Planning Commission Agenda 03-04-2003
.
.
.
(<,0
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - March 4, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Members:
Council Liaison:
Staff:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Lloyd Hilgart
Brian Stumpf
leffO'NeilL Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman
1 . Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held February 4,2003.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a special home occupation permit allowing a
photographic studio in a residential district. Applicant: Wayne & Patricia Mayer
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a shopping
center and joint parking in a B-3 district. Applicant: Michael Krutzig
7.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for concept stage planned unit development
approval allowing 8 single family units in a proposed R-2A district. Applicant: Tom
Holthaus
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a concept stage planned unit development
approval for a mixed use development including residential, commercial and industrial.
Applicant: Gold Nugget Development Inc.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendments to the district boundary map identified in the
Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello. (Open public hearing and
continue to the April meeting for review by full membership of the Planning Commission).
10. Consideration of setting special meeting date to conduct interviews for the vacant position
on the Planning Commission.
II. Consideration of providing input on goals and projects for the City. This subject to be
discussed at the special Planning Commission meeting when interviews are being
conducted.
12. Adjourn
~1-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday -February 4, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Members present:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart and
Council Liaison Brian Stumpf
Jeff O'NeilL Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman
Staff present:
1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. and declared a quorum.
Chair Frie welcomed new Council Liaison Brian Stumpf.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning, Commission meeting held January 7, 2003.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
JANUARY 7, 2003 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. LLOYD
HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Frie noted that he preferred, due to the number
of items on the agenda, that nothing further be added and that public comments be held to a
minimum. although he did note that no one would be denied being heard.
4.
Citizens comments.
Brad Klatt, 13 Sandtrap Circle, had concerns regarding the CMHP project such as aesthetics
and the lack of space between each unit. O'Neill advised that the project was approved by
the Planning Commission and City Council, and added that the project is far from complete
at this point. O'Neill noted there had been concerns from others as well. The homes will be
operated with an association which will handle snow removal, and will have extensive
landscaping as well. Each one has pre-finished, low maintenance siding, sidewalks, and
front porches. He again stated there is an extensive landscape plan and will include a paved
alley in the back. Each home will have 2 car garages, approx. 912 sq. ft. finished with
basements.
O'Neill stated that he is aware ofthe public's concern at this time, but that steps have been
taken to ensure that this will be a good project. He also noted that he would appreciate
holding judgement until Spring when the project is completed. Klatt advised that he felt the
buildings were too close together and was surprised that the Fire Department approved of
this. O'Neill advised that they are to code and were approved, and also that staff has been
working with the Fire Department on other developments as well. Klatt then asked what was
the intended use of the land where Ruff Auto formerly was located and O'Neill advised that
it is being sold through Edina Realty and is not a project of the same nature as CMHP.
O'Neill advised this is a single spot project, intended to replace blighted homes, which will
be under the control of an association. There were no further comments.
~ ]-
5.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for development stal.!e approval of a planned unit .
development and preliminary plat approval for The Home Depot Addition. Applicant:
Birchland Development Companv. John Lundsten. Jerrv Mathwil.!. and Lee Parks
Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report, summarizing the proposed project,
noting that the request was for approval of the Home Depot portion of the project. He
advised that staff has worked extensively with the applicants.
Grittman noted several ponds on the site and that the applicants have stated that in the event
that the pond in the northwest corner was found to not be needed. they would look to
develop this as a commercial site, which Grittman advised would be looked at by the
Planning Commission at that time.
Grittman also summarized issues that were previously discussed, as well as further changes
that staff has asked for such as parking lot size reduction. which the applicant has done;
landscaping and screening. specifically potential landscaping in the front of the site along
the building; seasonal outdoor sales area in regard to chain link display area; and paving and
curbing, advising the applicant preferred a smooth surface to avoid problems with uneven
pavement and safety issues.
Grittman advised of the sign plan submitted by Home Depot for a monument sign as well as
wall sign, stating the monument sign meets the requirements of the code and although the
wall sign is quite large, it appears appropriate due to the size of the site. He also noted a
proposed pylon sign in the northeast corner which is 392 sq. ft. and 80 ft. in height, which is
larger than what is allowed by ordinance. Grittman advised the ordinance allows 200 sq. ft.
and 24' feet high. 32 it. high for freeway allowance, although he noted it does not qualify for
freeway height sign allowance. Grittman added that this is not typically a sign that staff
would approve.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Jennifer Maxwell of Greenberg Farrow Architecture,
representing Home Depot, addressed the Planning Commission regarding two issues noted
in the stafT report. The first being parking in regard to the addition of a right turn lane which
they were not aware of previously. Maxwell noted that they were trying to eliminate some
of the parking and increase the landscaping, however with the request for the turn lane to be
added they would like to keep the addition a] parking space. In regard to the pylon sign,
Maxwell noted that due to the location of the site they were concerned with visibility from
Hwy 25 and 1-94. To maintain visibility they require a higher pylon. Maxwell noted that
they had sign testing done which gave them the information on height and visibility. She
also noted that this issue was not addressed in the staff report, therefore they were unaware
of any staff concerns. Grittman noted that he had not noticed the pylon on the applicant's
site plan at the time of his review. Grittman clarified that the height and square footage
allowed was for one sign and if another business located at that site they would need to come
back to the Planning Commission for approval.
.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Grittman advised that the issue with the turn lane was
an engineering issue and would have to be discussed with the City Engineer. He did advise
that he felt it was a potential requirement and that having parking along that side would
interfere, but that was only his speculation, adding that proof of parking would take care of
that issue. The seasonal sale area was discussed as well and Maxwell advised that they
would be open to either of the alternative's provided by staff. She clarified that the sales
area is taken down when not in season, including the fencing.
There was discussion regarding landscaping around the building entrance and front of the
building, and Maxwell stated although it was doable, they preferred not to have an
overabundance of landscaping in that area as it makes it difficult for customers moving
about that area with large items. The final landscape plan was discussed and Grittman stated
it appeared to be adequate. There was further discussion on the proposed signage, stating
this included the Retail B area as well. Grittman also stated that if the proposed sign plan
was approved, it would include Retail B as well.
.
Frie asked Maxwell if they were receptive to the additional landscaping as requested in the
staff report and she advised that at concept stage they were asked to reduce the parking lot
size, add landscaping and proof of parking, which they did. This was prior to the request for
the right turn lane and therefore they would prefer to reserve the additional parking at this
time. O'Neill added that this matter came up when they were looking at the Cedar Street
improvement project, but there seems to be a solution. There was further discussion
regarding building design and that the building had quite extensive wall space. O'Neill
advised that there would be a lined drainage pond.
Brian Stumpf, Council Liaison, asked staff what the height of the highest sign on that side of
town was at this time and O'Neill stated 57 ft., noting this was the sign on the Mielke
property. He added that this height was allowed due to several reasons such as consolidation
of sign systems, total land area, etc. They felt the Home Depot sign was too high at 80 ft.
and Stumpf stated he would like to see a compromise. Frie added that the application for a
PUD allows them some flexibility in exchange for a superior design and that could be taken
into consideration as well.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, WITH CONDITIONS
STATED BELOW, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE CHANGES ARE NECESSARY
TO MAKE THE PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING AND
ZONING OBJECTIVES:
a.
b.
Provision for right turn lane along Cedar St. at Chelsea Road.
Provision of a final landscaping plan to City staff for review.
Changes are made to the Seasonal Sales area, by either incorporating it into the
Garden Center area, or alternative enclosures that avoid galvanized fencing.
c.
.
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
d.
The sign package would be acceptable as proposed. based on the
extraordinary size of the site and building. (Sign package does not include
the latest pylon sign. This needs to be taken into consideration between staff
and applicant).
.
ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion on how to proceed with the pylon sign issue. O'Neill advised
that the Planning Commission could request staff to work with the applicant, determining
minimum height required. not to exceed 60 ft. This would keep the project moving forward.
Maxwell advised that the sign testing did determine a height where the sign would no longer
be visible and she would provide that information to staff Frie asked Council Liaison
Stumpf if he felt the City Council would feel comfortable directing staff to work with the
applicant, and Stumpf felt they would be.
Maxwell stated she did not feel that they had visibility at 60 ft. and O'Neill asked about
location of the pylon sign on the site in regard to visibility. Maxwell stated the northeast
corner gave them the best visibility. Frie asked if the applicant was aware ofthc sign height
ordinance and Maxwell stated they were and that is the reason they applied for a PUD which
would allow them flexibility. O'Neill asked about distance and height and Maxwell stated
that possibly visibility from 1/4 mile would be acceptable. but she would have to consult
with their realtor. O'Neill stated perhaps the Planning Commission could give them that .
flexibility. Smith and Dragsten both felt that they need to work within their sign ordinance.
O'Neill also added that regarding texture of the surface regarding pedestrian areas, staff
agreed with the applicant on a smooth surface as well.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DENY APPROVAL OF THE 80
FOOT PYLON SIGN. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion to have the sign issue come back before the Planning
Commission. Grittman stated that would work, but that he was not sure that the Planning
Commission would be comfortable with allowing the sign to be higher. Grittman also stated
that it was his oversight and not the applicant's. Dragsten added that he would not be
comfortable going over 60 feet and Smith added that he felt the City should do the study on
sign height. Frie added that they would not have to amend the ordinance as this is a PUD.
ROBBIE SMITH AMENDED THE MOTION TO ALLOW STAFF FLEXIBILITY, NOT
TO EXCEED 60 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
There again was discussion that if it was determined that 60 feet was not sufficient for the .
-4-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
applicant, the Planning Commission would need to look at possibly amending the sign
ordinance.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
6.
Public Hearing: - Consideration of a request for a development staQe planned unit
development and preliminarv plat approval for athletic complex containing ice arena.
lockers, public areas, domed athletic field and parking lot. Applicant: RSP Architects on
behalf of the Monticello Youth Hockev Association, Monticello Soccer Association. and
Citv of Monticello
Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report with a summary of the applicant's
request. He discussed parking requirements and stated it appeared there is adequate parking
space. Grittman noted that parking stalls should be constructed at 20 ft. and there is
adequate space for this on site. StafT advises the need for an increased amount of ovcrstory
trees along 7th Street and stated that the existing berm will be moved out of the ROW per
Public Work's request. Staff also requests that landscaping be provided on the north side of
7lh Street to screen vehicle headlights, and provide overstory trees along the freeway side.
Grittman advised that there needs to be a 30 ft. fire lane behind the building and it appears
that there is adequate space for this, also noting they will ask the Fire Department to
comment as well. Staff recommends approval, with conditions noted.
It was noted by Grittman that this site will need to be subdivided, which is one of the
conditions they would ask of the applicant although it is not significant for site planning at
this time. It was also advised that the applicant will need to work with the City Engineer
regarding parking and ponding.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Chuck Frieberg, RSP Architects, advised that he is
aware of the issues noted by staff and stated that there is no plat at this time as they prefer to
get the site plan approved so they can move forward in determining the layout. He advised
there were two holding ponds on the site between the two proposed buildings and there are
no cross easements. Frieberg also advised that it would not be a problem to enlarge the
parking spaces and they are looking at landscaping in the ROW to block headlights from the
residences, as well as looking at placement of entrances so that headlights would not shine
into residences either. He stated he received the City Engineer's letter and they are willing
to comply, seeing no problems.
Brad Klatt, 13 Sandtrap Circle, stated he feels this facility is needed in the community, but
not at this site. Concern with what age group would be using this facility. and again felt
this project should be focused back out to the school area. Klatt stated a concern with
school buses and teenage drivers using this facility, again stating he feels there is room out
at the school site for this. He is concerned that they are creating a situation where they are
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
trying to squeeze this project into a residential site, it's disruptive, concerned about .
operating hours and what would be the overall use of the bcility other than hockey/soccer.
Klatt added that his main concern is what will be proposed to go on the remainder of the
propel1y and how that would impact the residents. Frie stated that is not something that is
being discussed tonight and there would be a public hearing at that time. Klatt stated he felt
it should be talked about at this time before moving forward. Frie added that there has been
no proposal at this time. Frie added that this has already been discussed by both the
Planning Commission and the City Council and has been approved, so it is no longer an
issue and has moved forward.
Jack Neslon, 8 Center Circle, questioned where the 3 cul-de-sacs would be located in
comparison to the proposed site. Grittman advised of both the pond and cul~de-sacs.
Nelson questioned the height of the soccer dome and Frieberg stated it would be 53 ft. high.
It was also advised that there would only be one sheet of ice. Nelson had concerns as well
with what might be proposed beyond this site and again it was stated there have been no
proposals. He asked if this project would be completed prior to extension of]lh Street and
Frie advised that it is not the intent to coincide ]lh Street with this project. Nelson
questioned entrances into this site asking if there would be more than one route. He also
asked about sidewalks and Frieberg stated they would be installed.
Grittman pointed out the portion of the site that is being proposed as there seemed to be the
perception that the proposed site was larger than it actually was. .
