Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 05-06-2003 . . . AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - May 6, 2003 6:00 P.M. ~ Members: Council Liaison: Staff: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and David Rietveld Brian Stumpf Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held April 1. 2003. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an interim use permit allowing a public school use in the 1-1 District. Applicant: Monticello Public Schools 6. Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for a variance to the rear yard setbacks to allow construction of a 20' x 26' building addition. Applicant: Michael Renstrom 7. Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for development stage planned unit development allowing 8 single family units in a proposed R~2A district. Applicant: Tom Holthaus 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for concept stage planned unit development and preliminary plat approval, and consideration of a request to rezone from AO to R-I A and R- 2A. Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of preliminary plat approval of the Otter Creek Crossing commercial subdivision. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a concept stage planned unit development in the R-2 District. Applicant: Richard Carlson 11. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for development stage planned unit development and preliminary plat approval, along with a request for re-zoning from Agriculture-Open Space to a combination of R-l, single family residential, R-2, single and two family residential, 1-1 A, light industrial, and B-2, limited business district. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development Inc. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to a commercial planned unit development allowing an expansion to an auto sales area. Applicant: Monticello Ford/Dave Peterson 13. Adjourn -1- . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - Aprill, 2003 6:00 P.M. Members: Council Liaison: Staff: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and David Rietveld Brian Stumpf Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman 1 . Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and declared a quorum. On behalf of the City Council and Planning Commission, Chair Frie welcomed Dave Rietveld to the Planning Commission. Chair Frie also thanked Vice Chair Carlson for chairing the March 4, 2003 meeting. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held March 4.2003. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCI-I 4, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH CHAIR FRIE AND DAVE RIETVELD ABSTAINING. '" .:t. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, advised of a request for the Planning Commission to call for a public hearing clarifying new residential setback standards. This was placed as item lOon the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for concept stage planned unit development to construct office/retail building and parking. Applicant: Mike Cyr/MLC Building & Remodeling and Libertv Savings Bank Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report and summarized the applicant's request for concept stage approval for a proposed planned unit development to construct office/retail and parking. The parcel would be split and platted into two buildable lots for a commercial building on each site, noting the site is adjacent to the Liberty Savings Bank and is zoned PZM which allows a potential mix of land uses, primarily commercial. Grittman advised that a conditional use permit would be required for the types of uses the -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 applicant is proposing, the PUD process which provides the review for this project. He also noted that perimeter setbacks would be the same as the zoning district within which the development would be located if it were in a standard zone. For this project, the applicable zoning district would be B-4, general business, and this district permits zero setbacks. An internal parking lot is proposed with two driveways located off of Hart Blvd. Total square footage of the project is approx. ] 5,700 with 75 parking spaces, consistent with the zoning ordinance and meeting all zoning requirements. . Grittman provided a concept drawing of the buildings as well and recommended that building materials be brick, stone, decorative block, and stucco, without the use of lapped siding. He added that staff also suggested that the preliminary plat not be addressed at this time, but rather with the development phase. O'Neill questioned what aspects of the site might be superior in design to allow a PUD and Grittman stated the ability to combine the parking lot for shared access/drives, further stating that two separate lots provide good access. Grittman advised that city code does not address architecture, but a PUD would give the city the opportunity to address it. They discussed access off Hart Blvd. with two driveways serving both sites off Libel1y Lane, and street names would have to finalized, referring to Hart Blvd. and Liberty Lane being one and the same and would be addressed as part of the plat. Grittman also . commented that driveway locations must be coordinated with any potential development across the street to the west and the City Engineer would address this at the next phase. Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. Dragsten felt this would be a nice project that would fit well at that location. Mike Cyr, MLC Building and Remodeling, advised that he preferred to have the option of two parcels for possible future development. Cyr clarified there would be an overriding agreement for shared parking and that this layout seems to be the best use of the property, also allowing for pond retention in the corner. There were concerns with the B-4 zoning intent and zero setbacks and Frie recalled that Liberty Bank was required to meet stricter setback requirements and questioned if this zoning was to circumvent that. Grittman stated that a PZM district does not state setbacks, and staff felt B-4 would be the zoning district used to accommodate the uses proposed. Frie asked if this was also available to Liberty Bank and Grittman stated he did not recall them requiring a CUP. Frie again stated he recalled they were more demanding with setbacks for the bank and wanted to make sure that zoning was not being changed to accommodate the applicant. Grittman added that staff had reviewed the project by looking at the uses proposed, which are allowed in the PZM, and then looked into the commercial district to see which district . would apply if these uses were proposed, stating that is the way a PZM district works. He -2- Planning Commission Minutes. 04/01/03 . added that this is consistent with the PZM structure, and the B-4 district states zero sethacks, which the PZM follows. Cyr advised that he is not building to the lot lines and has the buildings set back. There was fUlther discussion that with zero setbacks, they could build to the lot lines and have no landscaping, which Carlson felt was not conforming with the site. Grittman stated it was possible to move the building to the center and push parking to within 5 feet of the lot line, but he did not feel that would gain them any landscaping and he was not sure that additional setbacks accomplishes the goal of increased green space. Grittman further added that with a PUD the City could ask for increased landscaping. O'Neill advised that he could check the records regarding the Liberty Bank site, adding that perhaps they used two different setbacks for that site and possibly applied the B-2 requirements. Grittman again advised how the PZM district works, noting the difficulty with the PZM district but that it was written intentionally that way, and suggested that the Planning Commission review this further by verifying that the developer complies with what the City feels should be the intent of that district. . There was further discussion on relating this plat with the Liberty Bank plat in regard to setbacks and proper zoning. It was advised that the city designated PZM zoning for this area. Frie recalled this issue had been discussed previously as to what this area should be zoned and it was determined to zone PZM to allow flexible zoning. Frie asked Carlson if he was receptive to having staff come back with setback information on adjacent properties and Carlson agreed. Grittman advised that this would apply to the east side of Co Rd 39 as well. Cyr advised that they had already considered brick or stone and wains coat, with stucco on the balance of the building for building materials. Frie then questioned if there was a staff member involved with this project, and if so, would there be a conf1ict of interest if that person was involved in decision making. Cyr advised that if there was staff involved it would strictly be as investors. O'Neill assured that ifany staff person was involved, they would have no influence or input on this proposal. Frie noted that he had received phone calls in this regard. Decision 1: Concept Stage PUD for Liberty Park . A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD FOR A TWO-BUILDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS LIBERTY PARK, WITH THE FINDING THAT THE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PZM ZONING AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT COORDINATE THE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS WITH OTHER NEARBY DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD PLANS INCLUDE BUILDING MATERIALS. LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING PLANS, AND OTHER STANDARD PUD SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Liberty Park . A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LIBERTY PARK, DIRECTING STAFF TO REVIEW REQUIRED BUILDING MATERIALS, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS, AND UTILITY PLANS. