) (ACCESSIBLE PARKING INCLUDED)
BLOCK 2, LOT 1 14.089 AC CART CORRALS NOT INCLUDED) PARKING RATIO (309/54): 5.72 SP/1000 SIF PARKING RATIO (28/5): 5.6 SP/1000 SF PARKING RATIO (205/19.2): 10.7 SP/1000 SF
10.404 AC PARKING RATIO (827/174.5): 4.74 SP/1000 SF PARKING AREA: 105.705 SF PARKING AREA: 13,382 SF PARKING AREA: 74,486 SF
BLOCK 2, LOT 2 6.227 AC PARKING AREA: 248,803 SF PARKING LANDSCAPE REQUIRED: 3.805 SF PARKING LANDSCAPE REQUIRED: 482 SF PARKING LANDSCAPE REQUIRED: 2.681 SF
BLOCK 2, LOT 3 1.265 AC PARKING LANDSCAPE REQUIRED: 8,957 SF (180 S.F. PER 5000 S.F) (180 S.F. PER 5000 S.F) (180 S.F. PER 5000 S.F)
OUTLOT A 1.077 AC (180 S.F. PER 5000 S.F) PARKING LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: 7,688 SF PARKING LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: 574 SF PARKING LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: 5,368 SF
OUTLOT B 3.830 AC PARKING LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: 9,692 SF
OUTLOT C 3.855 AC 51
OUTLOT D 0.487 AC OUTLOT 0
R.O.W. DEDICATION 6.419 AC CL a.
r
TOTAL 47.653 AC LOT AREA:200 300
0.487 AC 0- 100
I — 'E 2 u
BLOCK 2, LOT I HOME DEPOT SITE R.O.W. DEDICATION c
DEVELOPABLE LOTS (EXCLUDING OUTLOT D & R.O.W.) BLOCK 2, LOT 3 OUTLOT B SCALE IN FEET o
c
LOT AREA: 40.93 AC LOT AREA: LOT AREA: 6.419 AC 2 16 1
10.404 AC LOT AREA: 1.265 AC LOT AREA: 3.830 AC a. -6
1 2 in D. 0.
BUILDING AREA: 388,750 SF BUILDING AREA: 102,500 SF BUILDING AREA: 11,500 SF BUILDING AREA: 22.000 SF GENERAL LEGEND AI *21
PARKING PROVIDED: 2,094 (GARDEN CENTER): (28,000 SF) PARKING PROVIDED: 74 PARKING PROVIDED: 166 , a
(ACCESSIBLE PARKING INCLUDED, PARKING PROVIDED: 485 (ACCESSIBLE PARKING INCLUDED) (ACCESSIBLE PARKING INCLUDED) z
CART CORRALS NOT INCLUDED) (ACCESSIBLE PARKING INCLUDED, DENOTES EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PARKING RATIO: 5.39 SPACES PARKING RATIO (74/11.5): 6.43 SP/1000 SF PARKING RATIO (166/22): 7.55 SP/1000 SF
CART CORRALS NOT INCLUDED) PARKING AREA: 27,778 SF PARKING AREA: 65.347 SF in w t E=
PARKING AREA: 715,864 SF PARKING RATIO (485/102.5): 4.73 SP/1000 SF PARKING LANDSCAPE REQUIRED: DENOTED EXISTING CURB AND BUILDING
PARKING LANDSCAPE REQUIRED: 25,378 SF 1,000 SF PARKING LANDSCAPE REQUIRED: 2,352 SF
= = co
PARKING AREA: 180,363 SF (180 S.F. PER 5000 S.F) (180 S.F. PER 5000 S.F) ---------------------------------- DENOTES PROPOSED PUBLIC CURB (BY OTHERS) ;E = (o
(180 SF PER 5000 SF) PARKING LANDSCAPE REQUIRED: 6,601 SF PARKING LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: %:I o
PARKING LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: 42,670 SF 4,451 SF PARKING LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: 6,675 SF
(180 S.F. PER 5000 S.F) 0
0 CL
PARKING DENOTES PROPOSED PRIVATE BUILDING
LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: 8,222 SF 4i
:2
DENOTES PROPOSED PRIVATE CURB f
Lm
R 2
............ .................... ........................ DENOTES FUTURE PRIVATE BUILDING
DENOTES FUTURE PRIVATE CURB .2
M .. CL
in -
E uj 0 a 9 ca a?
cq
9
A
WSB
& Associates, Inc.