Mrs. Larson, II Sandtrap Circle, questioned the financial situation asking how the project
will be paid for. Frie stated the Planning Commission does not address this and stated she
could possibly visit with the applicant at another time on that matter, but not at the public
hearing. She questioned what happens if this was approved but the applicant could not get
the financing. Frie stated that he felt they would be ready to move forward as soon as they
got approval. Larson noted a culvert/holding pond that is in the area not yet proposed for
development and O'Neill stated the City Engineer is aware of this and would make sure it is
handled appropriately. She also stated that she did not feel that the City was moving
forward on ]lh Street and Council Liaison Stumpf advised that it is moving forward at the
City Council level. Larson stated a concern with traffic and O'Neill stated that 7th Street is a
high priority for the City Council, and if not completed this year, it most likely will occur
next year, although funding is an issue. He also addressed her concern with 7th Street.
Dee Torgerson, 6 Center Cir, asked for clarification on zoning. O'Neill advised that it was
re-zoned to a PUD some months ago, but nothing beyond this site, which was her concern.
She also stated a concern with traffic and felt 7th Street should be a priority.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. He asked Frieberg to answer the public's questions, as
well as if there would be security, what would be the hours of operation, and who would be
managing the site in regard to scheduling, maintenance, etc. Frieberg stated all of those .
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
.
questions are operational. not site design. and could be answered by the Hockey Association
and Soccer Association. It was advised that even though the facility would be owned by the
Hockey and Soccer Associations. they would hire employees to manage it. There will be
lights installed for security and they will work with the SherifTs Dept. on this. There is also
a fire lane around the site. Gregg Eng]e. president of MYHA, stated that the operation hours
would mainly be Monday - Friday, 3 p.m. to 10 p.m., and 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturdays.
Sundays from 12 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eng]e stated he would bc happy to talk with Mr. Klatt
regarding his questions. He also advised that the age group would be approximately from 4
years to 18 years of age; they have sold over 2500 hours of ice time and havc enough ice
hours to use the facility in just a hockey capacity with not going out to other activities to
help with expenses. They have looked at other parcels within the City such as the school
sites, and would like to meet with Mr. Klatt and answer those questoins as we]1. Engle
concurred that management would be hired. as well as a combination of volunteers. The
method of management will be a common board, 2 hockey representatives, 2 soccer. a
representative from the schoo] and one from the City. There would be a Faci]ity Manager
and Assistant Manager, working with both associations. Frie asked them also to invite Mrs.
Larson to meet with them after the meeting regarding the financing.
.
Frie asked Stumpf to respond to the 24 foot fire lane versus 30 foot and Stumpf stated he
preferred that this be contingent on working with the Fire Department. There were further
questions regarding summer hours versus winter and Engle advised that they would be the
same in regard to ]-lockey. Frieberg clarified that of the 2500 hours of ice time, 85% of that
is practice and therefore would not be filling up the parking lot most of the time as it would
be more dropping off and picking up.
There was discussion on the completion of Chelsea Road and O'Neill stated that there is a
petition from Denny I-Iecker and platting is in the works, but also that it may be some time
before that happens. It was then noted again that the previous R-3 zoning could have
allowed a possible apartment complex with over 600 cars per day and this would be a much
better alternative.
Kent Johnson. President of the Soccer Association, advised that their hours would coincide
with the Hockey Association's hours, although most likely not quite as early, stating
possibly like 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., perhaps at times 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. for walking/running.
Management would be the common board as was previously stated. He also advised that
anything that could take place on grass could also take place in the dome, and that would
need to be addressed by the common board. Stumpf advised that he had recently spoken
with the Mayor of Clearwater stating they are in the early stages of desiging a rink in their
community, but they would be drawing from the St. Cloud area.
Decision One: Request for a Development Stage Planned Unit Development CUP:
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
-7-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
THE PUD CUP. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
.
I.
Applicant is to provide additional subdivision related information showing the name orthe
proposed plat and dimensions of lot boundaries, prior to submittal of final plat.
The applicant must receive approval from both the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator
to a 1I0w for a curb cut of 28 ft.
The west access area is to be reviewed for improved circulation.
The width of the fire lane at the rear of the building is to be lessened to 24 ft in order to
provide room for landscaping and/or any shifting in the structure that may be necessary.
This contingent on approval of the Fire Department.
The applicant is to provide an updated number of total capacity for both the soccer and
hockey arenas.
The design of the parking stalls should be 9 ft in width and 20 ft in length, as described in
Section 3-5[D]9(a) of the zoning ordinance.
I ncrease the amount of overstory trees along 7'h St.
Berm is to be moved away from the ROWand onto the property.
Provide landscaping design along nOlth side of 71h St.
Provide overstory trees along freeway side of the structure.
Applicant is to submit a photometric plan.
Applicant to provide updated description of building exterior and be required to obtain
Planning Commission approval of significant alterations.
Landscaping on opposite side of the road.
Operation hours to be 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., with flexibility of extended hours on an occasional
basis.
.
I
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
]0.
11.
12.
13.
14.
There was further discussion on adding operational hours to thc list of conditions. but
O'Neill stated there was discussion but no actual time was established. although it was a
concern at concept stage. Engle added that the 6 a.m. to ] 0 p.m. would be normal hours.
He did state that the facility could possibly be used Sunday mornings as well for
tournaments. and they would like to utilize the facility to its fullest. Robbie Smith wished to
add to condition #4 that there be an agreement with the Fire Department regarding the width
of the fire lane.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
Decision 2: Request for a Preliminary Plat
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT, SUBJECT TO SUBMITTAL OF ALL DATA REQUIRED IN SECTION 11-2 OF
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. APPROVAL OF THE PUD/CUP, AND
COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
.
-8-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
7.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for rezonin!.! from AO to R-l A and R-2: and
consideration of development stage PUO and preliminary plat approval for Spirit Hills
residential development. Applicant: Maplewood Development & Construction. Inc.
Steve Grittman. City Planner, provided the staff report summarizing the applicant's request
f()r rezoning and development stage PUO/preliminary plat approval. Grittman pointed out
concerns that staff continues to have such as the requirement for higher amenities in
accordance with PUO standards. Grittman provided the original list of conditions as well as
additional issues by staff. Grittman stated the one of the primary issues was a concern by
the Fire Department recommending that drives be connected to provide for a more
continuous loop to get vehicles in and around the units. Grittman advised that if the
Planning Commission wished to approve the applicanCs request. it should be contingent on
compliance with original conditions. as well as any new concerns stated at this public
hearing.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dick Van Allen. 6448 River Mill Drive. stated his
concerns were with location of units in regard to berming and ponding. He also stated a
request from the church next to this site. for additional parking which might impact this
proposal. Van Allen stated there could be an additional 100 spaces added to the church site.
as well as a possible future addition to the church. Van Allen stated he is concerned with
the number of units backing up to each other with no access, the 25 foot minimum setbacks
in some of the areas, and added that this area was previously zoned R-l.
Mario Coccherella, Maplewood Development Co., stated that since the time they went
before the Planning Commission at their last meeting. he was very taken aback by the staff
report and felt after reading the report it looked as if they had never spoken to staff in the
past. lie advised that this project dates back to 2001, noting at least 4 separate meetings.
and that the plan in front of them tonight was the one that staff had given their approval on.
and therefore they proceeded. He addressed comments regarding elevations in that they
resembled apartment units, which he felt was not so. Again he stated he felt they had staff
approval and is now hesitant to proceed to the City Council with this type of report. He
stated that they had previously talked about the plan preserving open space, noting other
amenities they had added. Frie asked him about his resistance to changing the unit style
implicating that somewhere along the line they had been asked to do this, and this should
come as no surprise to them. Coccherella stated they had provided 4 separate concepts and
what was provided in October had not changed. O'Neill added that in concept they did not
show the housing types or elevations. Also, the Planning Commission reviewed a previous
sketch plan and did not include house style or impact of the hill, noting that approval to
move forward was based on the assumption that housing styles would be different. O'Neill
did concur with Coccherella that the housing styles were presented without a full grading
plan showing how the hillside would be impacted or how the housing units would work with
the grade. O'Neill advised that they did not have complete information at that time to give
full approval.
-9-
Planning Commission rvlinutes - 02/04/03
CoccherelJa stated he wants to work with staff. but if this is not something that they fecI is .
worth the site amenities that they have provided, then provide them with what they would
like to see and give them direction. He also added that in this area of the City where they
are attempting to put in up~scale housing, they must look at the homes currently there and
the fact that they arc dated. He felt there needed to be a smoother transition. He also
pointed out the 2 towers and a gas line to work around. Frie asked if for the town homes
they are still looking at the upper $200,000 and Coccherella stated upper $100,000. Frie
stated he recalled previously that they had stated $225.000+. Frie also advised that this area
was designated to be upscale and the townhouses and single family units are being reviewed
together. although it appears the townhomes are the ones in dispute. It was questioned if the
request could be individual and moving forward with the single family units. having the
applicant come back to statf with the townhome concept. Frie further noted that only 9
items are in compliance out of the initial 26. but Coccherella slated he felt that a majority of
them had to do with engineering and would be dealt with as they proceed. Coccherclla
questioned also the new issues with the Fire Department, stating they were not going to
design a site for fire trucks. but would meet the requirements.
Frie asked Coccherella to address a concern from the previous meeting by a resident across
the street from the site regarding entrances and he stated that they have moved the entrance
into the site away from the resident across thc street.
There was further discussion regarding a concern by other residents regarding the number of .
units, and Grittman advised that stafT looks at the overall site and land use in regard to
density, noting there were trade ofTs with the R-I single family large lots. I-Ie also noted at
that time they were working with annexation issues as well and what would be appropriate
on this site, as well as how would the townhouses fit in. The number oftownhome units
already in the City was discussed again and Grittman stated that the market determines this,
and townhomes are very popular in the market at this time. He also advised that combining
the two phases and averaging them makes the density work out.
Carlson noted that he recalled the consensus of the Planning Commission at the last meeting
was for the applicant to move ahead and he was also surprised with the staff report. He felt
this style of home is popular at this time and staff needs to look at density, streets. and
grading issues. His perception from the last meeting is that they looked at the same
diagrams and gave direction to proceed.
Dragsten concurred with Carlson and felt it was a good project. Jerry Lazar, Design Forum,
noted that this type of housing is being built all over. He added that the interior units can be
less desirable than the ends units, but what they have tried to do with interior units in order
to improve visibility, is to put in a 2 story with a loft, adding a donner and a bank of
windows above so the lighting conditions would be highly improved. A front court yard is
also not difficult. Lazar added that this is a difficult site as there is an 80 f1. drop and added
that they would not build these units for the City or themselves if they did not feci they .
-10-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
would sell. Coccherella added that regarding the church. Jon Bogart. surveyor. had
approached him as well. He asked also that they look again at the current homes across the
street and if they would be as well maintained as his townhomes would with an association.
Hilgart agreed that the project looks nice and felt the price range is adequate as well.
It was further advised that the median would be landscaped and drawings will be provided.
It was noted that these would be maintained by a smaller association in the single family
development. Carlson asked staff and Grittman what the main issues were and Grittman
stated that it is the mass of the buildings. He added that they find the buildings to be
attractive and it has nothing to do with architecture. Grittman also added that he is not
accustomed to coming to a meeting recommending denial either. but that they had discllssed
this previously \vith the developer.
It was advised that drawings had been submitted regarding conditions 3 and 22 in the staff
report. Smith again questioned the $225.000 price range now being $189.900. Grittman
stated that was an issue at the last meeting as well and he concurs with Cocccherella. They
then discussed square footages and it was noted that the units would be appro\:. 1400 to
1600 sq. ft. with interior units at approx. 1300 sq. ft.
Fred Patch, Building Official, questioned the developer regarding IBC and UBC standards.
as well as the request for the 8 plexes to be sprinklered.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR SPIRIT HILLS,
CONTINGENT ON THE APPLICANTS COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS
LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z FROM THE ORIGINAL REPORT OF 1/7/03, AND
CONDITIONS OF THIS REPORT, AS WELL AS COMPLIANCE WITH IBC
STANDARDS AND INCLUSION OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN THE 8 PLEXES.
ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
8.
Public Hearing - Consideration of development stace planned unit development. re~zoninf.!,
from Agriculture to R-I. R-2. and R-2A. and preliminarv plat approval for a residential
subdivision. Applicant: Lois & Eugene Bauer; Tvler South, LLC: Virginia & Earl Husak;
Mark Gergen & Associates/Bruggeman Properties. LLC
Steve Grittman provided the staff report regarding the request for re-zoning and preliminary
plat approval for a residential development to consist of 44 single family lots, 53 smaller
single family lots and 183 attached townhome units. He advised of MnDOT' s plan for 1-94,
including a temporary bypass lane that MnDOT will construct during freeway construction.
Staff feels that if the bypass is left in place it may be beneficial to traffic patterns in the area.
Grittman explained that they are not sure whether MnDOT will allow the City to maintain
that "frontage road", but they have asked the applicant to provide a connection to it. which
they have done. Staff noted their preference that the connection be made from 9yh Street.
-11-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
A park is located in the northeast corner of the site and the Parks Commission has reviewed
the plan and concurs with the design of the plat as shown. Most comments in the staff
report relate to final design detai Is. and staff has made some comments regarding potential
issues with access, although they are not aware of the City Engineer's input at this time.