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Continued Public Hearing: - Consideration of amendments to the district boundary map identified in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the staff report advising of previous changes in the layout of the downtown district map. He added that the Planning Commission was asked to consider additional changes to the map with regard to the former Marquette Bank site as well as the former Library site. He stated all the developments have been consistent but do not necessarily match up with the map and staff would like to bring it into consistency. Changes proposed include changing the former Library site from Civic uses to "Walnut Street District", and change the former Marquette Bank site from "Walnut Street" to "Civic Use District". The Towne Center site would also be changed from "Civic Use District" to "Walnut Street District". Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. There was no further discussion. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN REVIT ALIZA TION DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 7. Consideration of a request of Home Depot to allow a pylon sign in excess of the zoning requirements. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the report regarding Home Depot's sign proposal. He stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed this proposal at the original PUD approval, but reserved discussion on the free standing sign proposal for further analysis from Home Depot and staff. Home Depot is proposing a 60 ft. sign versus the initial 80 ft. sign, stating that Home Depot had determined 60 ft. would accommodate their interests. Grittman advised that the Planning Commission would need to use some type of PUD rationale to approve a sign of this magnitude, stating they should make a finding for how this proposal would benefit the city from a zoning standpoint. Grittman stated they specifically stayed away from a variance approach as the findings for hardship are wry difficult regarding signs. Staff suggested that a PUD trade off might be some way of exchanging some other sign limitations on that site for a taller free standing sign, possibly by reducing other signage, although it was noted that the other proposed signs were in compliance. Grittman . -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 . advised that the other option would be to amend the ordinance, but that they would have to establish requirements that were not in effect for previous applicants, and felt that maintaining the regulations would be best, recommending the Planning Commission look at it from a PUD standpoint instead. Grittman further noted that the request is for a 60 ft. high pylon sign, 160 sq. ft. in width for both Home Depot and tenant, stating that this is almost double the size that the city would typically allow with a pylon sign. The largest pylon allowed there would be 200 sq. ft. Rietveld stated that he had looked at 4 to 5 Home Depot signs in the area and found most others were not as high as what the applicant is requesting and asked Jennifer Maxwell, Site Development Coordinator with Greenberg Farrow, what would happen if only a 38 ft. sign was allowed. Maxwell stated that given the fact that Monticello is not a destination for retail, there is no visibility at the location from 1-94 or Hwy 25, and the site is located one road removed from Hwy. 25, they needed another large retailer to locate with them, as well as the need for a taller sign to get visibility. Frie asked if there was a comparable to this signage at another Home Depot site and Maxwell stated there was at their location in Albert Lea, and this sign is actually 100 ft. tall, as that is also not a retail site. . Frie asked if uniqueness would be a justification for allowing the sign to be taller than the ordinance allows, stating he had heard from several residents that they felt this was a unique site and questioned if they could justify a uniqueness in the size of the site. He also reminded them that the Mielke sign was allowcd at 57' versus the 32' allowablc. Grittman stated that this should be stated in their findings for approval, but also need to state what the tradeoffs would be. Frie also stated that they have discussed in the past that the city would like to see the Hwy 25 corridor as retail. Stumpf was concerned with future developments further down Hwy 25 requesting taller signs and questioned where to draw the line. Grittman concurred. He stated visibility from the freeway is a poor justification for approval and the Planning Commission should use some aspect for this site or development that makes it unique. . It was further discussed that they need to find the fairest and easiest way to apply sign regulations. O'Neill advised that the Mielke and Peterson projects were both PUDs and certain aspects of these sites were considered when determining signage. He further stated that in speaking with Home Depot, they were willing to have monument signs advertising other businesses in that area as well, the taller sign would be Home Depot and Retail B. They will work with staff on attractive low level monuments for visibility along Chelsea Road as well. They do not anticipate a high pylon sign for the fuel center, and they would agree to a lower monument if they were approved for a 60 ft. pylon. It was also noted that 22 ft. is the standard height for monuments and I-lame Depot is proposing 17 ft. MJxwell asked that the Planning Commission look at flexibility, adding that if they are able to have a higher pylon and added landscaping, upgraded architectural elevations, and trees planted in front of the store, she felt that within the flexibility of the PUD zoning this could be looked at as justification. -5~ O'Neill felt that possibly because of the magnitude of the site. they could justify the higher pylon. This also would deter smaller sites fmiher down Hwy. 25 from applying for taller signs. Stumpf asked if under a PUD would they have the authority to take these on a case by case basis and asked Carlson for his reasoning for looking at the entire ordinance. Carlson felt the sign ordinance needed to be strengthened and doesn't feel the Planning Commission should be in a situation to have to consider higher sign requests. He felt that there may be more inquiry on signage if this one was approved. Frie agreed that each issue should be looked at individually and based on the size of the site, would give some type of justification. Dragsten concurred. Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 . Hilgart asked if whether the sign is approved or not would it determine whether Home Depot would come to Monticello and Maxwell said there were two conCerns with Home Depot coming to Monticello, one being the need for another large retailer and the other being visibility, further stating that their marketing team was not comfortable with this site. She also stated they have a strong interested party as the other large retailer. Frie asked Stumpf if he felt the City Council would feel comfortable reviewing the sign criteria again and he stated yes, and that it had already been suggested at City Council level. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING SIGNS. THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THE MOTION AND THE MOTION FAILED. There was further discussion by Rietveld that there is a 57 ft. sign in that area already. and because of the size of this site and the fact that the sign will be shared with another tenant. he felt it was justifiable. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVID RIETVELD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A TALLER AND LARGER PYLON SIGN FOR THE HOME DEPOT AND RETAIL B COMPLEX, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE USE OF THE PUD WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO EXCHANGE APPROVAL OF THE TALLER SIGN FOR OTHER SIGN RESTRICTIONS THAT WILL RESUL T IN A SUPERIOR DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING MONUMENT SIGNS IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL TENANTS ONL Y. There was further discussion that allowable sign height be stated in the motion, as well as the tradeoffs in exchange for allowing higher sign height. RIETVELD AMENDED THE MOTION TO STATE MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT TO BE 60 FEET, IN EXCHANGE FOR 17 FOOT MONUMENTS AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THEY FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT ANY SIGNAGE ON THE FUTURE PARCEL TO BE MONUMENT ONL Y AND THAT SQUARE FOOT AGE OF THE SITE AS WELL AS . THAT IT IS NOT CONTIGUOUS TO 1-94 BE CONSIDERED. WITH NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH ROD DRAGSTEN VOTING IN -6- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/0 I /03 OPPOSITION. There was discussion regarding a workshop date to review sign criteria and it was the consensus to hold a public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVISIT CURRENT SIGN ORDINANCE REGARDING MONUMENT AND PYLON SIGNS IN RELATION TO HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have staff provide information on current sign ordinance versus amendments to the ordinance at the May meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVISIT CURRENT SIGN ORDINANCE REGARDING MONUMENT AND PYLON SIGNS IN RELATION TO HEIGHT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have staff provide information on current sign ordinance versus amendments to the ordinance at the May meeting. 