January 28, 2009
Infrastructure ® Engineering ® Planning o Construction
Mr. Bruce Westby, PE
City Engineer
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Union Crossings 0' Addition — Plat Review
City of Monticello Planning No.
WSB Project No. 1494-28
Dear Mr. Westby:
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
We have reviewed the certificate of survey and final plat submitted by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
dated January 19, 2009, for the above -referenced project and offer the following comments:
Certificate of Survey
1. The survey should show all existing public and private utilities including service lines to each lot.
The parking lot layout should also be shown on the survey. This will help in determining where
these improvements are located compared with the proposed lot lines, and if any additional
easements are necessary.
2. A certificate of survey showing all existing surface and utility features should be shown on future
final plat submittals.
Final Plat
1. A 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easement will need to be provided for the sanitary sewer main
that extends to the adjacent lots to the south, as shown on the attached drawing. The sewer main is
considered a City maintained line by ordinance, since it serves more than one lot that have separate
owners. This main will need to be televised and a mandrel test complete as well as as -built plans
completed. These items had been discussed previously with Steve Broyer, Ryan Companies.
2. The adjacent lot to the south labeled Outlot A has been replatted to Lot 1, Block •1 First Federal
Savings Bank Addition.
Please give me a call at 763-287-7162 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Thank
you.
F: IAngelaSlPlanning Filesl2009i2009.002.RymrUC4tizILTR-bwestby 012709.doc
Mr. Bruce Westby, PE
January 28, 2009
Page 2
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
..��r��V Vic,, • �ivt/
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
Project Manager
cc: Bob Paschke, City of Monticello
Angela Schumann, City of Monticello
Steve Grittman, NAC
skb
FAAngelaSOanning Files 1200912009.002.Ryan UC4th IL TR-bwestby 012709.doc
Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/09
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Chapter 3 of the
Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Title 10 of Monticello City Code , as related to
Final Platting. (AS)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is asked to consider an amendment to the Subdivision
Ordinance a related to their review of final plat documents.
The current ordinance requires Planning Commission approval of final plats only in such
case as they are referred by the City Council. However, in discussing a recent plat
request, the Wright County Surveyor recommended that the City amend its ordinance to
allow for Planning Commission’s review of all final platting. The City’s planning
consultant, NAC, has also indicated that Planning Commission review is required in most
other municipal subdivision ordinances. Such review ensures conformance with
preliminary plat documents and creates greater continuity and accuracy in the recording
process.
The amendment included in the supporting data includes the required language allowing
for the Planning Commission review and is consistent with other land use review
processes. The amendment also includes some housekeeping clarifications. For instance,
the application filing fee is now set by ordinance within the City’s fee schedule.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the, based on a finding that the amendment supports
consistency in the City’s plat review process.
2. Motion of other.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the subdivision ordinance.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Proposed Ordinance Amendments - Redline
B. Ordinance Amendment – Clean
CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURE
SECTION:
11-3-1:Procedure
11-3-2: Preliminary Plat
11-3-3: Final Plat
7A
11-3-1:PROCEDURE: Prior to formal plat review by the Planning Commission, the applicant is
encouraged to present a sketch plan to the Planning Commission for purposes of
informally discussing, to present his intentions for development of the property, and be
able to obtain the views and opinions of the City Planning Commission.
11-3-2: PRELIMINARY PLAT:
(A) FILING: Request for preliminarylate t as provided within this
ordinance, shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on an official
application form. Such application shall be accompanied by any necessary
applications for variances from the provisions of this ordinance and a fee as
adopted by ordinance. This fee shall not be refunded. The Zoning
Administrator shall. refer said application along with all related inforfnation to
the City Planninh Commission for consideration and a report and
recolmnendation to the City Council. hilt —en (15) eepies of the pfeli in r• r
plat shall be filed with the City Cle-1 . I e fequifed filing Pe --jished iii.