Staff also requests that the design of cuI de sacs meet City standards. The applicant meets
minimum setback and have worked with staff to design a public street system based on
ROW needs. also providing for adequate boulevard space. The typical standards used on
private streets has not been adequate in the past. and Grittman noted this is an unusual
arrangement from what staff has typically seen and feels it should work. This design gives
it a more spacious feel as well.
.
There was discussion regarding connection from Mcadow Brook Lane and it was advised
that connection is designed to allow access to a future frontage road they hope to retain from
MnDOT.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Greg Schlink. Bruggeman Homes, provided a quick
history of the project, noting this is their third appearance before the Planning Commission.
He advised of the underground gas line easement and overhead power line casement. and
described where the transition area between the single family homes and townhomes would
be located. He pointed out that the small lot. single family home is consistent with the
City's zoning ordinance and the plat is similar to what they had previously brought to the .
Planning Commission. Schlink stated the request by staff for a potential connection to a
future frontage road from 95lh St/Gillard Cif.. has been provided. as well as constructing a
cuI de sac on Meadow Brook Lane to provide another access to the neighborhood.
Regarding parkland and open space, it was noted that there is approx. 6 Yi acres to be
dedicated to the City, and an additional acre of trail area to connect to the existing trail on
Gillard Ave., back through the development to the townhome area and sidewalk area, and
back to Haug Ave. It was also noted that staff had asked them to consider a trail along 95'h
Street. The applicant feels these arc good amenities to the project, adding that the total of 7
Yi acres of park space puts them over the required amount. It was also noted that the Parks
Commission did have some issues with park land.
Mark Gergen, Gergen & Associates, addressed the Planning Commission regarding the
concern in the staff report regarding park area. At a previous Parks Commission meeting
they recommended moving, changing, or eliminating 3 lots, which they did, and Gergen
provided a drawing eliminating those lots. Parks Commission also looked for increased
park space and the applicant would like to go back with another proposal. They moved the
trail entrance over so it would connect directly to the park. Rather than all lots being 80ft.,
they are willing to reduce them, while still meeting City requirements and have increased
frontage and access to parks.
Bill Schiller. 95lh Street and Haug Ave., asked for clarification of access roads which Gergen .
-12-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
.
advised of. He was concerned \vith increased traffic and O'Neill advised of a finance plan
that would reconstruct the road and would take place possibly at the time the road needs to
be reconstructed, although not at this time. O'Neill advised that they will get funding from
the developer for this. There will be no access shut ofT but the prospect of extending along
95th Street for future frontage area. Schiller questioned the wetland and O'Neill advised of
that also noting the foundations have to meet the requirements for elevations which the City
Engineer would address. He asked about Ditch 33 and O'Neill advised there are plans to
reduce water in that ditch. This also has to be reviewed by the Wright County Conservation
DepL but it looks like the grade can be modified to their satisfaction to maintain the
wetland. Annexation was tabled. pending further review for water and sewer capacity,
another fact that needs to be resolved prior to final approval.
Corey Huffy, 95th Street, stated concerns with access and increased traffic. noting I bug A vc.
is quite narrow. He feels that needs to be addressed now, versus "as needed". He was also
concerned with the val ue of homes proposed, noti ng across the street are 2 and 3 acre lots
with higher value homes. Schlink responded to traffic and stated that they tried to minimize
traffic by creating the internal street so much of the traHic would be maintained internally,
adding that they considered this in their planning.
.
Gergen addressed the drainage plan stating there was previous work done that redirected
some of the water and they would add another 55 acres to improve that as well. He advised
of the style of housing for larger single family lots, noting larger setbacks, two stories,
ramblers. and splits. He felt the larger lot single family price range would be $200.000+, the
townhomes would possibly be 3 different styles, on the higher value end. and the small lot
single family will be a mix of front and side loaded garages, and he felt they would be
adding value by proposing row townhomes versus big box townhomes.
Keith Holmes, 95th Street, questioned the value of the homes as well and it was advised they
would be $160,000+ for the small lots, the townhomcs $130,000+ .
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was discussion regarding square foot standards
and Grittman advised they had not yet reviewed floor plans. Gergen noted they were not
aware of the new standards adopted last year and O'Neill stated he would provide this
information. There was further discussion regarding the pathway in the northwest corner to
the southwest corner changing to sidewalk versus a continuous path. O'Neill felt that they
were trying to maintain a corridor and Schlink provided a drawing showing where the
pathway stops and connects to sidewalk, noting the reason being that there really is not
room to extend the pathway due to a grading issue. Dragsten felt that was a concern.
Gergen added that two of the three neighborhoods would have associations and all roads
would be public.
.
Gergen advised of proposed square footages, two stories from approx. 1900 to 2400 sq. f1.;
splits would range from 1100 sq. f1. on the main floor up to 1200 to ] 400 sq. n; ramblers
-13-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
1300+ sq. ft. on the large lots. Small lots approx. 1000 sq. ft. on one tloor. \vith at Icast 2 .
tloors and possibly up to 3 floors. Townhomes would be over 1500 sq ft. the other design
presented is approx. 1300 sq. ft., and the new design would possibly be about 1100 sq. n.
There was further discussion regarding Haug Ave. and the steep ditch directly to the east
necding more immediate attention. Grittman added that this would be true but his guess
would be that the traffic would follow the internal street pattern. although Dragsten stated
the town home traffic would possibly use Haug Ave. Grittman still felt they would follow
the internal pattern out to Gillard Ave.
Frie asked about access/cirrculation, and notcd that this had been discussed on public record
previously and that the public should keep up on this issue. noting when/ifthere were
concerns they should come to the City Councilor Planning Commission. Frie also
addressed the growth area boundary noting that the City Engineer recommended extending
water and sewer to that area. Planning Commission states that if grovvth is available. water
and sewer should be extended to that area.
There was more discussion regarding the gas line easement running through the park and
O'Neill advised that the Parks Commission accepted that area as park land, but not park
dedication as they felt it did not meet minimum standards and did not have value. O'Neill
advised they were quite adamant about this. The area can be used as parks/open space.
Dccision Onc: Request for rezoning from AD to R-], R-2A, and R-2.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE REZONING FROM
AO TO R-L R-2A, AND R-2, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
Decision Two: Request for a Planncd Unit Development ConditionallJse Permit.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
I.
2.
All lot dimensions and easements are to be shown on the site plan.
The applicant should cover costs associated with improvements to Gillard Avenue.
95th Avenue, and Haug A venue in order to support the increased traffic caused by
this development.
The dead end on Meadow Brook Lane should be eliminated and possibly
redesigned, and Gillard Circle should be redesigned to allow for future connection
to potential frontage road.
The dead end on Golden Meadow Road should be elim inated and redesigned.
.
"
.J.
4.
-14-
. 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Minutes + 01/04/03
The ROW width and paved area dimensions throughout the project arc subject to
comments from the City Engineer and Public Works Director.
An elevation plan showing benning, fencing and landscaping along in1l'rstale 94 is
to be submitted and reviewed by City staff.
A side\valkltrail is to be shown on the site plan, running east/" est along 95'h Street.
The Parks Comm ission recommendations relating to pathway and park land
provision are met.
Building elevations are submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable City
objectives, including m in im izing the impacts of street- front garage doors and
ensure that proper structure separation exists.
10. The City approve the vacation of existing side lot line drainage and utility
easements.
I I. Approval of grading and drainage issues by the City Engineer and Public Works
Director.
12. Approval of grading and drainage plan as it affects the wetlands by the Wright
County Soils & Conservation District.
13. Modifications of plat name and street names to assure distinct identity.
14. Adjust cui de sacs to comply with City requirements.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
.
Decision Three: Request for a Preliminary Plat for Wild Meadow.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR WILD MEADOW, AS PRESENTED. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
9. Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a cell tower in an I-I A
district. Applicant: Snrint PCS and Fulfillment Systems (Tabled from previous meetin!.!.).
Fred Patch, Building Official, provided a brief summary of the previous meeting and
tabling of this item. He noted that the requested information was provided by Sprint PCS
and based on that information, staff recommends approval. Patch advised that the other two
locations the applicant was requested to consider were determined to be not viable.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. JoAnna DeMara, Spring PCS, advised of the
additional information requested at the last meeting providing the coverage maps regarding
the radio frequency areas and capacity. She noted an error on a previous letter to staff
regarding amount of square footage of unencumbered land this facility requires and that it
should have been stated 400 sq. ft. She also stated that the diameter of the 3 carrier poles
and 5 carrier poles is not significant as it is only 5 inches in diameter.
.
-15-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked for information regarding
coverage based on proposed location, which DeMara provided. Dragsten still stated a
concern with cell towers in general, again noting the various towers which have been added
over the years and Carlson concurred also stating he did not like the location or the height of
the tower. DeMara added that according to the City's zoning ordinance. if they prove that
another tower is not viable, the towel: would be allowable. Grittman advised also that they
have to abide by FCC regulations.
Frie asked if the ordinance could be amended to limit the towers to within 3 miles versus] /4
mile. but Grittman stated that was not an option. Patch also advised that when the ordinance
was drafted in 1997 there seemed to be a proliferation of towers, they also had extensive
information at that time. The height is a basic standard established by the FCC and the
industry and to exceed that could be defeated by the FCC regulations. Co-location was a
supported option as well. DeMara also advised that they have a master agreement with
other carriers as well which is reciprocal and not a deterrent for co-locations. Stumpf
concurred that putting up the tower in that location was not desirable, but if this complies
with the ordinance he did not see how they could not approve. Carlson then asked if there
was any way to mitigate the impact of the tower with a fence right at the second exit and
Patch advised that they had done that with some landscaping. He also advised of the
requirements for buffering.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN ZONING
CODE SECTION 3-12. AS WELL AS THE CONDITION TO PLACE THE 5 CARRIER
TOWER AND LANDSCAPE BUFFER TOWARD 1-94 TO PROVIDE FOR 50% OF
OPACITY, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE COMPLIES WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH FACILITIES IN TIlE ZONING ORDINANCE.
LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2 WITH
RICHARD CARLSON AND ROD DRAGSTEN VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Frie requested this ordinance be addressed and brought back to the Planning Commission at
a future date.
10. Consideration of a request for development stage planned unit development approval
allowing expansion of the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital. Applicant: Monticello-Big Lake
Community Hospital District. (Tabled from previous meeting).
Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report summarizing the previous meeting
where the Planning Commission tabled this item. He noted that the majority of the previous
concerns generally were acceptable, although staff felt there were further conditions that
should be considered. Some of these concerns included east/west trail connection, joint
access and parking agreement, submittal of a grading plan, parking stall size, landscape
plan. lighting. and other possible comments by the City Engineer.
-16-
.
.
.
.
Grittman then advised of the previous River Street traffic discussion and stated what they
had found was that previous discussions related more to access of service area for delivery
services. He did note however that the City could place signs restricting truck traffic on
River Street. Regarding building design, it was statTs position that this was not inconsistent
with concepts previously brought forward. Grittman advised that staff does recommend
approval of development stage PUD, with recommendations as noted.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
Chair Frie opened the pubic hearing. Tim Sessions, BWR Architects. spoke on the
Hospital's behalf. He advised the trail connection would be constructed by the Hospital and
placed along the River making the east/west connection. The joint access agreement had
been taken care of. Sessions added that they would still appreciate to be able to continue
using the smaller parking stall size, especially in the back area, noting that if they increase
the size to 20 ft, it would push the parking lot out too far making it almost impossible for
truck loading and turnarounds. Therefore. they asked to continue with the 18 ft. stalls
previously approved by the Planning Commission under the PUD.
.
Session's advised that additions to the landscaping were made in accordance with the Parks
Commission specifications. In regard to the building design, Sessions advised that the
building was constructed in the 1960's by a separate developer, as well as the Mississippi
Shores and the Dental Clinic. He stated the Hospital recognizes this concern and they have
tried to address those issues. He provided pictures of the previous building in ] 997 to what
is there today, noting an improvement. Ife also provided drawings of the next phase and
how it will fit in, and the overall character which will flow throughout the campus. They
also would like to move the parking lot and ambulance garage when funds are available.
Sessions advised that they will try to limit trucks on River Street, although it should be
recognized that this access is necessary.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There was discussion regarding the temporary
parking stalls and that they will be removed when the ramp is installed. Frie asked about the
responsibility of the trail construction and Sessions noted that would be the Hospital's.
O'Neill added that the gap between where the Hospital constructed pathway ends and the
future alignment within the property to the east is yet to be determined. In the agreement
with the Hospital District there will be leeway granted to allow connection of the path to the
River Street ROW, or to another eaSement alignment which could more closely follow the
River's edge. Also, Frie noted in regard to design, they asked them specifically to provide a
building design so that they could address this. He added that the Planning Commission had
not received this information, although Sessions did state this information was provided.
Frie stated signage was another concern and the applicant was asked to address this at the
previous meeting as well. Another concern of Frie' s was the lack of completion of previous
projects and not in compliance. Frie stated he was also concerned about not receiving a
copy of the signed joint access agreement.
.
Sessions again addressed building design, stating he could not speak to the buildings built
previously. but only the current design, which he again stated was submitted. O'Neill
-17-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
concurred this had been submitted. He advised that the 10 open spaces that Fric was .
referring to would be filled in with windows. Roger Oberg. Associate Administrator for the
Hospital. stated they are aware of their temporary agreement with the City regarding the
parking lot and it is their hope to begin ground breaking. getting that area ready for use by
construction vehicles during that time.