8. Discuss residential design requirements for planned unit developments in the Orif,!,inal Plat of the Citv of Monticello. O'Neill advised that the developer was not present but was interested in feedback from the Planning Commission for a proposed development on W. 3rJ Street. He provided a sketch plan but stated it was not necessarily what the applicant is proposing, only some options. He stated the this developer has been in contact with the owners of the old S1. Henry's church in this regard as well. O'Neill asked for feedback on how they felt about maintaining the older part of town with traditional 2 stories facing the street, versus more modern town home developments which are more clustered with parking possibly centralized in the middle. Do they want to retain the character and charm of the old part of town. O'Neill stated staff would like to be able to advise developers who come in with proposals on what the city is looking for in regard to redevelopment and would like direction. O'Neill stated there is some design control at this time, but many of the projects may require CUP or PUD's. Frie stated that it is time for the community to address town homes versus detached homes, and maybe the City Council needs to take a stand on traditional standards, stating that he is in favor of traditional, although he does understand it is market driven. O'Neill stated that this developer stated he felt the market was for one level homes, but traditionally they are 2 story in this area. Frie asked if 2 story would draw more families with children for growth in the schools. Carlson stated they should possibly look at setbacks as welL as in the case of the Vine Place development where there is more of a feeling of a neighborhood. -7- Planning COl11l11 ission Minutes - 04/0 I /03 Mike Cyr, MLC Building, addressed the Planning Commission and advised that he felt any idea of a traditional style in Monticello is a myth. O'Neill stated the point is that we have a grid system that is traditional and do we want to maintain that, but maybe this has been lost already. He also questioned if the city wants to allow one central drive in the middle of a development in the old part of town. Cyr advised that his decision to build that style was done with research and buyers of his properties not wanting lawns. There was discussion that they would like to see a sense of community, but not be rigid with standards, and to work with the developments as they come in. Carlson also offered a recommendation on the sketch plan provided. 9. Consideration of calline for a public hearing on a Comprehensive Plan amendment that establishes a ratio of single family to two family development in developing areas. O'Neill advised that this was initially brought up at City Council level, asking the Planning Commission to do some homework on patterns of development in the low density residential developments. Those areas are starting to ripen for development and are mixed uses of townhomes and single family detached. The mix is moving toward more attached townhome developments and staff has had input hom the school district questioning if we are developing too many townhomes. O'Neill also stated they've had input that they are getting 3 units per acre or less and nice townhomes. O'Neill provided a map showing the potential future developments as well as a table showing ratio of attached versus detached. There appears to be a correlation between the price of land as a factor in the number of townhomes. O'Neill stated the main question is would they like staff to look at standards for ratios of detached and attached housing. Grittman advised of a possihle ratio to be applied such as for every 2 single family there be 1 attached townhome, giving a mix of uses. O'Neill advised of the Gold Nugget project moving in that direction, which staff directed them to do. Grittman advised that the 3 units per acre is used as a guideline for low density but it is not in the comp plan. Frie felt if they just complied with the comp plan the way it is written this would not be an issue. Grittman clarified they used the 3 units per acre rationale prior to the camp plan. What staff is suggesting is that they supplement interpretation of density for interpretation of unit style, advising that in the comp plan as an amendment, there is the statement for predominantly single family detached. Staff is hoping for additional language in the camp plan to guide staff when developers come in. There was discussion on changing the density lower than 3 units per acre and Grittman stated it would be unique to do that and would end up re-educating all developers. What they are suggesting is redefining what housing they can develop in a low density area. O'Neill advised of the proposal on the Hermes property stating these will be rich variety, all upper-end homes. This may be a dilemma as they would not meet the 2 to ] ratio, but staff ~8- . . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/01/03 likes the proposed development and asked if there could be leeway in certain types of development. Staff would like to give developers a target ratio and if they would like to have more density, they would have to justify. Frie felt a public hearing would be in order. Dragsten didn't want to put restrictions on developments, noting that it has been stagnant and feels it is market driven, but worthwhile to look at and would like to see what other communities are doing. Grittman advised the 2 to 1 ratio is used in other communities, but there are also cities requiring far less units as well and it also depends on site size. Rietveld stated his concern with the number oftownhomes as well and he agreed that they should give staff direction and put together a plan that staff can work with. Grittman clarified the reasoning for having mixed development was that if they are predominantly single family detached they hold the value of the attached homes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT GOALS FOR THE CITY IN AREAS GUIDED FOR LOW DENSITY AND CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD RESULT IN REFINED DENSITY AND HOUSING TYPE STANDARDS IN LOW DENSITY AREAS. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 10. Clarifying setback standards in the R-IA zoning district. O'Neill advised that in reviewing ordinance amendments a few months ago it was found that there were areas that were not clear regarding setback standards in the R-I A zoning district. This is a housekeeping item. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW SETBACK STANDARDS FOR CLARIFICATION AND POSSIBLE MINOR AMENDMENTS, AS WELL AS CLARIFYING SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Adiourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. Recorder -9~ Planning Co III III ission Agenda - 05/06/03 . 5. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request to extend an existing Interim Use Permit for the Alternative Learning Program (ALP). Applicant: Monticello School District. (NAC) Reference and Background. The Alternative Learning Program of the School District is seeking approval for an extension of their Intcrim Use Permit to operate in an 1-1, Light Industrial location. The original permit was considered for the 1997-1998 school year, and was approved concurrent with an ordinance amendment imposing conditions induding the following: 1. A short-term termination datc is established in order to ensure that the City's industrial development objectives were not affected by the location of school facility in industrial areas. 2. The building was remodeled only to the extent that convenient re-use by office or industrial users would still be possible. . "'l 3. The parking was judged to bc adequate for the school use of the property. The City has reconsidered the permit once since the original application. At that time, discussion included the potential for a more permanent approval, however, it was determined that a temporary use was appropriate, given the industrial nature of the area, and thc likelihood that future industrial development would make the current location a concern. It would appear that continuation of the temporary IUP would still be the best alternative. Alternative Actions I. Motion to recommend approval of the Interim Use Pertnit for the Alternative Learning Program, based on a finding that the use has raised no concerns for surrounding industrial uses, and with conditions of the previous permit, listed above. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Interim Use Permit, based on a finding that the site should be converted to industrial use. Staff Recommendation . Staff recommends approval of the IUP. Conditions as listed in the original permit should continue to apply. The previous permits have run for three years. This should provide an 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 adequate opportunity for other locations to be considered, or for the City to reconsider the permit for an additional extension. Supportin~ Data None 2 . . . . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 6. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement in the R-t, Sinele Family District. Applicant: Michael Renstrom. (NAC) Reference and Background Michael Renstrom has submitted a proposal to construct a 520 square foot (26' x 20') addition to the rear of his home located at 112 Kevin Longley Drive. To accommodate the proposal. the approval of a variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback applicable to the property is necessary. Specifically, the applicant wishes to locate the addition 18' 6" from the rear property line, according to the site plan. As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed addition would be centrally located in the rear yard. According to the applicant, the addition is necessary to accommodate the health care needs of his wife and that the shallowness of the lot prevents adherence to the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement. In consideration of variance requests, the applicant is required to demonstrate that a unique physical condition of the property exists that creates a hardship in complying with the strict standards of the ordinance. While the health needs of the applicant's wife are appreciated, such needs cannot provide a sole basis for variance approval. The lot in question has an average depth of 96 feet, with a maximum depth along the east property line of 120 feet. In comparison to other area lots, it would be considered somewhat shallow. To be noted however, is that ample land area does appear to exist within that area of the rear yard to construct a building addition in conformance with the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement. With this in mind it does not appear that the tests for variance have not been met by this application. Alternative Actions 1. Motion to approve the rear yard setback variance based on a finding that a hardship exists in that the shallowness of the subject property prevents the applicant from satisfying ordinance setback requirements. 2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that the applicant has not demonstrated unique physical hardship and that an ability exists to comply with the applicable 30 foot rear yard setback requirement. '1 . I Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 Staff Recommendation The City Planner cannot recommend approval of the variance based on the findings stated. While the subject lot is considered shallow in comparison to other area lots, it appears that ample land area exists within the rear yard to accommodate a smaller building addition and meet the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement. Clearly, this would require a redesign of the proposal. However, the variance criteria are set up to create limits to building development on single family lots, and establish reasonable spacing between buildings in low density neighborhoods. The City Planner would encourage the applicant to create a design for building expansion that does not encroach on the required setback standards. Supporting Data 1. 2. Site Location Site Plan I I I I I 2 . . . ONl..., ~()~: ~~~ ~ ~'!Jf at\ \~ ~ '1..1 ' (( ..r )1 tz.." 1..1 _"I 0 Iy 'v OLESP' '"2 Q - t ~..- .( .J) N .~H~~ ........_._.......8............~.-.-- q; o .~...... ~ Weather Shield Windows &- Doors 539 East St. Germain Street St. Cloud, MN 56304 Toll Free 1-800-892-7015 Fax: (320) 251-2722 Toll Free Fax: 888-886-1066 -0 ~ :.J ... ~ ~ ~ W 9 9L ~ -rJ o o J .~ J 9 {O I' o o I t ~ .'. , ~ .1 .: ' '. "T,-;,.-L.------- ..- ~~ AI'& ~~.-d=i At~,. / i). . ...... 1:.' - . '(1,;'.' 'ee 'h~ffWearh~x;;' "1ii~iii.. ~in.. -'~aw-TM . .. y ~~' \i~ ~.:.J' to Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 . 7. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for development stage pun and preliminary plat review to accommodate an eight-unit detached residential development. Applicant: Tom Holthaus (NAC) \ Reference and Background The applicant is seeking approval of a development stage planned unit development and a preliminary plat to accommodate the redevelopment of the West Side Market property. 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 the retail operation will no longer be viable. The concept was recommended for approval with conditions by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council at in March 2003. The conditions noted at that time related to the landscape plan, buffer yard, building finish and roof detail, drive turnaround, and homeowner association documentation. . The re-zoning request was originally tabled by the Planning Commission and will be brought forward to the City Council in conjunction with development stage/preliminary plat approval. The proposed project is a series of eight single-family detached units served by private drive along the north side of the property. The project requires a PUD approval due to the lack of individual street accesses for the units (the County will not permit direct access to County Highway 75). The remainder of this report describes the findings made by City staff through their review in regards to how the PUD and preliminary plat meet the R-2A standards. The purpose of the R-2A district is to provide a small-lot residential option where smaller lots sizes can help to offset the cost of a higher level of amenities. The standards in this district call for lot sizes of 45 feet in width and 7,500 square feet in area. With the addition of Outlot A in the rear and a portion of City property on the west side of the plat adjacent to Otter Creek Road, each lot within the proposed project would meet the minimum standards. At this time, the applicant has not finalized acquisition of the necessary land area. If the land acquisition does not occur, only 6 of the 8 lots would conform to the R-2A requirements. . The realignment of Otter Creek Road will create additional land area adjacent to the applicants' parcel. The use of this land area is necessary to use the two westernmost lots for residential homes. Lot] would be a corner lot and have approx. 19 feet of street side 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 . yard. which exceeds the front yard setback of 15 feet. The total lot would be approximately 55 feet wide. More than half of this lot cUITently lies within the Otter Creek Road right of way. Lot 2 would be an interior lot and have the standard 45 foot width. However, a portion of the southwestern corner of the lot also lies within the CUITent Otter Creek Road right of way. It is necessary for the applicant to acquire a portion of the right of way in order to add the two lots located on the western portion of the site. Circulation and access to the lots is provided via a private drive on the north side of the plat that is listed as Outlot A. PUD approval is necessary for this privatc drive. With reconstruction of Otter Creek Road the alley access will be locatcd approximately 150 feet from the Otter Creek Road/Cty Rd 75 intersection. The access to the private drive will be approximately 24 feet wide and the alley will carry this width the entire length (approx 390 ft) from the access on the west to the hammerhead turn around area on the east side of the plat. The hammerhead turn around area is cause for concern due to lack of space. It is suggested that the building pad upon Lot 8 be reversed or flipped so as to provide more maneuvering space for vehicles using the hammerhead turn around. With eight units proposed for the site, it is expected that concrete curbing be installed around the perimeter of the drive area. Each individual driveway will be approximately 44 feet long and 22 feet wide. This would . be enough room to park two vehicles in addition to the 528 sq. ft. attached garage units, which is required for single family residences. The proposed housing should accomplish the Comprehensive Plan goal statemcnts for continuation of the traditional development pattern along County Highway 75. The proposed residential homes for the site have changed from single level rambler homes to two-story homes with a front porch and rear garage. The two-story homes provide a more uniform appearance along Broadway. With the proximity to the school, this family housing option should also be attractive to buyers in the market. As a PUD, it is expected that increased architectural character be integrated into the design ofthe homes. Three two-story home styles have been proposed, each with a smaller front porch area. The homes appear to have the same general fa<;ade but slight changes in the roof line provide variety and a less monotonous visual appearance. Four exterior color packages are available, each has different siding and trim colors. Brick is used within the front facade of each of the residence styles. Planning staff would encourage the use of larger porch areas to facilitate more active use, and maximize the architectural impact of the porch feature. As a PUD, staff also expects an increased amount of landscaping in return for the flexibility offered for the rear yard access. The R-2A District requires extensive landscaped areas in the front yards of the lots. The applicant is permitted to move the 2 . . . . Planning COl11l11 ission Agenda - 05/06/03 buildings closer to the front lot line in this district to minimize front yard landscaping as an alternative to large garden areas. This option would increase the landscaped buffer area along the rear property line. If the buildings remain in their proposed locations, additional landscaping needs to be added in front. After review of the submitted landscape plan, staff does not believe the plan is sufficient for the project. The landscape plan should include property lines, scale, quantities, sizes and scientific names of the plantings. There are uncertainties to some portions of the plan including the following: . There is no explanation for what the circles (presumably trees) along the north portion of the plan represent. More detail will have to be provided including the tree type, the tree size and more accurate spacing. If there are windows on the sides of the units there should be foundation