Chapter- 10 shall be paid, and any neeessar-y applieations fef vai4anees from th
proposed plat shall be eansidere e ffi alt it d7 All plats shall be
accompanied by an abstractor's certificate, properly certified, identifying the
owner of the property in question and the owners of all properties situated
within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the boundary of the property in
question. The pr-epes ,ate"'"t sha11
l.JiN V. VLL LV K�yVLL0..0.G6.
meetingCommission
. The preliminary
plat shall be submitted at least twenty eight (28) days prior to a Commission
meeting, at which consideration is requested During the said twenty ei t t (28)
days the City staff shall examine the preliminaryplat and pre ap re a
recommendation to the Planning Commission.
(B) HEARING: Upon receipt of said application, the City Clerk shall set a public
hearing for the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report upon findings and
make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of said hearing shall be
published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing,
and written notification of said hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days
TITLE XI/Chapt 3/Page 1
prior to all owners of land identified on the above-mentioned abstractor's
certificate.
(C) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORTS: After the public hearing has been
set, the City Administrator shall instruct the staff to prepare technical reports
(where appropriate) and provide general assistance in preparing a
recommendation on the action to the City Council.
(D) REVIEW BY OTHER COMMISSIONS OR JURISDICTIONS: When
appropriate, the City Administrator shall file copies of the preliminary plat with
the Park and Recreation Commission and/or Wright County for their review
and comment.
(E) REPORT TO COUNCIL: The Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council within sixty (60) days following the
public hearing.
(F) CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
The Council shall act upon the preliminary plat within one hundred
twenty (120) days of the date on which it was officially filed. If the
recommendation of the Planning Commission has not been received in
time to meet the requirement, the Council may act on the preliminary
plat without such recommendation.
2. If the preliminary plat is not approved by the City Council, the reasons
for such action shall be recorded in the proceedings of the Council and
transmitted to the applicant. If the preliminary plat is approved, such
approval shall not constitute final acceptance of the layout. Subsequent
approval will be required of the engineering proposals and other
features and requirements as specified by this ordinance to be indicated
on the final plat. The City Council may require such revisions in the
preliminary plat and final plat as it deems necessary for the health,
safety, general welfare, and convenience of the City of Monticello.
3. In case the preliminary plat is approved the final plat must be filed
within one (1) year of preliminary plat approval or the approval is not
valid.
11-3-3 : FINAL PLAT: After the preliminary plat has been approved, the final plat maybe submitted
for approval as follows:
(A) (A) FILING: As required by gpplication, the required number of copies of
the final plat shall be filed with the City Clerk. The required filing fee as
established by ordinance shall be paid before the proposed plat shall be considered
officially filed.
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TITLE XI/Chapt 3/Page 2
B) —A) --APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: if the G45
r,,,,aei dete .Y,. roes � Tthe final plat shall be filed with the City Clerk
uV cuivi
and submitted to the Planning Commission at least twenty ei t (288) days prior to
a Commission meeting at which consideration is requested. During the said twenty
eight (280) days, the City staff shall examine the final plat and prepare a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. Approval, disapproval, or any
delay in decision of the final plat will be conveyed to the subdivider within ten (10)
days after the meeting of the City Planning Commission at which such plat was
considered. , the subdiNider- shall be notified -in
,.;ting of the Feason &r- sueh Uetie , an what FVq6iTLN „ts shall be „ o ae
on dial traet of land. in ease the pFeliminary plat is meet the approval of the Gemmission. if the plat is disappFeved, a waiting peried
of one hundfed eighty (1. 90) days shall. lapse befer-e another applieation ean be file'
die fina4 pla4 must
,
filed Ai�'�ae (1) yen ief, el .rarer tut nye a. n4 of n a of ali
> 1J N�l pliV V>Ui Vl LElL UFJyM
(C,B) APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL: After review of the final plat by the
Planning Commission, if neeessapy, such final plat, together with the
recommendations of the Planning Commission, shall be submitted to the City
Council for approval. The City Council has the option of requesting a public
hearing if it is determined necessary on the final plat. If accepted, the final plat
shall be approved. by resolution, which resolution shall provide for the
acceptance of all agreements for basic improvements public dedication and
other requirements as indicated by the City Council. If disapproved the
rounds for any refusal to approve a plat shall be set forth in the proceedings of
the Council and reported to the person or persons applying for such approval.