Frie asked staff who is responsible for enforcing conformance and Fred Patch, Building
Official. advised of the difficulty with enforcement issues involving hospitals and schools.
O'Neill noted that many times issues are taken care of. but others do linger. Regarding the
extension that Oberg noted. O'Neill advised that he would have to research that but did not
feel it was that long of an extension period. There was further discussion on restricting
truck traffic and O'Neill stated that there has been a loading berth at that site for years which
would be covered under the original PUD approval. I-Ie did note that the City could possibly
post no truck route signs west of Ramsey St. so that traffic comes off of Broadway, taking
the closest entrance. which might help to moderate truck traffic on River St.
Carlson advised that over the years they have had many discussions with Sunny Fresh and
their reduction of truck traffic, but feels that this is encouraging truck traffic. O'Neill asked
the applicant if the truck traffic would change at all. and they advised it would not. O'Neill
stated that this is an existing condition and doesn't know that they can now go back and
change it. They discussed efforts to mitigate truck traffic in other areas in the City and
Grittman advised that it is allowable, except where the City has posted signs. Grittman felt
a reasonable solution could be to direct traffic up Washington to Broadway and post the
road, without putting restrictions on the Hospital. Frie asked Oberg how many trucks he felt
traveled that road per day and Oberg thought it to be 1 to 2 per day. typically large semis
delivering food or supplies. Frie asked if there was any way to direct the Hospital to restrict
times of traffic. Oberg felt that trucks delivering from suppliers to buyers would be working
on their own schedules and may not be in their control. Oberg also commented that he
assumed since 1965 there have been trucks delivering off River Street, also pointing out that
due to the grade of the road he was not sure trucks could come off Washington.
Smith questioned the parking lot length and Sessions advised that he could not answer at
this time but that he felt that eventually the Hospital's objective is to obtain the Dental
Clinic and remove the ambulance garage, moving the parking around. Linda Doerr, Vice
Chair of the Hospital Board, stated they have looked at constructing a parking ramp several
times and cannot at this time due to cost, but advised it is still their desire. Smith questioned
what would happen with the property if the ramp were constructed and Sessions felt that
there would then be a level of development. the land would be used, but probably not for
parking. Smith also noted a concern about landscaping along Broadway and Sessions stated
that when the Parks Commission reviewed their plans, additional landscaping was added
along Broadway. Sessions also advised that they are working with the County on taking
some of the black dirt from that site and creating a berm to screen the parking lot, but they
need to work with the County to see if they can extend into the ROW.
Smith also commented on truck traffic and a concern with the Middle School across
-18-
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
Broadway. O'Neill advised that according to the comprehensive transportation plan, there
\vill be a light installed on Broadway at Washington. frie asked Doerr what the strategic
long term plan is for the Hospital and she advised that she could not state exactly at this
time, but Sessions advised that it is typical to go out 5 years. Oberg added that this is a
phase of their 10 year plan. He also noted the projections they use and advised Frie that he
believes this addition will take them beyond 5 years as they will build space to grow into.
There was further discussion regarding current parking and that employee parking lots
should be switched with patient parking, which the applicants agreed with. Sessions added
that the hospital did a parking study, and with projections. they are within 20 cars of being
maxcd out. Sessions noted that hospital parking fluctuates. Oberg advised they expect to
have additional parking to the west. Jim Agosto, Hospital Board member, addressed the
Planning Commission in regard to signage, stating the ]-Iospital wants it to be clear and not
to be compared with new developments in the City, stating again that it needs to be clear for
patients. He also noted that in the medical field things become obsolete in 5 years and there
will be changes. Frie advised Agosto that he did not feel they should be treated dillerently
than anyone else, but Agosto advised that signage is different in the medical field and the
important thing is that patients need to know where to go.
Again Frie advised of his dissatisfaction with the building aesthetics. l-Ie also felt signs
should be aesthetically pleasing, again Agosto disagreed, feeling that it should be clear and
concise. There was no further discussion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITII TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE IIOSPIT AL CAMPUS CONCEPT PUD.
LLOYD HILGART SECONDED TI{E MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. Consideration of accepting revised Fields of Hillside Hurst preliminary plat as being
consistent with original preliminarv plat.
Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator, asked the Planning Commission to review a revised
plat for this site to see if it is consistent with the original preliminary plat previously proposed.
O'Neill noted several changes to the plat including the revised pathway system removing the
trail from the pipeline easement, adding that it is a nice park and trail plan that the Parks
Commission is in favor of. O'Neill advised of an issue that had considerable discussion on
which was regarding value of the land and compliance with R-I standards, with R-I A to
follow. Previous action was taken to deny a pun and adhere to the subdivision standards.
O'Neill stated there is now a new developer who is aware of those concerns and the desire for
upper end housing on that site. The number of lots increased slightly and engineering data
needs to be brought up to date before bringing it before the City Council. Frie advised approval
should be contingent upon details of the City Engineer regarding sewer and storm water.
Bob Pearson, owner/developer, provided a sketch of the changes they had made. He also .
-19-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/04/03
introduced developer Howard Triggs. Pearson advised that they made the changes to the .
trails after discussions with staff and input from the Parks Commission. There will be
sidewalks on all streets, trail access tying in with the Spirit Hills development, a reduction
in the number of crossings over the pipeline and improved ponding. The engineer is
working on drainage problems out of the Rolling Hills development and will correct them.
Pearson provided the general layout and stated they anticipate 8)1" Street to be shifted to the
south versus north.
Hilgart questioned if there would be a number of builders and Pearson noted that had not
been determined. Triggs added that they are currently working \vith 6 builders. I-Iilgart
asked about layout and Triggs advised that the site slopes to the south and they will provide
complete plan sets within the next week for staff to review. Staff advised that the developer
must adhere to the R-I standards. Pearson added that all changes have been enhancements
to the layout and these will not be entry level homes, anticipating approximately $200.000+
homes.
It was questioned if the developer would be back with plans for the property to the south
but it was advised that they are not in possession of that property at this time. Smith stated
he was still concerned with R-] A standards that were promised by the previous developer
and Pearson stated that he was not familiar with the City" s R-] A standards but felt that they
would meet them, although the property is zoned R-] and they need to abide by those
standards.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE ACCEPTING HILLSIDE FARMS AS BEING
SUFFICIENTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE FIELDS OF HILLSIDE I-IURST
PROPOSAL, CONTINGENT UPON DETAILS BEING ACCEPTABLE BY TI-IE CITY
ENGINEER REGARDING SEWER AND WATER, THE MODIFIED PLAT MEETS
APPLICABLE CONDITIONS ORIGINALLY NOTED WITH THE FIELDS OF
HILLSIDE HURST PLAT, AND THE CONDITION THAT TI-JE LOT SIZES MUST BE
INCORPORATED AND VERIFIED BY STAFF, PRIOR TO PROCEEDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
] 2. Consideration of providing input on goals and projects for the Citv.
Chair Frie recommended that Planning Commission take this under consideration and bring
back to the March meeting.
13. Adiourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT
11:15 P.M. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
.
Recorder
-20-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/03
5.
Consideration of a request for a special home occupation nermit allowing
hotoora hie studio in a residential district. A lieant: Wayne and PMricia Ma 'cr
(.TO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Wayne and Patricia Mayer are requesting a special home occupation permit allowing a
photography studio to operate in their home. Photography studios are allowed by special
permit in residential districts with conditions. The home is located at 2530 Briar Oakes
Blvd. The Mayers have reviewcd the conditions and have agreed to operate the home
occupation following terms prescribed by city code. Please see the attached
Administrative Permit ~ Home Occupation Checklist for detail regarding general
standards for operating a home occupation and meet the specific standards relating to
operation of a special home occupation.
Please note that among other items, the code says that only one vehicle relating to
operation of the home occupation can be parked off street at one time. This requirement
is likely to be the only requirement that the applicant may tail to comply with from time
to time. Planning Commission may wish to discuss management of the home occupation
to get a feci for the level of business activity and the likelihood that multiple vehicles
could be parked at the home at anyone time.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to rccommend approval of the special home occupation request based on
the finding that the method of operation proposed is consistent with standards
identified in thc City Codc.
2. Motion to deny approval
A motion to deny approval should be made if the applicant will not be able to
follow code. Based on previous conversations with the applicant, following the
code is not expected to be a problem.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends alternative] .
SUPPORTING DATA
Administrative Permit Information - Home Occupation Checklist
Completed Application
Letter of support from neighbor
.
.
.
4
CITY OF MONTICELLO
CO~ITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
PO Box 1147, 250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
(612) 295-2711
ADMINTSTRATIVE PERMl'I'--HOME ~~:rATIO~
CHRCKT.rST ANn INFORMA
Complete application form, signed by the property fee owner.
Fee per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule.
A home occupation permit allows certain commercial use of residential land that is
clearly incidental or secondary to the principal residential use of the property. The
purpose of the permit process is to protect the value of residential property by
assuring that commercial use of residential land is properly regulated and
conducted in a manner consistent with rules governing the operation of home
occupations. The information required with this application will assist the City in
determining if a permit may be issued directly by staff, if a special permit is
necessary, or if the proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the
special permit.
PROCESS
After the City receives your application, the following steps will be taken:
1. City staff will review the application and determine that the home occupation
meets the requirements of the ordinance. If so, City staffwilI issu~ a permit
directly.
2. Home occupations not eligible for a permit may qualify for a "special permit."
If so, the applicant must pay a special permit fee in the amount of $125. The
matter will then be reviewed by the Pl~nning COmmission and City Council
via the public hearing process.
3. City staffis responsible for rejecting home occupation proposals that do not
meet the mininium requirements for a permit or special permit.
FOLLOWING IS SECTION 3-11 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS:
3-11: HOME OCCUPATIONS:
[A] Pm:pose. The purpose of this section is to prevent competition with
business districts and to provide a means through the establishment of
HOMEOCC.HAN: 1130/95
Page 1
specific standards and procedures by which home occupations can be
conducted in residential neighborhoods without jeopardizing the
health, safety, and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood.
In addition, tbis section is intended to provide a mechanism enabling .
the distinction between permitted home occupations and special or
customarily "more sensitive" home occupations so that permitted home
occupations may be allowed through an administrative process rather
than a legislative hearing process.
[B] Application. Subject to the non-conforming use provision of this
section, all occupations conducted in the home shall comply with the
provisions of this section. This section whall not be construed,
however, to apply to home occupations accessory to farming.
[C] Procedures ~nn Permits.
1.
~
Permitted Home Occupation. Any permitted home occupation
as defined in tbis section shall require a "permitted home
occupation permit." Such permits shall be issued subject to the
conditions of tbis section, other applicable city code provisions,
and state law. This permit may be issued by the Zoning
Administrator or his agent based upon proof of compliance with
the provisions of this section. Application for the permitted
home occupation permit shall be accompanied by a fee as
adopted by the Co.uncil.
.
If the Administrator denies a permitted home occupation permit
to an applicant, the applicant may appeal the decision to the
City Council acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals,
which shall make.the final decision. The permit shall remain in
force and effect until such time as there has been a change in
conditions or until such time as the provisions of this section
have been reached. At such time as the City has reason to
believe that either event has taken place, a public hearing shall
be held before the p]~nning Commission~ The Council shall
make a final decision on whether or not the permit holder is
entitled to the permit.
2.
Special Home Occupation. Any home occupation which does not
meet the specific requirements for a permitted home occupation
as defined in this section shall require a "special home
occupation permit" which shall be applied for, reviewed, and
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 22 of
the zoning ordinance.
3.
Declaration of Conditions. The Planning Commission and the
Council may impose such conditions of the granting of a "special
.
HOMEOCC.HAN: 1/30/95
Page 2
.
.
home occupation permit" as may be necessary to carry out the
purpose and provisions of this section.
4.
Effect of Permit. A "special home occupation permit" may be
issued for a period of one (1) year after which the permit may be
reissued for periods of up to three (3) years each. Each
application for permit renewal will be reviewed by City staff.
City staff will determine whether or not it is necessary to
process permit renewal in accordance with the procedural
requirements of the initial special home occupation permit.
Staff determination will be made based upon the rn~nl1er of
operation observed by staff and based upon the level of
complaints made about the home occupation.
5. Transferability. Permits shall not run with the land and shall
not be transferable.
6.
Lapse of Special Home Occupation Permit by Non-Use.
Whenever within one (1) year after granting a permit the use as
permitted by the permit shall not have been initiated, then such
permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension
of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the
Council. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed
with the Zoning Ailrninistrator at least thirty (30) days before
the expiration of the original permit. There shall be no charge
for the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall
state facts showing a good faith attempt to initiate the use.
Such petition shall be presented to the Pl~nning Commission for
a recommendation and to the Council for a decision.
7. Reconsideration. Whenever an application for a permit has
been considered and denied by the Council, a similar application
for a permit affecting substantially the same property shall not
be considered again by the Pl::Jnning Commission or Council for
at least six (6) months from the date of its denial unless a
decision to reconsider such matter is made by not less than four-
fifths (4/5) vote of the full Council.