plantings where there will be views from the neighboring units. There may be a problem with winter brown of yews on the south side of the units where they will receive full sun exposure. . . A review of the easements upon the preliminary plat provides cause for confusion. Side and rear yard property easements appear to be listed as 4 feet and 6 feet in different locations upon the lots within the plat. The easements upon the plat are expected to be 6 feet along property Jines between parcels. A 12 foot drainage and utility easement has not been shown along the eastern site boundary. The preliminary plat will have to be revised to provide the correct easement information. After review of the location of the proposed 8 foot walkway along Otter Creek Road, it should be noted that the walkway will have to curl towards the east somewhat, within the right-of-way area along Cty Rd 75. The preliminary plat places the walkway crossing at the corner intersection of Otter Creek Road and Cty Rd 75. However, the crossing location will actually have to be moved to the east to connect with the walkway across Cty Rd 75. The City Engineer has information that will direct the applicant's design in this area. Alternative Actions Decision 1: Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Pine View 1. Motion to recommend approval of development stage planned unit development, based on a finding that the proposed project offers substantial landscaping and architectural details in exchange for the private drive access for the units. "'l .) Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 . 2. Motion to recommend denial of development stage planned unit development, based on a finding that the proposed project does not offer substantial landscaping and architectural details in exchange for the private alley access for the units. Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Pine View 1. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Pine View based on a finding that the proposed project generally meets the specific zoning criteria for the R-2A district and subject to the comments listed within this report. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat for Pine View based on a finding that the proposed project does not meet the specific zoning criteria for the R-2A district including lot width for lots 1 and 2, usable rear yard lot area, building design and landscaping requirements. Staff Recommendation. The provisions of family housing and two-story homes reflects the traditional role of Broadway as a "grand entrance" roadway into the community, which meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan is consistent with Planning Commission direction at the concept approval stage. Staff recommends the development stage planned unit development approval provided a revised landscape plan is submitted with recognition of the above mentioned comments. The preliminary plat is also recommended for approval provided the applicant acquires the right-of-way in order to provide proper lot width for the two lots located on the western portion of the site and corrects the easements listed upon the plat. An additional condition of plat and PUD approval would be compliance with City Engineer recommendations regarding utilities, grading, and stormwater management. . Supportine Data 1. Site Plan 2. Building Plans 3. Landscape Plan 4. Previous agenda meeting minutes I 4 . j iil q !'l ~ i ~. ~ 8 " " ~ ~,- n. "' l~ .~ f't.~ . "'~ i5~'" ;:: ~~) ~~; ~ :,~ ........ ~i. v, Ik_, " o II ~\ !o g ~ I., ~ t p I" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" f h. ~ l;; GJ @ I! I ~ '~ ~ ---.,--",..-4 --'f--- ~: ~ &l~ Ii! Sl ~ '0 II' ~ \I" ~i:f " " t~ 0" ~ ~ ~ ~i : I .~~ r~ 11'9 fjeo 0; : i ~i!~ -~<i: .~:r~ <n ~~ "" '. . ' '; I ""- i .. ~ Ii ~~f ~ ~.. qil "~~ ~,~ '.........., ~.......... ~ ~ f~~ i:r ~'; ", ~\ ( ----_ \ C} -----_ f\'x . --1)'S / ,\--., ~ J ~ ~ 'l$ "- ~'.; t;!il a~~ .,'v '\J f; ;! --- i ~ -h J- . lj~~ ",..l::f ...~ ~~~ ',\ ~ 0" I '\- ~ I ..... S '... ~'\. "",'h. I . ~~t. ! " f f' ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ - ~! . ~-j ~l tl~ '" . :.:~; is ".. ;:: g~ W ~ A~ ~ lj ~(l ~ ..!~ ~ i ~~ ~ j~; ----.J . ~ 9 @ ':' :G " l?' ., '" ..- ~ ~ ti ~ _' ~ 'i t; ~ i~' b ~ ~ .... 0::.... 0:: i'3 i( - ~ ~ ~ '< ~ '. , :: 8 fII', " ~~ ~ It ~ ~ (, :'j ~\ I) I" . t, ",'I " ~ "- o ;:l; .9- 1 ., I- ri .: ~ ~ " 'u :> 1,1 ;..: ~ I : '" I: , , I ~ ~ u oX ! ~ :~; ;; ~.~.; '" ., - E1 'l!..~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J, ~ ~ n,; . ~~~ . ~t:~ \. . (\' z" , " J, " II' '" '"Ii" k:1i; ~II' ~;~;~ I.r!C)\1 ~~~ lI;-" ~ '. > :.tl;!t\ ..",.. "'i'" ~..~ ii'f.\j-' \.Vt" ~~:~ "'il'., L-l/A~ ~t:~: l~~: ::~~ I.. ".J .,> ~,~~ (l"'t_1 ~&~ !i!'jtJ1 \t\~ "'(Q..4 ~ " ,,' ,.' I / I / I / o~ ~ )e- /. ! 1- jJ- ~ Y" - ~ / l- I- f- f- - L l- I- - - f- ) l- I- I-- I- - l- I- l- i - f- f-- ~ '- f-- - - - - l- I l- I-- l- f- f- f- f- .... f- l- f- ~ I-- - l- I-- I-- I- - f- - - - f- ) l- f- l- f- l- I- I- r H HI H H I-- f- f- f- l- I- i- - f-- - l- t- - t- - I-...j l- I- I- ...j I- I-.J ...j l- I- - I- - f- - ~ II I II I I f- l- f- I- - l- I- l- I- I-- I-- l- I- ~ l- I- f- J. f- - f-- - f- - '- f-- - CJ II I l- I-- f-- - I- - I- - / I-- l- I- l- I-- l- f- l- f- 1 l- I- I- l- f- f- f- I- .... L - f- l- I- I-- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I-- - I- - I-- '- f- - ~ ~ ~ ~ l- I- I- I-rI f- l- f- 1 I- I- l- I-- l- I-- l- I- f- e- I-- '- f-- f- l- I/- f- f-- f- - f-- - ~ - I- I- l- I-- I- ri I-- '\ I- f- f- l- f- I- - I- l- I- '- ~ - - \1- I- - l- I- ITIIImmlID I- f- I- r1 - .... \f--I- ....., l- I- l- I- l- I -.., ~ - mIIlII!IIIIIII \-1- - - - -j f--J ...J - \....., ....., - .... f- L - -.., ~ - ~ - - I- - I---' ...J ~ \- - f- I- - ...., \ - - -' I- ...J ....., l- f- mIIlII!IIIIIII ~- I- h 1111 I ~~ -' f- I- ITIIImmlID l- f- r---, \ - (,g f--J " -, \h J:- ~ ;'~?~,~~~~:.,>~ . z o ~ E-t < > ~ ~ ~ ~ Z o ~ ~ . . 1D .,".....:' 1~,~~ _ __ . . ., ~. :.' ."\e~ ".\.,; }- I- J I- L ~J I- I- I- I- ,....J L- l- I-- - - I- I- - I- .... I- - I- I- '- '- ,... ~ I- I- - I- - - >- ~ 1._ l-- I-- r- >- ,.- "'"" I- I-- l- I- l- I- -I-~I--I- >- I- I- I- I- ~ I- ,... I- I- ~ I- L- - .... I- - I- I- - _ - L- I- I- ~ I- I- I- ,-I-f-""~ 1-1- f- I- _ _ I- _ ,..-1- I- '- I- I- I- - I- l- I- I- I- L- l- e- - l- I- ~ I- I- ~ I- I- I- l- I- I- l- I- I- I- l- I- .... I- ---. ~ 1-1---- VV I- I- I- I- f- 1-1- I- I- I- '- l- I- I- -{7 I- L- I- f- - _ -I J I- f-- L- 1--.[7 I ....1-1-1- V - - - -p j I- I- I- l- I- I- I- I- / I- I- -,V I 1-1-1-11 I-- I- II I-- - I- -l7~ \1 I- I- H I- I- t\ I- - 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ I- I-- I- ~ r~~ '- I- ,..- I-~L~ L- I- I- t:!. ~ ..,i~~-v~ ~ ,... :.:,.:;:::'n :;~~;.~. ffiIlIIIIIIIIlI r- I- I-f JI I- I- f- '- - l- I- .... I- ,... '- I- I- I~ ,... I- ~ - L- l- I- - I- L- I- ~ ~ I- - - ~ I- I- I- ~ I- - - L- - ,... I- .... I- - f- I- I- il- - f- - '- l- I- - I- I- I- I-j TIT T II I HT ffiIlIIIIIIIIlI I ffiIlIIIIIIIIlI -- - = - Uf - '- H H H H "HID = HH = - - 1-1 W ~I-I--~WI-I IS] II III I ~CJCJ ~ t I II I T I II illIIIIIIIllill I...- illIIIIIIIllill - . z o ...... E--i <( > ~ ...J ~ E-. Z o ~ ~ ..'., ."'ii, \ '. lD . t..- ~lMi.:'.'" r'f''tj.#J:.~ "~~~~ -:'~;~;,t r ~f-LLf-WI - __ _J .J - hi / r --l_....I--~ - j.......J ~ !"-' - VI -f-~I- --, _ __ _ _ e-.j/ --'-~'- / - j.......J - --' -I '- ,... - I- - .... - ~V/ --l _...J I f- .... f- b'1 - I- -' - I-- _/ - - / I- j.......J VI - I-- - ~V - I -- -1/ - f--jj I ~ r (I ,/ ~ 1)1 " V / - \ 1/ / --' -t\ \ 11/ _ - f- ~ ~ 1/ / ~-~~~( ~ -~ -1 - I-- \ ~ =~: - : ~~\ \ '- I- - ~ \J - ~ -I:-" \. '- I- - - .\ --' .... ....J ~~ ~ j.......J - --l~~\ '- f- - '- - ~ I-- - - f- _\'t --'_....J...J...J-l\ ~ ~ 81m ~ ~ ~ I ~ f- ~ '- I- -- - f- '- l- I-- '- f- '- I-- - --l _ '- - - _ ~ h--- - - I- I- '- - - - --' f- f- I- f- _ - h--- - - - - - - f--J j.......J ....J - - '- I-- I- - --' - - f---.J --' ....J I- f- '- --' --' - I- - '-- ~ f- h--- ~ 81m HHHt-HH = ULl-IUU l-Il-IUl-IU @ i r II I II I II I II I ITIIIIIIIIIIlll ITIIIIIIIIIIlll . z o ~ E--t < > ~ ~ ~ E--t Z o ~ tI..4 . . l6 .~i~, f~~~:"'- J. . . . ;~~{~!:, - - .. EXTERIOR COLOR PACKAGES SIDING COLOR SELECTION INCLUDES: SIDING TRIM COq:)R SELECTION INCLUDES: SOFFIT & FASCIA SHUTTER COLOR SELECTION INCLUDES: SHUTTERS & LOUVERS PACKAGE A SIDING SELECTION ANTIQUE WHITE TRIM SELECTION CLAY WINDOW SELECTION WHITE SHUTTER SELECTION POTTERS CLAY #200 ROOF SELECTION WEATHERED WOOD BRICK SELECTION GRANVILLE GREY HAND MOULD #281 GARAGE DOOR WHITE PACKAGE B SIDING SELECTION SANDALWOOD TRIM SELECTION COTTAGE WHITE WINDOW SELECTION WHITE SHUTTER SELECTION BRONZE #18 ROOF SELECTION TIMBER BLEND BRICK SELECTION CARBONDALE GARAGE DOOR WHITE PACKAGE C SIDING SELECTION PEWTER TRIM SELECTION SNOWMIST WINDOW SELECTION WHITE SHUTTER SELECTION SNOWMIST (PAINTED) ROOF SELECTION NICKEL GRAY BRICK SELECTION YUKON WINTER GARAGE DOOR WHITE PACKAGE D SIDING SELECTION CLAY TRIM SELECTION BRONZE WINDOW SELECTION WHITE SHUTTER SELECTION BRONZE (PAINTED) ROOF SELECTION WEATHERED WOOD BRICK SELECTION KITSILANO HERITAGE #228 GARAGE DOOR WHITE /0 /," 'I 'l, , " '~r:i.:; :"'.; ~.. " " , ?!....'~.-:....~ I -t--'".- I i [ ~:7J:ti~~~ . ,.,.'I"~-""""C ~~\~ ~~~4~~~ '. ":~". ."c f ',"1' '.'" ~, >' "l \:.. J /T (( \. . \ \......//...'./ .~~ ,;;. C--, 'y.^'( L.~ i' (.;['.. ' \'7 ! . Jt,~-~. -,j.':' iO~ ~r}~C~]~\~{~{:lj.\ l?-:r:- (5(/) ;) l~\~_~~~ .,*-" : f - - , .