If the plat is disapproved, a waiting period of one hundred eighty (180) days
shall Iapse before another application can be filed on that tract of land.
(#8, 2/23/76)
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TITLE XI/Chapt 3/Page 3
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TITLE XI/Chapt 3/Page 4
i
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TITLE XI/Chapt 3/Page 4
TITLE XI/Chapt 3/Page 1
CHAPTER 3
PROCEDURE
SECTION:
11-3-1: Procedure
11-3-2: Preliminary Plat
11-3-3: Final Plat
11-3-1: PROCEDURE: Prior to formal plat review by the Planning Commission, the applicant
is encouraged to present a sketch plan to the Planning Commission for purposes of
informally discussing, to present his intentions for development of the property, and be
able to obtain the views and opinions of the City Planning Commission.
11-3-2: PRELIMINARY PLAT:
(A) FILING: Request for preliminary plat, as provided within this
ordinance, shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on an official
application form. Such application shall be accompanied by any necessary
applications for variances from the provisions of this ordinance and a fee as
adopted by ordinance. This fee shall not be refunded. The Zoning
Administrator shall refer said application, along with all related information, to
the City Planning Commission for consideration and a report and
recommendation to the City Council. All plats shall be accompanied by an
abstractor's certificate, properly certified, identifying the owner of the property
in question and the owners of all properties situated within three hundred fifty
(350) feet of the boundary of the property in question. The preliminary plat
shall be submitted at least twenty eight (28) days prior to a Commission
meeting at which consideration is requested. During the said twenty eight (28)
days, the City staff shall examine the preliminary plat and prepare a
recommendation to the Planning Commission.
(B) HEARING: Upon receipt of said application, the City Clerk shall set a public
hearing for the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report upon findings and
make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of said hearing shall be
published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing,
and written notification of said hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days
prior to all owners of land identified on the above-mentioned abstractor's
certificate.
(C) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REPORTS: After the public hearing has been
set, the City Administrator shall instruct the staff to prepare technical reports
(where appropriate) and provide general assistance in preparing a
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TITLE XI/Chapt 3/Page 2
recommendation on the action to the City Council.
(D) REVIEW BY OTHER COMMISSIONS OR JURISDICTIONS: When
appropriate, the City Administrator shall file copies of the preliminary plat with
the Park and Recreation Commission and/or Wright County for their review
and comment.
(E) REPORT TO COUNCIL: The Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council within sixty (60) days following the
public hearing.
(F) CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
1. The Council shall act upon the preliminary plat within one hundred
twenty (120) days of the date on which it was officially filed. If the
recommendation of the Planning Commission has not been received in
time to meet the requirement, the Council may act on the preliminary
plat without such recommendation.
2. If the preliminary plat is not approved by the City Council, the reasons
for such action shall be recorded in the proceedings of the Council and
transmitted to the applicant. If the preliminary plat is approved, such
approval shall not constitute final acceptance of the layout. Subsequent
approval will be required of the engineering proposals and other
features and requirements as specified by this ordinance to be indicated
on the final plat. The City Council may require such revisions in the
preliminary plat and final plat as it deems necessary for the health,
safety, general welfare, and convenience of the City of Monticello.
3. In case the preliminary plat is approved, the final plat must be filed
within one (1) year of preliminary plat approval or the approval is not
valid.
11-3-3: FINAL PLAT: After the preliminary plat has been approved, the final plat may be
submitted for approval as follows:
(A) FILING: As required by application, the required number of copies of the final
plat shall be filed with the City Clerk. The required filing fee as established by
ordinance shall be paid before the proposed plat shall be considered officially
filed.