8.
.
HOMEOCC.HAN: 1/30/95
Renewal of Permits. An applicant shan not have a vested right
to a permit renewal by reason of having obtained a previous
permit. In applying for and accepting a permit, the permit
holder agrees that his monetary investment in the home
occupation will be fully amortized over the life of the permit and
that a permit renewal will not be needed to amortize the
investment. Each application for the renewal of a permit will be
reviewed without taking into consideration that a previous
Page 3
{ o".,I"r~
permit has been granted. The previous granting or renewal of a
permit shall not constitute a precedent or basis for the renewal
of a permit.
[D] ReQ.Jlirements: General Provl.5ion5. All home occupations shall
comply with the following general provisions and, according to
definition, the applicable requirement provisions.
1. General Provisions.
a.
No home occupation shall produce light glare, noise, odor,
or vibration that will in any way have an objectionable
effect upon adjacent or nearby property.
b. No equipment shall be used in the home occupation which
will create electrical interference to surrounding
properties.
c. Any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and
secondary to the residential use of the premises, should
not change the residential character thereof and shall
result in no incompatibility or disturbance to the
surrounding residential uses.
d.
No home oczupation shall require internal or external
alterations or involve construction featmes not
customarily found in dwellings except where required to
comply with local and state fire and police
recommendations.
e. There shall be no exterior storage of equipment or
materials used in the home occupation, except personal
automobiles used in the home occupation may be parked
on the site.
f. The home occupation shall meet all applicable fire and
building codes.
g. There shall be no exterior display or exterior signs or
interior display or interior signs which are visible from
outside the dwelling with the exception of an
identification sign which is limited to identifying the
name of the resident only.
h.
All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of
the city code.
HOMEQCC.HAN: 1/30/95
Page 4
.
.
.
.
.
lG1lief
1.
No home occupation shall be conducted between the hours
of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless said occupation is contained
entirely within the principal building and will not require
anyon-street parking facilities.
J. No home occupation shall be permitted which results in
. or generates more traffic than one (1) car for off-street
parking at any given point in time.
[E] Requirements: Permitted Home Occupations.
1. No person other than those who customarily reside on the
premises shall be employed.
2. All permitted home occupations shall be conducted entirely
within the principal building and may not be conducted in an
accessory building.
3. Permitted home occupations shall not create a parking demand
in excess of that which can be accommodated as defined in
Section 3-5 [F] 6, where no vehicle is parked closer than fifteen
(15) feet from the curb line.
4.
Permitted home occupations include and are not limited to: art
studio, dressmaking, secretarial services, foster care,
professional offices and teaching with musical, dancing, and
other instructions which consist of no more than one pupil at a
time and similar uses.
5. The home occupation shall not involve any oithe following:
repair service or manufacturing which requires equipment other
than found in a dwelling; teaching which customarily consists of
more than one pupil at a time; over-the-counter sale of
merchandise produced off the premises, except for those brand
name products that are not marketed and sold in a wholesale or
retail outlet.
[F] ReqJlirements: Speci::ll Home Ocr:np::ltions.
Lo~l,(~
.
1.
No person other than a resident shall conduct the home
occupation, except where the applicant can satisfactorily prove
unusual or unique conditions or need for non-resident
assistance and that this exception would not compromise the
intent of this chapter.
2.
Examples of special home occupations include: barber and
beauty services, photography studio, group lessons, saw
Homace.RAN: 1/30/95
Page 5
'~o'1';'')
sharpening, skate sharpening, small appliances and small
engine repair and the like.
3.
The special home occupation may involve any of the fonowing:
stock-in-trade incidental to the performance of the service,
repair service or manufacturing which requires equipment other
than customarily found in a home, the teaching with musical,
dancing, and other instruction of more than one pupil at a time.
4. Non-Conforming Use. Existing home occupations lawfully
existing on the effective date of this section may continue as
non-conforming uses. They shall, however, be required to obtain
permits for their continued operation. Any existing home
occupation that is discontinued for a period of more than 180
days, or is in violation of the provisions of this chapter under
which it was initially established, shall be brought into
conformity with the provisions of this section.
5. Inspection. The City hereby reserves the right upon issuing any
home occupation permit to inspect the premises in which the
occupation is being conducted to ensure compliance with the
provisions of this section or any conditions additionally imposed.
HOME OC C.HAN: 1/30/95
Page 6
.
.
.
.
CITY OF ,\IO!\TICELLO
( '( 1\ 1\11'\.11 Y 1)/ \/1.1.< )/',\11',\'[ lJI.Y/\ In \II',:'\:1
~{).:; W:dJlUl Slreet. Suile I
\1"JlI ieelIt I, ,\1:'\ SSj()::?
((>I ::?) ::?()S-::?71 I
/'/:lIlllil1t!
( '<lSl' !.: Q~~
,~J)\I'~.L'::iJl(~.1l'0:.:.J>U~\IIT - 110'\'11-: ()C('( ~l'i\T1()N
.:li'..~U (~\T f( ) N / PI-: R\11 T
l\pplie:I/11I\J;1I11e:
li/~ r~Ut
'-7) '.
-I/A'/;) . In T~!~J/'~__~~!1j'). (-'/~
^ddress: c/. ~ .:':;c !SIE' fA r(
/) . 1--: ~" l-:'f l/b
(-11 r LS__.__ ... ~L__ ______.
PhOI1l': IIU/llc: 76<3 ,;;'9s' -3'Jft f
Busillcss: -71c.. 3 .J-9.s- ...J 7) 7
/Jus,,,,,,, N"Ol":~f1 G I L /{O/v1L1;'n' -IkTG1~Tn,_,__ __
loned:
KI
I. /'/<::Ise ,/<:scril1l' I ill' propo'il'd hOllle uccup<llioll ;lcli\ily ill t!eller:lIll'rllls ;lIld locatioll "ithill hOl1le.
/) r\-t' . r () (\ Ie Ii (, t-J \..J
S;:-r~, b t t, /1'"Jc. K7 /2/\ I'T l.J\K[
W 11.1. Till,: /1 () ~11': ()("(' [I /'/\ l'J () N IN ( '1.1 'I W .\ N Y () /-' Till: '/-,() LI. () \\'1 N ( i ',J
(( 'ire/<: your n:spuIlSl')
· " " '- -#'7C JEy::.u """ ,J<VV:4"T' 4<)'" /2,--;-"" ,J,u~
' R" I" d "ct,,, I).' \ '" ~ __ '-;>e ""A.-,," I Sf<1"-"""'" "" P,"'_ FA- ~t C4>d, '2"
i i\L!IlU/:lt.:tllrillg ur rL'p:lir ;ll'li\ily'.' Yl'S ~____ /..s:- E~ ~':cod/-<f Ac..~;':(4?
-f. /ll\l'lllllry II) k' kl'PI UIl IhL' prl'l1liscs'.' Yl"'i~) -j-'tC-JrlL r;:.",Lr7?c_ " f"'7'r,
S, :\IlY pl'rsu1111lil~'J' Ih:111 liluS~'iidill~ llll Iill' prl'llliscs ClllplllYl'd ill thl'
hOllll'llCClIP;11il'I]'.' YL,s ~
Ilsl' lll'll1L'ciI:lllicill'l/uipllll'lllllllIClIsllllll:lrily /lllll1d illlhc 1ll1~ Yl,s
I\'!llrl' lil:lll U111' rlllllll dL'\I)ll'd Iu Illl' Ih)1l1.1.,'~)Cl'lIP:llillll'.) Ycs C\!u)
(,lutsidl' slllr:~gl' (~l'J'i:lis',1 Yl,s 6~ __
~lg11dge',J ~ CSC~.)/ ~,
Illll'l'l1:i11Ir e\ll'rn:li :lill'r:lliulls ill\uhill~ l'pnslrUctilln',) Yl'SC~, .
Will the 1ll11lll' lll'CUjl;llil)1] hl, Clll1dllCll'd in :1 ~dr:lgL' or :ll'Cl'SSI)ry huilding',' Yl'S 6.)
\\'illthe hllllll' l)l'l'lII1;lliull I'L'slI11 illnll)rl' thdllllllC clIstolller's L':lr hl'in~ jl:lI'kl'd
',,----......... .....
1)11 thl' prclllisl's ;11 ;lIly ~i\l'll pllilll ill lillll".' Yes ~IV
C1.
7.
. )
(NI) ,/
" ./
'--~'
~,
lJ.
I (),
lL
I ~,
I." I)L'snihl' 11ll' l'lllrdlll'l' III !il~' Sp:1L'l' d~'\ llkd II) Ihl' hPl]1L' \1Cl'lIP:llil)ll:
{fTlU''l47'/d.<' c,L ,r .(;.s',,;,,/' c.;.7'..t'r-WY ,M'?< "'rh,J '~/CE cJ"rc" f-''-;>'",'' U
1/ J-VV7 e O. A 7[ *-.(1 P J S "-;-; f;?,'1-<- ( .
.
1111[1.1/0('( '..\/'1' q :: I 00
I';lge I
l'k;I:,c pro\idc dl'l<lilllll' ;111 YI.S ;IIIS\\l'rs ;1I10\C:
.
I h<l\ c rc"ic\\cd Ihc rcglll;lliUI1S ;\ssm:i;llcd \\ilh upcr;\lion 01' a homc occup;\li()l . and I h;\\'c rc"ie~...(\IY swll
commcnts. I do hcrehy ~lgrl'c \0 ;lhide hy ~III CilY ur MUlllie(t.:llu lwmc occup~lti() 1 rl'gllbliy:>~ ..o"/
\.~ //' ///
i74-.{ok'~ W ~~~
l);11c ,""0 " igll~rl~
I'I'T: 'lil0/G
IZcccipt If ~..~
~~**********~*******************~*~***~**********~*~~**~***~*******************************
(For City list' Only)
\1 h;ts hccl1 dl'tl'r!11inl.'d h\ sl;tl'l' tklt this IHlmc (lcl.'Up;\liun permit is:
I Appro\ed
II Denicd
I I Spcci;t\ Permit Needed .
S'I':\\'T ('( )1'\'1 l\11':NTS:
i\ssis\ant .\dministr;tl(l\'
/()ning ,\dminislr;\1(1r
I );t!L' :\ppnnL'd
l);ltc ,\ppn1'\'cd
Puhlic I k;tring 1);\1,.':
1\ ,\
.
Page ::'
11(\i\lL( ll'C...\l'l" <l::' I l\()
.
.
.
Feb. 22,2003
Fred Patch, Zoning Official
City of Monticello
505 Walnut St.
Monticello, MN. 55362
Re: Special Home Occupation Permit for Wayne & Patricia Mayer
Dear Mr. Patch:
Please accept this letter as written testimony for the above permit's hearing to be held at
6PM on March 4,2003.
Wayne & Patricia Mayer have been our immediate next door neighbors for 10 years. They
have always been 'good' neighbors and there has never been any adverse issues during
that time. The Mayer property is well maintained and all city ordinances have been
followed to the best of our recollection.
We know that the Special Home Occupation Permit for the Mayers will have no adverse
impact upon our property, the Mayer's property and also we are of the opinion that there
will be no adverse impact on any of the neighbors.
William (Bill) Endres and Susan (Sue) Endres strongly support this Special Home
Occupation Permit for a photo studio.
Since:eIy, (7
g~ r~J~~
William Endres
s~~~
Susan Endres
2532 Briar Oakes Blvd.
Monticello, MN.
CC: Wayne & Patricia Mayer
.
.
.
6.
Planning Comm ission Agenda - 03/04/03
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditio~al use permit
allowing a shopping center and joint parking in the B-3 district. Applicant:
Michael Krutzig (NAC)
The applicant, Mr. Krutzig, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow a
multi-tenant shopping center and joint parking within the B-3 District. The site will be
located on Lot 1, Block 1 of the Monticello Business Center 2nd Addition, which is
positioned at the southeast corner of the intersection of School Boulevard and State
Highway 25. The applicant is proposing to develop a multi-tenant shopping center.
which is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the B-3 district. The proposed
shopping center will eventually tie in with similar shopping centers to be developed on
the remaining two lots created by the plat. This first shopping center proposal is the
entryway or gateway into this area and its development will set the tone for how the
subdivision as a whole is developed.
Comprehensive Plan: Monticello's Comprehensive Plan designates this area for
commercial use, consistent with the proposed project.
Zoning: The subject site is zoned B-3. Highway Business District, \.vhich allows
Shopping Centers with a Conditional Use Permit.
Access / Circulation: The proposed subdivision will have access off of Cedar Street to
the East. Cedar Street is being extended south as a City project and will be assessed to
benefiting property owners, including Mr. Krutzig's development. The access for Lot 1,
Block 1 of Monticello Business Center 2nd Addition should be shifted to the south,
splitting the lot line, as shown for the access splitting lots 2 and 3. Although only one of
the lots is being proposed for development, the project is being revie\.ved as a whole, with
consideration to the connections to the future development of the remaining two lots. A
cross easement and access agreement should be submitted in writing to City Staff.