-~~~--_.._-_._--~- , ______~_._..J I ' Planning Commission Minutes ~ 10101/02 RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. -. There was further discussion by Dragsten that he did not feel that there should be sidewalks on both sides of the road. O'Neill advised that the Parks Commission would need to be involved in that decision and that may not be particular to this site. O'Neill suggested that this request be brought back at a future meeting. apart from this item. There was no further discussion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. There was a recommendation from the Planning Commission to direct the Parks Commission to review the issue on sidewalks within this area, and the results to be brought back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for re-zoninl:! from R-I to R-2A. Applicant: Tom Holthaus. West Side Market. Steve Grittman advised that the applicant was requesting to rezone, stating that as a result of improvements to Co. Rd. 75 and other associated improvements to the intersection of Otter Creek Road, as well as not being able to expand, the applicant's site has been aHected and therefore is proposing to change the use to a residential development. - Grittman summarized the criteria for consideration for re-zoning and advised of the comprehensive plan calling for Broadway as a grand entrance street. He added that thc current improvements to Broadway are helping to facilitate that concept with reconstruction. new lighting and landscaping. Revitalization of the housing stock is an important component of that goal also. Grittman stated that one way to make the zoning change to R- 2A compatible would be a housing plan that would include two stories with traditional detailing and front porches; front setbacks closer to the street, preserving usable rear-yard open space; adequate setback from Otter Creek Road; and compliance with other R-2A design elements, including substantial landscaping and architectural details. Grittman advised that 2 story's would not change the density. Another issue is the eventual redesign of Otter Creek Road. - Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Ed Solberg, 1204 Sandy Lane, stated that he feels the current plan is a glorified mobile home park. He felt to change the re-zoning due to the applicant's economics is not a reason for re-zoning. He also felt this was spot zoning. - Candy Johnson, 1233 Sandy Lane, stated she was speaking against the re-zoing in that she feels this does not best support the land use on this site. Johnson stated that she and others she has contacted had no objection to changing this land from the grandfathered use of a gas station to a more compatible use of housing. Their concern is of density. She states the lots are much larger on Broadway and they feel there is a variety of homes giving a good mix of home styles, but these would be 8 identical homes, which they felt are not compatible with the other homes in that area. Johnson added they do not feel there is a demonstrated need for this type of housing in this area as there are other developments occurring in other parts of the City for this type of housing. She added that the she didn't feel the square footage -- ~3- I b Planning Commission Minutes - 10/01/02 conforms to the R-2A standards. Also, the setbacks of other houses would not be compatible. She questioned whether this type of housing really brings people into the neighborhood that would be the type that would stay there and have families that would go into the schools. Doesn't feel that the smaller starter homes would bring in more students. . Diane Peters. 1120 Sandy Lane. stated she concurs with the other residents. not objecting to housing development just density. She noted some of the homes already in that area are on too small ofIots. Arnold StehleI', east of the Westside Market, stated that he preferred they stay as a market. He did question how far the homes are required to be from the street and would they be in line with the other homes. Grittman stated current R-1 zoning states 30 ft. from the street and these appear to be 45 feet, and that the homes would have double garages. StrehleI' felt this would be too many residences, too much noise pollution already. Michele Berthiaume, 1112 Sandy Lane, stated her concern is that with the construction on Broadway changing the sidewalks, etc., and that her children have to walk down Sandy Lane to Otter Creek Road and then to Broadway, that this would add more children walking and crossing in this area. She is also uncomfortable with this number of units in this area. Chair Frie asked the applicant to respond to the concerns of the residents. Tom Holthaus. . applicant, stated that it is not economically feasible for him to build only 2 to 3 units. The market will close in 60 to 90 days and the consequences are that they cannot afford to tear down the building and build on only 3 lots, stating the lots would be well over $100,000 each. He added that across the road from the Johnson's is a townhouse development and this proposal would be no different. Holthaus stated they could build 2 story homes and place them back from the road. He added that the ramblers initially proposed would have sold for over $150,000, and 2 story's would sell for even higher. He questioned if there was a specific area that the city was looking for R-2A zoning that he was not aware of. He stated that the road in the back of the homes would change to a common area and therefore there would be an association. Holthaus advised that the square footage of these homes would be approximately 1,456 sq. ft. for a traditional 2 story with a porch on the front, and he stated that these will fit on the same lots with the same setbacks. Grittman advised this was well in excess of the standards for R-2A. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Carlson asked staff about bike paths and sidewalks on the north side of Broadway. O'Neill stated that was a disappointing occurrence as there had been a problem with existing trees and drainage issues, and Council had to make a decision between trees and sidewalks. Holthaus advised of access problems from Broadway, stating the County would no longer . allow that. He also stated individual access from the road to the fronts would not be allowed, but no problems with access off Otter Creek Road. Dragsten stated that in reply to -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 10/01/02 comments from a resident that the city bends over backward to help developers, he noted that Holthaus had come before the Planning Commission a number oftimes with requests which have not been approved. He added in regard to the statement that there would be an increased number of cars at these residences, there are hundreds right now with the convenience store and this would be cut down to approximately 16 cars at 2 trips a day, cutting down traffic significantly, and as far as noise pollution. this viOuld only be helping the situation versus the current market. Dragsten did add that he agrees that the applicant needs to meet lot sizes, as well as all other zoning requirements. l-lilgm1 agreed with Dragsten that there would be less traffic with the proposed housing and the values of the existing properties should not decrease as the properties would be of the same value. Frie stated he was surprised that he did not hear from anyone regarding concerns with lighting as there had been previous concerns by the residents with lighting 24 hours a day, and he added that issue would be eliminated with this housing proposal. Frie asked how receptive the residents would be to allowing Holthaus to expand and double the size of his convenience store rather than allowing the style of housing being proposed. Holthaus advised Carlson that the homes would be 2 story with crawl spaces and that he was not sure how Otter Creek Road would align with Broadway, so the end unit would not be built until that was finished approximately in 2004. They discussed varying the setbacks, exterior facades, rooflines and elevations, to make the houses look more individual. They also mentioned the Prairie Creek development across Broadway and that they vary in color and design. Robbie Smith questioned if Holthaus needed to bui ld 8 units to make the project work and he stated that was correct. Ed Solberg asked if those last few lots could be built on and Holthaus stated yes. Dragsten added that if everything falls into place they would be 2 buildable lots, right now there would be 6 lots. The City does own some of that property where the end 2 lots are. Grittman stated that if the City finds that they do not need the additional land for street purposes, they would most likely sell those pieces off. Candi Johnson apologized if she did not make herself clear on her previous comment on the homes and the number of students they would generate. She noted the staff report stated that this would support more families with students. She reiterated that some types of homes seem to generate more families than others. Carlson asked how Johnson related that to the value of the home, but she could not say what the values were. She added that this site was zoned R-l when the convenience store was built. Chair Frie reminded Johnson that the public hearing had been closed and added that the number of new students stated previously did not relate to the values of these homes. There was no further discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING TO R-2A, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING MEETS THE CONDITIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR REZONING -5- Planning Commission Minutes - ] 0/0]/02 APPROV AL, INCLUDING CONSISTENCY WITH TIlE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. There was further discussion by Carlson asking for clarification that they are directing the developer to proceed with 2 story homes. Dragsten stated that was in his motion but that he did not object to