(B) APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: The final plat shall be
filed with the City Clerk and submitted to the Planning Commission at least
twenty eight (28) days prior to a Commission meeting at which consideration is
requested. During the said twenty eight (28) days, the City staff shall examine
the final plat and prepare a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Approval, disapproval, or any delay in decision of the final plat will be
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TITLE XI/Chapt 3/Page 3
conveyed to the subdivider within ten (10) days after the meeting of the City
Planning Commission at which such plat was considered.
(C) APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL: After review of the final plat by the
Planning Commission, , such final plat, together with the recommendations of
the Planning Commission, shall be submitted to the City Council for approval.
The City Council has the option of requesting a public hearing if it is
determined necessary on the final plat. If accepted, the final plat shall be
approved by resolution, which resolution shall provide for the acceptance of all
agreements for basic improvements, public dedication, and other requirements
as indicated by the City Council. If disapproved, the grounds for any refusal to
approve a plat shall be set forth in the proceedings of the Council and reported
to the person or persons applying for such approval. If the plat is disapproved,
a waiting period of one hundred eighty (180) days shall lapse before another
application can be filed on that tract of land.
(#8, 2/23/76)
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TITLE XI/Chapt 3/Page 4
Planning Commission Agenda –02/03/09
8. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Chapter 6 of the
Monticello Subdivision Code as related to Parks, Open Space and Public Use.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Planning staff recommends continuation of this item at this time to allow
completion of research for recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/09
1
9. Community Development Director’s Update.
Housing Inventory/Residential Growth
As requested by the Planning Commission, staff has prepared a set of charts illustrating
statistics relevant to housing and lot inventory. These illustrations are for use in
Commission’s further evaluation of residential growth projections as noted in the Comp
Plan.
Fiber Optic Project
There is considerable activity on various fronts relating to the development of the full
project and the fiber loop project. Attached is a full summary of the project as presented
to the City Council at the meeting on January 12, 2009.
Rental Ordinance
The Building Department has recently finished the master list for the 2009 licensing
period. There are a total of 468 properties on this year’s list. We are currently preparing
letters to be sent out to property owners who have not applied for the 2009 license. 22
applications have been received through 1/23/09. We will be sending out 436 letters set
to be mailed on 1/26/09.
Sign Ordinance
The draft Sign Ordinance has been revised to include clarifications and comments made
at the joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting, as well as diagrams and
illustrations. The draft ordinance has been posted online – links to the draft can be found
in numerous locations. A public meeting date has been set for Tuesday, February 17th at
5:00 PM to gather a final round of comments prior to public hearing in March.
Kohl’s Monticello
Representatives of Kohl’s have informed staff that Kohl’s has decided not to move
forward with their Monticello store at this time. Both the property owner’s
representative, Pfeffer Companies, and Kohl’s have indicated that the decision was due to
the economic conditions. Both Pfeffer and Kohl’s reps noted that the City leadership and
staff were of considerable assistance and support during the project. Charlie Pfeffer,
Pfeffer Companies, welcomes any questions from Council members on this decision.
Development Process Surveys
In mid-January, the Community Development Department mailed surveys regarding the
City’s development process to all 2008 land use applicants and is awaiting responses. It
is the goal of the Department to complete surveys of this nature on an annual basis in
order to continue improving the City’s planning and development process. Further
information on results of the survey will be prepared and presented in a future Council
update.
Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park
The Bertram Lakes Task Force met on Friday, January 16th. The Task Force membership
currently includes: Mayor Clint Herbst, Wright County Commissioners Pat Sawatzke
and Rose Thielen, Township Supervisor Pete Stupar, Wright County Parks Administrator
Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/09
2
Marc Mattice and City staff members Jeff O’Neill, Angela Schumann and Tom Pawelk.
During the meeting, the task force discussed continued efforts to secure State funding for
additional purchases at Bertram Lakes. The group also began to outline the public
planning process for the park. A meeting to focus specifically on a timeline and structure
for planning efforts met on January 30th. It is expected that the planning effort will begin
in early spring.