Cedar Street Right-Of- Way: Due to changes in the alignment of Cedar Street, a 600 sq.
ft. triangle shaped area located at the southern corner of Block I, Lot 3 will need to be
dedicated as a roadway easement area as a condition of approval to allow the road to
follow future alignment to be determined. The applicant was aware of this possibility
and supports the request. This request is noted for information only and is not a
condition of CUP approval.
Parking: Staff is concerned with the amount of impervious service and the over
abundance of parking provided within this project. Although at this point the uses for
this shopping center are unknown, the formula for calculating the number of parking
stalls needed for a 17,950 square foot retail use structure is 1 parking stall per 200 sq. ft.,
adding up to a total of 90 needed parking stalls. The proposed plan provides for 130
parking stalls. The applicant should work with City Staff to design a parking area with
fewer stalls and more green space. The green space may be turned into future parking if
parking is so needed. The following are some suggestions and design revisions to
accomplish this task:
'~r';
,
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/03
The eight parking stalls to the north and the 11 stalls the south of the proposed
building should be eliminated and used as green space.
. The Cedar Street side of the building should be utilized for truck service
circulation and not for parking. (10 to 15 parking stalls should be removed and
replaced with green space.)
. To avoid the undesirable monotony, heat, and wind associated with large parking
lots, the ordinance requires that 1 parking delineator (equaling the size of a
parking stall) be utilized for each 5,000 square feet of parking area over the first
5,000. The plans should be revised to show a parking delineator covering (4)
parking stalls, located between and in addition to the already shown parking
delineators.
Landscaping: As previously stated, this is a prominent corner, visible from highway 25,
School Boulevard, and Cedar Street. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3-1 (b) requires that
Commercial sites provide a minimum of (1) overstory tree per 50 lineal feet of site
perimeter. The current landscape plan consists of 17 overstory trees, 6 short of the
required 23 for this portion of the site. The applicant should submit a revised landscape
plan that shows increased landscaping both along the northern perimeter abutting School
Boulevard, to the east along Cedar Street as well as an increase in internal landscaping.
Building Design: The applicant has submitted an elevation plan for the proposed
building, showing a brick and rock face block building with frontage treatment along
both the highway 25 and School Boulevard sides of the site.
Signage: The applicant will need to submit a signage plan showing the location,
dimension, and design of any proposed monument or wall signage. It is probable that a
separate conditional use permit will need to be processed governing the sign system.
Language in reference to the use of temporary signage within the multi-tenant shopping
center should be described within the development agreement and any private covenants.
Lighting: A photometric plan has been submitted and appears to meet the standards as
described within the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Additional issues and concerns regarding the site design of the multi-tenant CUP
Shopping Center are as follows:
1. Trees at the Southwest corner of the intersection of Highway 25 and
School Boulevard should not encroach within the (25) foot clear view
triangle area.
2. The site plan should clearly define the location of the trash enclosure.
....
.).
The building at parking lot should be shifted to run parallel with State
Highway 25 rather than angled towards Cedar Street as shown per the site
plan.
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning COlllmission Agenda - 03/04/03
B. ALTERATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to approve the request for a CUP allowing a multi-tenant shopping
center with joint parking, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z, based on a
finding the proposal is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive
plan.
2. Motion to deny the request for a CUP allowing a multi-tenant shopping
center with joint parking, based on a finding that the proposal is not
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. Motion to table the request subject to additional information.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the CUP allowing a multi-tenant shopping center with
joint parking. only with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. With the modifications to the
plan as descrihed in Exhibit Z. the plan will comply with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan and the general requiremcnts of the B-3, J-lighway Business District.
O.
SUPPORTING OAT A
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit 0:
Exhibit Z:
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Building Elevation
Cedar Street Alignment (ROW needcd)
Conditions of Approval
..,
J
/
,-,,---'v.
"
/
z
<(
--1
Q..~
ill ii
I-- ~
ii)~
"'-... - ~
..... ......... "'-... - ~
..............._~
"'-... -. ~
......... ...............
.........
.........
.........
.........
.....
4A/_
II
i
"
I
i
!
t.
~ ; I
i ~ ~
Q 1 0
L . , E " ~
I - ^ -. r
- - - -
I L . - --
II ILl
-- 1 I"
I I I I J , JI . . q J . . --I ~I
-TJll~ . I . , . . " J , ft J Q~Ii:i1
UI!.'I"I I
rJ JI.... f - .J~ol~l
I I 1 I 1__
_'1 I"!
I :ptO, Z.611i::C
Z
iii iii 0
IL Iii i3 i=
iiI
.J ~ i <(
<( >
z z ~
0 ~ 0 UJ
j:: -,.
Il. Il. Ii UJ~
2 2 II
><! ><! <( ><! ><! I~
..
g g .J 0 ~
<( 0 1-::.
.J .J
tll II Z III II ='oiI
0
w ~ j:: W W 0;1
u <( ~ ~ u lI)!l
<( <(
... .. - ... IL
><! ><! ~ i Si ~
~ u
Ii
II
I
I
L
10
I
z
o
i=
<(
>
Wi;,
-"
UJ:
I-~
~
3!l
z
Q
I-
<(
>
W
-'.
1119
.
J ~Ii! !i !i
.. ~~ Ii j @
J i
b~~l~ I: I~ I
1 j -
1;lw~ -
f Ii Ii
:~Iii II II i Q
....,
,.,,';."
.. .
\.-'
)
(' C
j "
.-i:. \)/--.
~ i~
~ ~b:
oJ 61_
~ "
). ~
J
" 1.1
\:
\" -
C <J
v~
'\
&
3
.b :.....
-;--1
"-
......
I,il
I i~1
F' 'rll
- J I f
- , II
~, !I II
I ig"
r;
~
~)(.hlb;t- b Iv
.
5.
6.
7.
8.
. 9.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/03
CUP Conditions of Approval- multi-tenant shopping center (Michael Krutzig)
I.
The access to Lot 1 Block I is to be shifted to the south, splitting the lot
line separating Lot I and Lot 2.
2. A signed cross easement and access agreement is to be submitted to City Staff.
3. The eight parking stalls to the north and the II stalls the south of the proposed
building are to be eliminated and shown as green space.
4. The Cedar Street side of the building should be utilized for truck service
circulation and not for parking. (] 0 to 15 parking stalls are to be removed and
replaced with green space.)
The site plan is to be revised to show an additional landscaped parking delineator
covering (4) parking stalls located between the currently proposed delineators.
The landscape plan is to be revised, showing an additional (7) overstory trees.
The landscape plan is to be revised to show additional internal
landscaping around the building and within the parking delineators.
The applicant is to submit a signage plan displaying the location, dimension,
and design of any proposed monument or wall signage. A separate conditional use
permit will need to be processed unless made available for review with this application.
Language in reference to the use of temporary signage within the multi-tenant
shopping center is to be clearly defined within the development agreement
and identified in site covenants.
10. Trees at the southwest corner of the intersection of Highway 25 and School
Boulevard are not to encroach within the (25) foot clear view triangle arca.
] ]. The building and parking lot should be shifted to the west to run parallel
with State Highway 25.
12. The site plan is to be revised to show the location of the trash enclosure.
13. All grading, drainage, utilities, and easement issues are subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and pay all required
fees or securities required by it, subject to review and approval of the City
Attorney. This is typically completed at time of final plat or prior to
issuance of the building permit.
] 5. Comments of other City Staff.
.
4
Cxhibit L
.
.
.
7.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/03
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a concept stage planl)ed unit
development approval allowing 8 single family units in a proposed R-2A district.
Applicant: Tom Holthaus (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicant, Torn Holthaus, is requesting a concept review for a Planned Unit
Development proposal allowing 8 single family units to be constructed on an
approximately 1.5 acre parcel of which is currently the West Side Market. With the
reconstruction of Broadway, Otter Creek Road will be realigned to create a safer
intersection. The County is also requiring the applicant to close driveway access points
to the West Side Market, and as such, the applicant believes that the retail operation will
no longer be viable. It should be notcd that the existing use is a non-conforming land use
and has been unable to expand over the years due to the inconsistent zoning.
Sketch plans and a request for rezoning from R-l to R-2A have been reviewed by both
the Planning Commission and City Council in October of 2002. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the request for rezoning and supported the plan
under the condition that two-story homes are constructed. Subsequently_ the City
Council moved to table the request contingent upon revisions to the plan. These
revisions also included a two lcvel style home as opposed to the single level rambler, as
well as some architectural dcsign and detailing enhancements to bcttcr suit the
Comprehensive Plan's goals for the Broadway corridor.
The proposed project is a series of eight two-story single-family detached units with a
finished square footage of 1,500 sq. ft., served by a common drivcway along the northern
boundary of the property. The project is being designed under the R-2A standards. The
project requires PUD approval due to the lack of individual street access for the units (the
County will not permit direct access to County Highway 75) as well as to allow for an
averaging of lot sizes.
Land Use: As previously stated. the site currently consists of a nonconforming
commercial use (West Side Market) on an R-l, Single Family Residcntial lot. Due to its
nonconforming status, the West Side Market has not been able to expand and therefore
has been unable to keep pace with the competition. The lot is surrounded by single
family residential homes, with the Pine Wood Elementary School to the south across
Broadway Street. The project is being designed under the R-2A, Single Family
Residential district standards.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive plan emphasizes the retention of the
traditional single family look and feel along both the east and west ends of Broadway. It
talks of restoration of existing older homes and the hopes that with the eventual extension
of ih street, a reduction in traffic levels on Broadway will help in efforts of keeping the
traditional single family feel.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/03
Site Lavout: The lots are laid out in an east/west fashion, with the buildings fronting
Broadway. The lots will be rear loaded, sharing a common driveway via a driveway
overlaying the rear of the lots.
.
An issue that needs further discussion is the need for a portion of the City's property on
the west side of the plat adjacent to Otter Creek Road. According to the rough plans for
the redesign of Otter Creek Road, designed by WSB, it appears the westerly building will
have an approximately 17 foot side yard setback from the Otter Creek Right-of-Way and
sidewalk. Given the access and traffic issues on Broadway, a discussion should be had as
to the level of landscaped screening along this edge. Terms for the needed transaction of
land are to be decided by the City Council.
Other layout considerations include shifting the buildings 10 to 15 feet towards
Broadway. This shift will help enhance the residential character of the area and provide
for more private space in the rear yards of the buildings. This shift will also provide
room for a 15 to 20 foot wide landscaped strip to buffer the rear yard/drive from residents
to the north. The applicant might also look at other design possibilities for the location
of garages ofT of the driveway. Perhaps some variation in garage types, (attached,
detached) and location could give the project more of a true residential feel as opposed to
the monotonous, town home appearance.
BuildinfZ Style: The applicant has submitted an elevation and floor plan for the
proposed two story detached dwellings. Although the floor plans are proposed to be the .
same for all eight units, a variation in roof styles will be used to add variety and improve
the overall appearance of the project. Staff suggests that in addition to varying the roof
style, the buildings should vary in other exterior amenities, such as amount of brick and
color of siding.
As requested by City staff, the applicant has modified the original rambler styled units to
the proposed two story homes. This revision is more in lines with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, in that it fits in with the existing residential homes along Broadway,
and also its three bedroom and approximately 15,000 square foot layout will lean towards
families, which is the goal of this particular area being as it abuts an elementary school.
The current minimum standard for R-2A homes is 1,200 sq. ft. finished. The homes
proposed will exceed this standard by 300 sq. ft. This plan work will be provided with
the development stage application.
Access / Circulation: The eight unit neighborhood will have access via a private
common driveway off of Otter Creek Road. An elbow style turnaround will need to be
located at the end of the alley to provide easier circulation for City garbage trucks. It has
been suggested to the applicant by City Staff that the design of the most easterly building
be shifted so that the driveway and garage would be located on the west side of the lot,
thereby improving the circulation pattern. Plan adjustments addressing this concern
should be provided at development stage review.
.
2
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/03
Landscaping: Landscaping needs to be an important aspect of this project. The
applicant will need to submit a landscape plan that pro\'ides special attention to landscape
design within the front yards, as required by ordinance for parccls within the R-2A
district. as well as provide sufficient landscaping along the northern lot line.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Plan for the Holthaus PUD,
with comments to be noted, based on a finding that the project is consistent with
the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Conditions of approval associated with development stage to include:
· Provision of detailed landscape plan
· Provide building finish color and roof line detail for every structure.
· Revise site plan showing setbacks as identified in this report and show
revisions to drive allowing garbage truck turnaround area.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Plan, based on a finding that the
project is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission earlier recommended approval of the rezoning request which
will be reviewed by the City Council in conjunction with this concept PUD review. It is
our view that the concept plan as presented is consistent or exceeds the standards
identified in the R-2A District, therefore staff recommends approval.
The concept plan review is the Planning Commission and City Council's opportunity to
provide feedback to tbe developer regarding a wide variety of issues prior to the
preparation of a detailed development proposal. Issues may include more detailed design
concerns that the City may believe are critical to further consideration of the project. or
may also be related to more general land use and development planning, including the
staging or direction of future City growth. As with any pun, the City should be able to
identify the tangible advantages that PUD zoning flexibility offers.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit 0:
Exhibit E:
Site Location Map
Site Plan
Building Elevation
Otter Creek Road Realignment Design
Previous letters submitted by neighboring property owners
3
.