one level. There was no further discussion. MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH ROBBIE SMITH VOTING IN OPPOSITION. ROBBIE SMITH LATER QUESTIONED THE VOTE COUNT OF 4 TO I STATING HE HAD VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. CHAIR FRIE DIRECTED TO CORRECT THE MOTION DUE TO THE MISUNDERSTANDING. THEREFORE, MOTION TO APPROVE REQUE-ST FOR REZONING TO R-2A CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 7. ments. an advised that the applicant was looking to a a dealership to their facility and hoping develop a separate pylon sign for identific Ion. Traditionally the city based the number on le size of the parcel. Staff was cancer ed with using the number of businesses as cri ria. Grittman advised that there a cities that adopt ordinances that allow more pylons based size of the property, althoua those tend to be larger sites such as 10 to 20 acres. If they w e to pursue this they wo d look at lot sizes of at least 5 acres. Staff is concerned about proli ation of requests fi signs. therefore their recommendation would be allowing more wall sign e on larger bu' dings versus free-standing. - - They discussed what other comn nitie use for determinating number of signs and Grittman stated he has seen multiple signs on Ion structures, which seems to be a more common approach. Chair Frie opened the public h aring. Bill R lbow, Jacob Holdings of Monticello, LLC, representing Denny Hecker, tated that Grittma was correct in that KIA would piggy back on another dealership sig ut that in this case it w Chrysler who would not allow that. Rambow stat~d the pro em is that KIA doesn't have lY signage at all at this time, and they are requesting a freew y side pylon and a wall sign on tll Chelsea side for KIA. Frie asked Rambow if additio free standing signage was approved, ould he be receptive to a monument sign a Rambow stated that a monument sign wo not be visible from the freeway, althou he did state that a monument sign on Chelsea ad with wall signage on the freeway s' e would work. Chair Frie then closed the public hear Dragsten ommented that Denny Hecker is a nice addition to Monticello an does feel that KIA ne ds signage, but also that having 50 to 100 cars parked on the front side also gives good xposure. Dragsten liked the idea of monument signs. Carlson stated his preference abo t a year ago was to have monuments on Chelsea Road and suggested taking the sign off -. - -6- MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 14, 2002 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Roger Belsaas, Roger Carlson, Clint Herbst. Brian Stumpf and Bruce Thielen. Members Absent: None 1. Call to Order and Pledg:e of AlIeg:iance Mayor Belsaas called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. 2. Approve minutes of September 23. 2002 re~ular Council meetin2. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AS PRESENTED. CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH BRUCE THIELEN ABSTAINING. 3. Consideration of addin~ items to the a~enda. .-. Clint Herbst added fencing along the pathway on Gillard Avenue and landscaping in the Klein Farms development to the agenda and Roger Belsaas added directional signing for the nursing home. -- 4. Citizens comments/petitions. reauests and complaints. Randy Ruff and Tammy Sutton spoke to the Council regarding the development proposed for the fonner Ruffs Auto site. Randy Ruff informed the Council that Pinnacle Engineering is doing Phase II of the environmental data. Although it is not known what type of residential development will take place on the site, they will be working with city staff to make that determination. 5. Consent Al!enda A. Consideration of ratifying new hires for the Community Center. Recommendation: Ratify new hires as identified. B. Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval for a three lot commercial subdivision known as the Amax Addition - Applicant: Glen posusta. Recommendation: Approve the preliminary plat contingent upon the following: 1. City agrees to convey required land to the applicant to complete the plat. . 2. The plat is redrawn to include the required easements per City Engineer recolllmendation. ib Council Minutes ~ 10/14/02 3. The applicant submits grading and drainage plans to the City Engineer for approval. This to allow coordination of site development with the Cedar Street project. 4. The applicant coordinates site development with utility planning done by the City via the Cedar Street improvement project. 5. The applicant submits street and sidewalk plans to the City Engineer for approval, or the applicant petitions for Cedar Street and utility improvements, and enters into an assessment agreement relating to funding of Cedar Street project. 6. The applicant brings signage and rental truck parking into compliance with the City's zoning ordinance. C. Consideration of a request to rezone property from R-I to R-2A to accommodate an eight unit detached residential development. Applicant: Tom Holthaus. Recommendation: Approve the R-2A rezoning only if the project meets the goals as written in the Comprehensive Plan. D. Consideration of a request for a conditional usc permit and variance allowing an accessory structure in excess of Ison sq. ft. Applicant: Randy Ruff. Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit based on the finding that the four criteria required by code for the granting of a conditional use permit have been met and conditioned upon: I. Accessory structure must not exceed ],500 square feet wh ich includes attached garage and detached accessory buildings combined. . 1. Detached accessory building is required to have vinyl siding and it must not exceed building height standards. E. Consideration of a request for an amendment to the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: Denny Hecker. Recommendation: Move to deny a sign regulation amendment based on a finding that the existing ordinance permits adequate business identification. F. Consideration to adopt a resolution providing for the sale of general obligation improvement bonds. BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO HAVE ITEM #SC REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Roger Carlson asked for clarification on Item #SE verify if the Council approves the item, they are approving the denial of the request for an amendment to the sign ordinance. . 2 Council Minutes - 10/14/02 ROGER CARLSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE REMOVAL Of ITEM #5C. BRIAN STUMPf SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent a2enda for discussion. Bruce Thielen stated he would like to see a project that met the goals and standards of the zoning district prior to doing the rezoning. He felt this was putting the cart before the horse. Jeff O.NeiIl stated the developer is requesting a change in zoning from R- I to R-2A. The Planning Commission didn.t SUPPOl1 the single level units and felt the units should have more architectural design and detailing in order to better suit the Comprehensive Plan's goals for the Broadway area. .lefT O'NeiIl stated that residents had expressed their concern about the proposed density of this development and other design issues were discussed as well. BRUCE THIELEN MOVED TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST OF TOM HOLTHAUS FOR REZONING FROM R-I TO R-2A CONTINGEN'f' UPON PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF REVISED DRAWINGS. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Brian Stumpf asked if the applicant understood the changes the Planning Commission was looking for regarding his development. Mr. Holthaus indicated he understood but it was his hope that they would be able to get this project started fairly soon. He added that they were never told what land is available at the County Road 75/0tter Creek intersection and this is information that would affect whether 7 or 8 units could be built on the site. 7. Consideration of purchase of four welcome si2ns for the Citv of Monticello entrances. Public Works Director, John Simola, gave a brief explanation of the changes in the sign design that had occurred since the Council first looked at this. He then introduced Larry Nolan and Nancy McCaffrey from the Parks Commission who made the presentation on the four proposed entrance signs to the City of Monticello. The proposed signs are approximately 5' in height and 10' across. The signs are made of coated high density polystyrene and weigh approximately 400 pounds. The signs are light weight and movable. The estimated cost for the signs is $19,703 ($4,625 per sign plus sales tax) which is the price if all four signs were ordered at one time. The location of the entrance signs was reviewed and it was noted that the sign design has changed but the sign locations have not. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF THE FOUR SIGNS AT A COST OF $19,703 DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF MONTICELLO WITH PLACEMENT, LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING TO BE HANDLED BY TI-IE CITY. BRUCE THIELEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. ....... ...... 