The 319 acres of property now owned by the City and County is being signed to note it as
a regional park facility, with County park ordinances in effect. In the near term, the task
force also hopes to meet with the YMCA to discuss public lake access.
Bowling Alley Use
City staff is working with an interested party on the possibility of the reuse of the old
bowling alley site. The discussions are very preliminary at this time. Staff will provide a
formal report on this item should the concept progress further.
Consultant Fee Review
At the request of the City Council, the Community Development Department is
collecting rate information from planning consultants in order to provide a comparison
against the rates of the planning consultants the City currently uses. This information
will be presented to the City Council in February.
Planning Project Reconciliations
With the exception of projects in-progress, all 2008 planning application deposits have
been reconciled against expenses for each specific application.
River Street Access Closure Pilot Project Update
The second pilot project was instituted on October 27th and has therefore been in
operation over 60-days. Staff had planned on presenting the results of this access
closure project to the City Council on January 26th but due to the fact that the Mayor
will not be in attendance at this meeting staff has decided to move this presentation
back to the Council’s meeting on February 9th.
Update to Council on FiberNet Monticello and Fiber Loop Project
January 12, 2009
City Staff has continued to put forth strong efforts to keep the FiberNet Monticello project on track,
under direction of City Council. The City Fiber Optics Committee meets approximately once a
month to review progress and discuss components of the project including construction of the fiber
loop, head -end building construction, marketing, and implementation of services on the fiber loop.
Smaller groups are handling marketing and economic development, service contracts, regulatory
applications, and more. Although the lawsuit puts limitations on our ability to carry out the wishes
of the voters, we commend the Council for continuing to support this project.
City Administrator Jeff O'Neill put together an Implementation Plan for the Fiber Loop, which has
been reviewed, discussed and revised several times by the Fiber Optics Committee. Our recent
meeting, held January 5, was an intense all -day session which covered a myriad of topics and
issues. The following outline summarizes a lot of the discussion that took place and the actions
that are proposed for the interim period over the next few months (during the lawsuit appeal).
A financial reconciliation is also provided with this update, along with a short summary of items
related to tiffs FiberNet iv"vnticc^iiv project.
Status of current project (fiber loop)
a. Head -end Building to be complete within two weeks
b. Fiber construction completed for the season. The fiber route is complete.
c. RFPs issued for electronics and other equipment. Responses in house and selections
to be made this week.
d. Data routers purchased from State contract.
e. Electronics expected to be installed and functioning by end of March.
f. Negotiations for Internet connection underway. Draft contract under review.
g. Majority of drops to be built at spring thaw. A few drops or temporary drops to be
installed for alpha test customers.
h. Discussions with Spectrum Engineering have identified potential customers and costs,
which fall within budget.
i. Discussed processes involved with installing drops and equipment for service.
2. Time Line
a: Sign up alpha test customers beginning in March. This would include some City
buildings, some residential customers, and possibly a few business customers. Alpha
test period will allow us to make sure the network is functioning properly.
b. Pre -sell to business customers February to April and have 10 to 20 business
customers ready to install at first ground thaw. We would consider these as beta
customers. We plan to offer free service as part of the testing process, which may run
to June -July.
c. After that, open sales to all customers that can be reached by the fiber loop.
3. Operations
a. HBC to provide a part-time General Manager who will also function as the initial
salesperson. This person has been introduced to City staff, and we feel this
person has the potential to become the eventual general manager of the system,
General Manager will be available around February 16 and could be involved in
some meetings and discussions prior to that.
b. HBC to provide a technician on an hourly basis. The function of the technician is to
install customers and make certain that customers and the network are functioning
properly. This technician has been identified by HBC and is working with them.
c. Both employees will live in or near to Monticello.
d. City and customers will have access to technical support and engineers at HBC as
needed.
e. Goal is to provide outstanding customer service even during the alpha and beta
test period using NBC processes and philosophy.
f. Working on phone coverage issues to make sure customers can always reach a
live person, even during the interim test and sales process.
g. Identified and answered a number of potential issues and questions that could
arise during implementation of service.
h. Discussed location for General Manager and access to resources such as copier,
fax, meeting space, etc.