'Ghrbif A
&
"
So
Gf.~~.-f-
So
-1--
..? 6' ..
?,g..
s".....
~
Or/':.
~-i>
~o
So
--1'0
!
'\-
t
.~
c.,"
I ,
~
r;:::- .
~....o~
.4c.. Jc; {{
Pf;l M ~
- ~;( J:;::
1-:-
~
~ '1..~
--5" ~
'~
~-- 7<5
1.
.
~
lor,l
~
o
(f.>Z
~~
r
TT1~
::::::~
e-P;, ~
~<
->
C;~
~
o
z
EffiEB
~
~
~
I III 11~
I III II~
<t1 H H H H H H H M H M M_.H
=
HH I-H-ll-
.
f-
'- '- I--
.- - r-
- - I--
'- - '-
- - /--"
r- - r-
- - I--
'- - ~
- 0-
r- \- r-
- I-
'- I-- '-
- '-
r- .- r-
-f---
~'-'-
H "- --1
\- .- T-
I- I- -
I- '- l-
f- I- -
I- r- T-
f- .- I--
I- -
f- '-
l-
f-
I--
H
l-
I--
- T-
r- I--
--j
'- I--
illIIIIIIIlD
~
illIIIIIIIlD
illIIIIIIIlD
illIIIIIIIlD
\
~ r- I-- I-- "....... I-
~ '-- '--- - '- '--
'-l-'-I-_
1\ '\l ~ r- --1 r- .-
,\I- ~ - \- -
'--
,\ '-- - '- '-
1\ 1\ ~ ~ --11--'- _ r-
- .- I-
\ '-1---'-
1\ - '- I-
1\ '<-\ I- I- -
I-- r- H
,\ '- I- -
\' 'r- '- r- '-.-
II' I- -
V - '- ~
1-' /- -i
1;- I-- r- r-
/ - \- -
V '-1---'-
/-'-- - /-
V r-\-~r-
/ .--- - .- I-
1/ ~'-I---'-
1-'--'-1-
II J- .--- .- \- .- .-
/ I- .- ...... r- I-
'- ~ '- '- '- '--
/-~ --, ......., '- '- -
--, T-1 \- -4 .- .-
.--- - I-- .- I- -
/-- '- I-- I-- '- '--
......, --I/--'-- l-
I-- --, I- \- -
- I- .- \- I--
I-- f- ~
--I I-- '-- f-
I- - r .- I--
I- I- .- \- l-
I-- '- I-- - ~
I-- I-- '-- '- f-
r- I- r- r- .- I- .-
- r- .- - r- --,
-/-- ~ -'--H '-
-1--'---<,-,-
--1 I- r- r- .- H l-
I-- .--- .- I-- - _
-'- -, - '--"-I--
1--'-"-/-__
- T- .- I-- r- H I-
\---,-H\--
- r- -, I-- L- H I--
I-- -, L- f- I- -
r- r- I-- .- r- ...... l-
I-- --, 'r- H \- -
I-- ~ I--L'- '-L'- I--
I- '-1 ~ --1
_I
~
-
- .-
r-
I-- '-
'-
- ~
I-
- .-
r-
H '-
'-
&flt"bJ'-f- ~
..
.
1\ en
~ \~~
UIIillllIIIIill ~~
[\t\
EffiE )i\
EHEB Ii /-"t
'"I:1 UIIillllIIIIill IJ / c- ~c-r\
:;:t:' IJ ~ - ~
/ C- '- C-
O ffiIIII[[[IillI /1- r--' ....... ....... 1\
<r>Z Vj ....... - .- -
~~ V - '- ~ L-- 1-1\
1'- I-- - ~ -
~tr.i V - - ~ - - ~
I- 'j ,- ....... _ c- _ c-
:::::~ '- I- I-- I- I- I-
-P;~ i '- _ I.-i f '- L-- - c- f- L-- .
r- ~ c- r- ,.- ..- c- ..- -
.:< ~ - c- - ....-- .- - - - c- [7
-> '- I- L-- - ~ '- ~ '- f-- I...-- '-
a:::~ ,.... - L-- I--J ~ L-- ~ I...-- I- .1
r- ~ .-- - .-- ~ .-- ~ .......
....... '- - .- ....... \- ....... c- c- \7
0 DD~ I-- L-- ~ ill1Iillillilli _ I--- '- I- f-- '--
z ~ L.....< L-- !- ~ I- c-I...--V
I II I II r--' .- - - r- ,.- -
r- ------ \- .-- I-'- \- 'V
'- f-- - _ l- I- - c-
I-iHHH -r1H:1HH Hl-i f- '- f-- f-- '- f-- -V
..- ,.- ....... ......, _ ~ r-
"""F 1=r ,I... 1-1 1-1 ~ \- - .- 1...---1-[7
'- L-- f-- ~ '-
'- L-- ~ '-
.- - .-- \- ....... - V
I- - - illJill1DllIIli r- - V
'- '- I- ~ ~ -
'- - ..... 1-/
..- \- r- \-
- r- 1 .....-e-V
~ 1
} { H l- \-L--V
.-
r- h1 '-v
'-II j
fi L-
L- .
.
-bmibitU
...
. ~AILlNU 2Il'O"
." nl"x5\l"
0
'"
,... xl1/' n
I;I::l
.
.
t:1
....
Z
Z
o
:=
o
o
i!::
~
o
><l
tzt
~
~
,.t
-
a-:
."
>
'""'l
....
o
pq
....
t-:I
n
=
tI:l
Z
'1rf'xsr
r---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t""
=<
Z
o
~
o
o
===
~
~
..:;1
~
I
AK RAILING
go
z>
fI,.,
~>
00
;otl:l
Ih'-o',;,'..o' - - - - -
OV-""'A - - -
.....""" 0 DOOR - - - -
..,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
II'Il"
~
'=l,
rxh,biTL--
..
- . ;:J;."'':=:~':i,;' .., .
.
~'ti"iJT
:t
::t
, I .
,
,
,
,
,
-1'6"131" ,
,
, ~
,
< ,
, tI:I
,
, I 0
, l'd
I s:
,
"' : ....
, I .....
= q I ~
0
:;l:1 <. ,
=:: / I)
,
Ok: ,
~ ,
r:
- --
I I
I I ""
'"
I I 0:
-- 1__ J H,.I,LF WALL WI OAK CAP
2T
~ 1.0 D WI R~ be,
,..
a::
> "- ~.
CI;l
o-i ---------,
1:%:1 >0
:::0
I::D
C ... ~
po I :.... 1:1:1 ~
a:: <t !":l > ..
~ ...
..
0 =
g
~--~~~~........ CJ
28'0'
.
.
S(~ibitG
JAN-30-2003 14:11
WSB & ASSOCIATES
7635411700
0_......
.. ""
I I
( .. ....1
.1... ..n.
U.lfl1"'~
CREEK-SlOE TERR"CE
RIVER TERRACE 2ND 1.IlO1TION
CRErK -SlOE TrRR"CE
LOT 8, PAACEL "
.
,
.,,~
._~ .,.._-:=.
WSB _....11
fI!I!!I!!!II ...llllI'.~
City of "lntloeU.
Dolt' _."y ,g, 2003
WSIl Prof"' "6. 0148l1-llO'
Otlll ell. ROld
fl.... ... ,
lU\ttINlIll
P.02
t:xh,bit b
.
.
.
Brent and Laura T azelaar
1124 Sandy Lane
Monticello, MN 55362
(763) 295-2909
October 22, 2002
Attention:
Planning Commission Members
Subject: Re-Zoning/Development of the Westside Market Property Letter of October 15,2002 Sent to
Following City Council Members: Jeff O'Neill; Rick Wolfsteller; Clint Herbst; Bruce
Theilen; Roger Belsaas; Brian Stumpf; Roger Carlson
The following text was sent to the above individuals in a letter dated October 15, 2002:
I am writing to express some frustrations and concerns about the above-mentioned subject. I attended
the meeting on October 1, 2002 held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission as a result of a
notice I received regarding the Public Hearings. When this item of the agenda was addressed before
the commission and those of us present from the public, several details were left out prior to public
comments. There was no mention of restricted (or refused) access from County Road 75, nor was
there mention of the idea of using an alley driveway. It wasn't until public comments were closed that
these details were mentioned. When they opened up again for comments from the public the person in
charge of this meeting was VERY short with the public and only allowed two individuals to speak. I
attempted to speak and was not even acknowledged. This project will impact me greatly as my
residence is directly behind the subject property.
I contacted council member, Clint Herbst, after the October 1 st meeting to discuss my concerns and
was very well received. I appreciated being able to express my concerns and was assured that I would
be able to present them before the City Council on October 14th. I shared with Clint that we are very
open to having homes built on this property and the number of them is not an issue, however, I
strongly disagree with the idea of an alley driveway (more on this later). In consideration for the
residences that are adjacent to this property, I requested that a quality 8' fence be built with natural
landscaping that would mature quickly and would take the place of this fence several years later
(regardless of alley or frontage road). This could be part ofa Conditional Use Permit.
On October 14th, I attended the City Council meeting. I want to thank Clint for speaking up on behalf
of the residences, however not much consideration was made to what he presented. With regards to
the alley driveway vs. frontage road there was no interest for discussion to consider the alternatives.
Also, with the mention of the fencing it was noted that landscaping would be sufficient. It was also
very frustrating that the council would not allow the public to speak, but rather sent the developer away
to a~veJop HlS n!ap.s for th~ property with little or no consideration to those families that it will ip1PlWJ
who currently live in the area. Just to note that the notice I received regarding the public hearings
listed both meetings, and the heading on this notice said "Notice of Public Hearings" (hearings is
plural).
6Xhibit- S
Westside Market Property DevelopmentlTazelaar
October 22, 2002
Page 2
Why a frontage road vs. alley driveway???
· The majority of the existing homes on County Road 75 have road-side driveways with garages in
the front. On October I SI there was lots of talk about keeping this development consistent with the
surrounding area. How would an alley driveway and rear garage be consistent with the majority??
· An alley would provide a welcome area for crime to take place. We have lived here for two years
and twice our vehicles have been broke into. Our street is dark and late at night there is not much
traffic. The most recent occurred during the early hours of October 5th, 2002 and I know of another
neighbor whose car was also broke into on this occasion. Items were stolen from both of our cars.
· With an alley driveway and garages in the back of the homes, where would families put swing sets
and play equipment for their children to play on? (I recall that the target home owner of these
dwellings are families with children)
· A frontage road would act as a boundary for children when playing out front and would keep them
at a safer distance from County Road 75.
· How safe is it for children to play in a secluded alley driveway??
· I personally have not seen many alley driveways that don't end up looking like a junk pile or
garbage collection area. With an alley driveway, would there be guidelines/requirements for
upkeep to reduce this possibility? Would there be a monitoring process to make sure
guidelines/requirements are maintained?
· What about snow removal in the winter??? If there is an alley driveway with a fence, the snow
would be piled up against the fence, speeding up the rotting factor. If there were no fence, the
snow would end up in our backyards.
· I have a concern about the noise level of cars coming and going this closely to our backyard with
an alley driveway. In addition, I am not looking forward to headlights shining in our bedroom
windows.
Additional Questions:
Will there be lighting in the alley driveway???? If so, where will they be located?
Will the alley driveway/frontage road and private driveways be tar or gravel??
Why is the city/county so opposed to entrance from County Road 75? What if it was only one
entrance located on the east side of this property closer to the already existing residence
(frontage road mendly)???
One last COmment about the fencing request, I operate a day care business from my home and fot the
safety of the children playing in my backyard, I feel it extremely important to have adequate fencing
(especially with the density of the proposed development).
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I am hopeful that you will consider the items I
presented as the project progresses. Please keep in mind that we who are currently living in the area of
the development will be greatly impacted by the decisions you make.
Sincerely,
(~~~\.~~
Laura Tazelaar (763) 295-2909
1124 Sandy Lane
Monticello, MN 55362
C:\My DocwnenlS\Planning Commission I 01S02.doc
.
.
.
.
.
.
Attachment to October 22,2002 Tazelaar Letter
I spoke with Jeff O'Neill on October 15th and appreciate him giving me the professional developer
opinion regarding the development of the Westside Market Property. I understand the importance of
having and development that looks appealing to the community and one way to do this would be to use
an alley driveway. Jeff indicated that this is why the he is supporting this approach. I also understand
his theory about backyards and how people put up storage shed, etc. and start to pile up junk in their
backyards. However, I still feel for the reasons indicated in my original letter that an alley driveway
would not be best option.
~
b
Monticello Planning Commission
City Hall
Monticello, MN 55362
.
Edward Solberg
1204 Sandy Lane
Monticello, MN 55362
October 23,2002
Westside Market Zoning Request
In the fifteen years that I have lived in Monticello, at 1204 Sandy Lane, I
have attended numerous hearings regarding requests to degrade the zoning
of the West Side Market property. Until now, the Planning Commission has
turned down all such requests finding them to be without merit. Economics
appears to have been the driving force behind all these requests, and it also
seems to be what has prompted this latest request for rezoning. Its been my
understanding that zoning ordinances are designed to protect the value of
neighborhood property and to prohibit construction of dwellings that are
inconsistent with those in the surrounding area.
I have no problem at all with Mr. Holthaus' demolishing the West Side
Market, no one I have spoken to, and no one who appeared at the public
hearings held before the Commission or the City Council objected to his
building of homes on this land. I feel that Mr. Holthaus just has to abide by
the current zoning restrictions. I know he argues that it would not make
sense economically f~r him to do so, but that is not a problem my neighbors,
me or the City is required to solve.
When Mr. Holthaus bought the property, he knew what the zoning
ordinance stated, he was allowed to build the West Side Market under a
Grandfather provision of the zoning ordinance. Although he made an
agreement, that if granted permission, he would ;1sk for no further changes
in the zoning of this property, I think the record speaks for itself that he has
been back numerous times asking for changes, revisions and exceptions to
the ordinance. What's to say his record would change should his request for
re-zoning be allowed. I appeal to the Commission to deny this request for a
zoning change.
.
\J
Sincerely,
~<fZ ?~7
-_.....1 ~"""""",
~i:~'\-::..~-~:_.~~~.~,)~}/. L::;:: i\\,'
!iH. OCT 23 2002 iil:.
,Ii, ! 'I ;.
I', I' I. "
IL: L I i L'~/
I
6<~;bi1- E.
.
.
.
, "
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/04
8.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a concept stage planned ul!it
development approval for a mixed use development including residential,
commercial and industrial uses. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development Inc.
(NAC)
REFRENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Gold Nugget is a 220 acre site located directly south of the Kjellberg East trailer park.
abutting Highway 25 to the West, 851h Street to the south, and County Road 117 to the
east. The site. which is in the process of being annexed into the city, is being proposed as
a multi-use project. consisting of ISO acres of residential. 10 acres of commercial. and 60
acres of light industrial. The site is currently zoned A-O, Agricultural- Open Space. and
a rezone will need to be approved prior to final plat.
The Gold Nugget site has a history that reaches back several years. Plans were submitted
for this site in 1998, however the applicant was forced to await a resolution between City
representatives on the MOAA and the majority of the City Council concerning the use of
the site. The Orderly Annexation Board, including the City representatives on the board.
preferred the site for strictly industrial development. while the City's future land use plan
designated the site for low density single family residential development. A compromise
was reached at the City level when the Comp Plan was updated. where it was decided
that a seventy acre portion abutting highway 25 would be reserved for light industrial and
commercial while the remainder of the site would be low density single family
residential.
The site is proposed to be developed in phases, with the 150 acres of residential area
being developed first. A Planned Unit Development overlay is being proposed in order
to allow three types of residential uses. The make up of these uses are as follows; 170
single family detached homes at the central and eastern portion of the site. 68 quad homes
at the central and western portion of the site, and 123 row homes located at the northern
portion of the site. abutting the trailer homes. A total of 370 dwelling units are proposed
and the residential portion of the site consists of approximately 17 acres of park land, 12
acres of ponding, and 7 acres of easement, (including 851h street and county road 117
right-of-way), giving the project a total density of 3.2 units per net acre and 2.5 units per
gross acre. The remainder of the site will include 60 acres ofI-l A industrial abutting
Highway 25 and 10 acres of B-2 (neighborhood) commercial area along the southwest
corner of the project area.
Land Use. The land use proposed for the residential site reflects the City's future land
use and Comprehensive Plan for the area, which has been the subject of numerous
discussions between the City, the Township, and the developer. The land use plan
designation for this area is low density residential. Attached housing is a possible
development style under a PUD arrangement, subject to the overall density staying within
the permitted 3 units per net developable acre and 4 units per gross acre. The proposed
~",~:~',
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/04
project has managed to stay within the density requirements, regardless that a majority of
the units are to be attached units. This can be attributed to a few things, including what
.
appears to be a number of larger than normal lots. The applicant is requesting a PUD
overlay, which gives some flexibility in overall design and performance standards,
however the Planning Commission must decide if designating a majority of the housing
units for attached housing is inconsistent with the City's plan for the residential portion of
this site.
The land pattern being proposed for the remainder of the site includes a 10 acre area
designated for B-2 zoning, Limited Business, and 60 acres ofI-IA zoning, Light
Industrial. It should be noted that at the request for rezoning, a public hearing should be
requested by the land owner to amend the future land use plan to designate this as a
commercial area. With this amendment, the proposed project will be reflective of the
City's proposed pattern for use in this area.
Commercial Growth Area Boundary. As previously noted, the inclusion of the 10
acre commercial area requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The
purpose of this distinction is limit the lineal commercial development south along
Highway 25.
The Planning Commission may want to reduce the commercial acreage and limit uses to .
neighborhood commercial and restrict highway commercial uses. These restrictions
could naturally result in a reduction in land for commercial uses at this location.
Site/Lot Design. It is important to plan for this projects future connection to
surrounding sites. There is an aPRroximate 4.5 acre piece of land at the northwest corner
of the Edmonson A venue and 85t I Street intersection, which is not owned by the
applicant. The applicant should Ghost Plat this property, showing its ability to connect to
the proposed development in a reasonable manner.
The single family lot design for this site appears to meet the standards as described in the
Subdivision Ordinance. One problem however is the design of lots 163 through 170, in
particular lot 166. This is an irregular lot, often referred in Subdivision Ordinances as a
"Butt Lot", in that it is located between two corner lots and is surrounded by rear yards.
This area should be redesigned to eliminate any irregular lots. The site design should
avoid the need for temporary dead end connections, such as the right-of-way fronting lots
4 and 5. Lots 4 and 5 should be turned in the same manner as lots 2 and 3. Also, lot lines
should not stop at the ponds, but should run through them on the plat.
Staff has some concerns with the depth of the Industrial areas, in regards to how it will be
subdivided, as well as the amount of ponding located within the industrial/commercial
area. The ponding that is within the 70 acre industrial/commercial area should exist to
support and handle that site and not to support the residential development.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/04
.
Buffering. The proposed project is using both large ponding areas and higher density
attached dwellings as a transition between the industrial. commercial. and mobile home
park uses to the north and west and the low density residential area to the east. Although
this buffering technique does work. staff does want to iterate that other alternatives such
as large berms. fencing, and thickly planted landscaping. can be used to screen the uses
both visually and audibly rather than using sLlch a large portion of the site for attached
housing, which is not generally congruent with low density single family development.
Circulation / Access. The residential portion of the site shows two access points off of
County Road 117 to the east, two access points to the south off of 85th Street and an
access to the west connecting the residential portion with the future industrial and
commercial uses, The applicant will need permission from the county for the access
points onto County Road 117, Approval by MnDOT will be needed for the access off of
Highway 25, and some right-of-way may be needed for the realignment of the
intersection at 85th Street and Highway 25. It should also be noted that funds will be
requested for the reconstruction of both Edmonson and 85th street.
.
Staff is generally comfortable with the meandering street pattern throughout the project.
Staff would prefer a 70 foot right-or-way throughout the project to allow for the
construction of a 36 foot street with sidewalk on each side. The two most westerly cul-
de-sacs exceed the maximum allowable 600 foot length for a cul-de-sac as described in
the City's Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 11, Section 5. 3(B). Cul-de-sacs are only
permitted where topography justifies there use. therefore the applicant should redesign
the site to connect these cul-de-sacs with the street system as wcll as connect the two
most easterly cul-de-sacs with each other in a loop design,
Staff would like the applicant to look into redesigning the quad home section in a manner
that would eliminate the need for the stubbed access drives. If this isn't possible,
turnarounds will be required,
.
Trail/Parks. The general park concept is consistent with the concept plan approved
late in 1998. The plans show an approximate 17 acre linear park and trail connection
running north and south through the center of the site. The subdivision ordinance
requires that 10% of the final plats gross area be dedicated for park use. In this case, the
dedicated amount exceeds the 15 acres required. The trail will need to be evaluated by
the parks commission as to its connection to other locations, both inside and outside of
the project area. Staff would suggest that the park and trail run along the southern
portion of the most northern pond rather than along the north side of the pond abutting
the trailer park as shown. Staff would also like the site plan to illustrate an east/west
connection from the currently shown termination of the trail along 85th Street and the
proposed extension of Cedar Street to the west. The parks commission has been looking
for area to develop a larger, active park with ball fields. The park land along 85th Street
may be suitable for this purpose. The Parks Commission will want to take into account
soil types and water conditions when considering if the area dedicated is suitable for park
and trail use.
"
.J
-
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/04/04
.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Plan for the Gold Nugget PUD.
with comments to be noted, based on a finding that ht project is consistent with
the City's future land use plan. Motion contingent on review and approval of the
park plan by the Parks Commission.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Plan, based on a finding that the
project is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is premature for
development at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The concept plan review is the Planning Commission and City Council's opportunity to
provide' feedback to the developer regarding a wide variety of issues prior to the
preparation of a detailed development proposal. Issues may include more detailed design
concerns that the City may believe are critical to further consideration of the project. or
may also be related to more general land use and development planning. including the
staging or direction of future City growth. As with any PUD, the City should be able to
identify the tangible advantages that PUD zoning flexibility offers. Staff does not offer a
specific recommendation at concept stage. except to raise issues that may impact the .
City"s consideration ofa project, or conditions that the developer should expect to see if
the project proceeds further.
Items that the Planning Commission should focus on in their discussion should include.
but not be limited to, the following:
· Ratio of single family to townhouse development. Is density acceptable?
· Is the size of commercial area acceptable? Should uses be restricted to
neighborhood uses?
· Discuss site amenities or "extras" justifying the use of PUD. What are the
attributes that make this project superior to a standard subdivision?
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Site Location Map
Site Plan
Future Land Use Map
.
4
-
.;T;.-;::,r~~
/
\</
. /
.~ ~'v
\
.
NO SCAlE
TOWNSHIP 121 N, RANGE 25 W
/
...
I~
/.
Ii
~ !~ iA'~/
/~' I
o ~ / .
g ~
IS
-- I ~
!ol
~ ~
1Ij'l /1//
,I, Iff/
I'
/,"/ I'
111/ .~....
//! ~f
~/i f:J
. (m;; !!oil! O't'O~_
AJ.Nnoo)
(o!
:I
I I
lS't']HUION . ~~~ _ _ ~~'!...(J] _ _ _ _ _ _ J :
. . - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I i
I I
I \
I I
-'~I_L_
. -1- 1
I I
I I
I I.
I I
I I
I I
1
~
\>0
CJ~
o
c::>
~
C>
C>
<P
<P
<:?
c?
<:>
- --
~
:;
11
~ l:
II
c?
<>
~~
<:?
<:?
~
~o
~
o.
0"
~
u
D
~
.J(f)
~w
e:n::
(f)U
::><(
0,-,
".........
-.............. ..
'-
~~l1oo1o\~\~.\,I."'~~U'J!
.....__lIr
...
It-
...
~~~
~~ 'D~
f-j ,-
.r=-
jJ;- -,
~ I~" ~~P'
:i~"--D . -"
-..(J -
I
~J1iT.I
i1 J~rjr'U
~ 'bl&1) ~"jt:- ~ '(f
I . rItjyJ IJ ~ 151_. ,'- J
4-_~~T~~~-
~ --LcL __ __ _~~
"'1
~
.
~-........._,
.
II~~IJ
CJ
C:J
..
c::J
..
..
..
~!HIHU1)
....-~'........'.....~.....----
....
MONTICELLO
LONG RANGE LAND USE
c=~
l>>
r
~~~\(
...,~ ~I f,"J..
~I"""
~. '"
~
~ ...
~
s
N
W.'
IL-J
R-U
I---
-- -
- ~."C
~ 1}:~---:
~ ,
....
llro.c IfElU
_ r('\
~~ 1;
! r: t:i- 'r\\ r:: "-
........ [tJ_
.....----, I.--
H
~q-
T ~ ..~
]r [__
......
~ --.~~~ ~
~"!ll;";';' ~-'lI-91
~ ~. - f-liI~
School f.'l rIf.' b:: ::::::::II
"l~ ~;-- ~
~ hi ~~ ~b-
~ , '[~
~ 1A _J. ~~r
h 1 ~I ~
r"'~ h I ~~ T~
~ rfl "\u-~~2
<!l-.:1 "" "'-
N' .-'
lQ][b .-'-
{J
::JL~ F ~ dr rl
nn
r I
1
-~~-----......,.......
Low Density Reaidential
Expansion Area
Low Density Reaidentlal (R-1)
Low Density Residential (R-1A)
Future Land Use Objectives:
Medium Density (attached h*ll.)
* Allow for a mix of land ua..
· PfNerve and PI'Ot8ct natural f'MOU/"CN
* PlOvlde road ay8tem fo .uppon glOwth
* Retl!Iln rural chlll7Jcter and II .",./1 town feel
· U.e exJatlng lImenltlea (I.e. vlewa, lak-. ttMa)
to enhance development
· Ptevent apfllw/ by encouraging compact
development psttem
Urban Mixed-Ute
Commercial
IndUfltrial
Open Space
j
'"'...............,~,','-,'----'-.,''''"-,,-,--~,~,-,-,-~,._-,-~,. .,-'-'-".,,,.,~.,-,,--"'-,--,,-,,-,.,','-,--
Mobile Home Park