4. Marketing
a. Prices for service are being developed by CCG Consulting and HBC (to be
presented to Council at a later date).
b. Spectrum Engineering project maps provide detail of potential customers near to
fiber loop.
c. Project underway to determine best use of existing budget to reach the most
customers.
d. Some beta customers already lined -up.
e, Marketing / sales effort will be to talk to other businesses near the fiber route
during the rest of the winter.
f. Probably put some sort of informational kiosk in Community Center to keep wider
community informed.
g. General Manager and marketing consultant together will focus on marketing and
sales planning in mid to late January with rollout in February.
h. Specific marketing plan will be finalized in the following weeks.
is Marketing consultant and city staff are working on a variety of public relations
efforts related to economic development and public information.
5. Contract with HBC
a. Parties have reached agreement in principle and the contract is being modified to
reflect final understanding of issues. This contract will be presented to the Council
for final approval.
b. We expect that an addendum to the main contract will suffice for this interim
period.
c. Potential costs will be reviewed through contract discussions.
6, Ongoing issues which may require council approval
a. Finalize HBC contract.
b. HBC contract amendment for interim services and resources of the General
Manager and technician.
c. Contract for Internet Connectivity,
d. Budget amendment to approve ongoing operating expenses that extend beyond
existing budget.
e. Approve final pricing for services.
f. Advisory Board implementation.
Reconciliation of Current Budget
The Council approved a budget of $2,490,341 for all fiber activities. Through December 31, 2008
$2,097,780.06 of that budget has been spent, leaving a balance of $273,721.55. Of the funds
spent, $91,219.02 is related to the lawsuit and $1,437,876.92 for construction of the system. The
remaining expenditures of $568,684.12 are for miscellaneous expenses such as marketing,
insurance, postage, consultants, election expense, and staff salaries. So far the majority of the
funds spent have come frorml the liquor fund reserves, which are dose to being fully invested as
authorized by Council, but will be repaid once the bond funds become available.
Other
• The Fiber Optics Committee is pleased to introduce Don Patten, from HBC, who will serve
as our Interim General Manager for FiberNet Monticello. He comes to HBC with many
years of experience in the telecommunications industry and a background in sales and
marketing. Don currently lives in Elk River and is excited to become involved in our project
and the community. We look forward to having Don spearhead our initial sales and
implementation work for the fiber loop project. (Don will be introduced at the Council
meeting on Monday night.)
• The City will become a member of NATOA, the National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Administrators. This is a national organization that
promotes public telecommunications services, such as the City of Monticello is
undertaking, and supports efforts for national broadband policies that encourages efforts
such as ours. They have been in communication with the City and will be a great resource
for us in many ways.
• Megan Barnett, City Economic Development Director, is actively working with the business
community to keep them aware of the fiber optics network. Her first business newsletter
will be mailed out very soon.
• When the Head -end Building is completed, the City Fiber Optics Committee would like to
invite council members to take a look.
H
W
>
�
�
c
c
WZ
'O O
p a
NJ
> a
O
Z
N
O
v
a s
F
LLI
a
v+
a a
Z
>
c
J
Q
Z
m
d
J
C p
a
g
a
a -C.3
a
a
W
CL)
ate-
L
�v�
a
°
Q CL
F -Q
1
O
N
N
L
txo
O
Lr
L
a
i
C
J
es
rS
rs
r.
es
cn
0
o�
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0 2
0
01 00
n l0 Ln
M N
ri
0
N
r-1
r -I
d
w z I f °0L
O O
O O O ON O
O N NO 14 �
M
"6T
66T
T
rn
N
0 0
Ln
0m
Ln
in
N
0
Ln
N
M
N
n
LU
Q
J
d
J
Q
z
LL
z F- N
::) w
O z O
~O J O
J Z) Z) F-
J U m Z
U
O O O
'N>1-
7�
2/d
�4
ID
O�
4 JSb�
Sd,
�y
00 f y
...
d/a
N
S
n Ln
r -I
Sp
20
�J I
b
0 0 0
0 Ln 0 0 0
N cq i-1
c
c
c
3
c
c
r