3 Planning Commission Minutes ~ 03/04/03 7. Public Hearin ~ Consideration of a re uest for conce t stal!e lanned unit develo ment approval allowing 8 single family units in a proposed R-2A district. Applicant: Tom Holthaus - Steve Grittman provided the staff report. The applicant is requesting concept review for a proposal allowing 8 single family units on the parcel which is currently the West Side Market. Grittman stated that due to reconstruction of Broadway, Otter Creek Road would be realigned to create a safer intersection. The County also required the applicant to close driveway access points to his site and therefore he feels his retail operation will no longer be viable. Orittman added that the City and County have been working on this for some time. The realignment will leave some ROW on the east side that will not be necessary any longer for public street. As a result, the applicant is hoping to obtain that land, adding to West Side Market property, re~zone, then subdivide to meet R-2A standards. The layout is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, traditional land use pattern, and re~zoning to R~2A would be an opportunity to allow this with 2 story structures. Orittman provided concept sketches and added that staffs view was by increasing the variety of these units it could be a positive improvement to the property. The R-2A allows flexibility with setbacks as well. Staff is also recommending that the development be shifted to allow additional width from the back property line to a common driveway, allowing adequate room for landscaping and buffer from the existing residential and there appears to be enough property to allow that shift. StaffbeJievcs this proposal would be compatible, although a slightly higher density than allowable. A landscape buffer also preserves aesthetics and additional substantial landscape amenities have been added. Grittman also noted that they are requesting the applicant to flip the end unit floor plans to allow turnaround access at the end of the driveway, and with the noted changes, staff is relatively satisfied that the concept meets the intent of the R~2A district and recommends approval of the concept plan. -- Grittman clarified how the units would line up with existing homes, adding that the neighboring property appears to be set back further. Holthaus clarified that the property is setback approximately 45 ft. Orittman stated typical a R-l setback is 30 feet, R-2A allows greater flexibility and the applicant is asked to allow 35 foot setbacks. They also discussed the need for a homeowners association due to maintenance of the common drive, which Holthaus concurred with. The addition of a sidewalk along that property was again discussed and Grittman advised this had been discussed during development of Co Rd 75, but was abandoned due to the area being almost a fully developed area. Orittman further stated he felt it would be beneficial to have a sidewalk, but felt the County would need additional ROWand due to cost and practibility, he felt that idea was given up when the project was developed. The compromise was to carry a crosswalk to Otter Creek. . Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Candi Johnson, 1233 Sandy Lane, stated that she sees this development as compatible with single family homes and her main objection was the number of homes put on the 1 Yz acre site. Many of the yards in the neighborhood are about Y:z acre. She questioned if setback requirements in an R-2A are 20 ft. on the ~5~ lD Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 corner, why did it only show 17 ft. on the applicant's plan. She felt this does not meet the standards. She added that it seemed they are squeezing more houses into this parcel than what even an R-2A is suggesting, other than the 45 ft. setback. Ed Solberg, 1204 Sandy Lane, stated he had no objection to tearing down the gas station or putting up houses. Objects to 45 ft. frontage and stated he doesn't feel it is consistent with the other homes. He feels they are really only increasing the size of the driveway. He also asked them to address the size of the lots as he felt they were too small and not consistent with existing. The number of homes should also be taken into consideration. Laura Tazelaar, 1124 Sandy Lane, stated she was opposed to the proposed alleyway and asked if there had been consideration for one access closest to the residence. She felt a frontage road would be better and one access would match the rest of the residences on Broadway. Grittman stated he agreed with the access but again, the County would not allow any increased accesses. She asked if the buffer would be landscaping or fencing and Grittman stated they would be open to hearing people's preferences, noting typical buffer requirements consist of landscaping. Taze/aar stated they would like an 8 ft. fence and Grittman stated the Planning Commission and City Council could make that recommendation if they chose. The public hearing was then closed. Tom Holthaus, applicant, stated that for the most part . they have address all of these issues at previous meetings. He stated the existing fence that was noted is 5 ft. on his property line and he would prefer landscaping versus a fence, but he also was okay with keeping the fence. He stated there was also a chain link fence on another property that should be moved as it is impossible to maintain his fence with the chain link fence where it is currently placed. Patch added that the fence ordinance had been amended to allow it to be placed right up to the property line, not on or over. Holthaus again stated it was a maintenance issue and would require getting permission 11-om existing property owners to have access to it. He felt it would be better to work it out now with a homeowner's association, rather than later. Patch felt it should be worked out with landscaping requirements at development stage. Holthaus further advised that the homes were proposed to be slab on grade with crawl space for furnaces. Hilgart asked the proposed selling price for the homes and Holtaus stated approximately $170,000+. Hilgart further added that he felt even if the lot sizes were inconsistent the prices of the homes would be consistent with the existing homes and did not feel there were any issues. Dragsten asked who owned the existing fence and razelaar advised the Owners are out of town, but also stated she was willing to remove her chain link fence if necessary. Regarding the proposed 17 ft. setback, Holthaus thought it was 17 ft. to the sidewalk. Grittman stated they were not including that side,walk with the ROW, the engineer was . adding the sidewalk, and they should also look at the end unit again. Regarding the smaller -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 lot sizes, Dragsten felt that having a homeowners association would offset the lot size, making it a much better project versus homes not being maintained. He felt this would be a good tradeoff. Dragsten also felt having the front of homes on Broadway would be more attractive than the backs of homes and driveways, preferring the landscaping be toward the existing homes. He also noted the 3 different elevations presented to vary thc homes. Carlson brought up the possibility of re-zoning to R-2 at Willow St. down to Otter Crcek. This parcel faces Broadway and all of the other properties on Broadway are in an R-2 zone. Regarding density, due to the length of the site, and if they were to apply this in the older part of town the developer would be allowed between 5 and 6 units, not 3. Agrees that properties to the north are Y2 acre lots but that is not required by the City in the old part of town. He felt 3 units on this site was not realistic, 5 or 6 would be more appropriate on that size parcel. Carlson also commented on setbacks to Broadway and that he felt having the homes closer to Broadway would give the tendency to open the backsides, which should be favorable to properties to the north as this adds more buffer and open space. Holthaus noted that was the consensus of staff as well. Carlson added that he didn't feel a sidewalk would make sense to put in ifit was not going to lead anywhere, and asked Holthaus ifhe could eliminate the last lot next to Otter Creek. Holthaus stated that originally he had proposed a 12 unit townhouse development and he would need 8 units to make it financially feasible. He added that the cost for tearing down the existing building, along with the proposed development would push the costs of the lots up to $45,000, which is not feasible. He was open to reducing to 7 units, but could not do this without the City's financial help. He noted that he is not asking for any financial help such as T1F in putting in the 8 lots and he is not leaving the site empty. Carlson asked Grittman about the 8th unit and setbacks and Grittman stated the code requires 20 ft., the measured dimension shows 17 ft. to the sidewalk and it would need to be worked out with the Engineer. He also stated that if this was a PUD it would then allow some flexibility. They discussed including a homeowners association and Patch noted that the City can help with enforcement and bill the homeowner if necessary. Patch noted that perhaps there were other issues that could be included in the association agreement such as exteriors, roofing, etc., for aesthetic purposes. Patch noted that covenants could be established to include the City where they could not be altered without City approval. Holthaus concurred. ...... Stumpf added that he thought there would be 6 or 7 units, not 8. Holthaus again noted that previously he had proposed 12 unit townhomes, but he also noted that if these units were averaged out they do meet the 7500 sq. [t. requirement. Stumpf asked if there were any variances being requested and Grittman stated only in regard to setback requirements with the edge of the home on the corner lot to Otter Creek. Carlson noted the idea is to move them closer to Broadway having more open space in the back. Stumpf liked the idea of moving the units closer to Broadway. Dragsten asked if Holthaus was familiar with the conditions stated in the staff report and he stated he was. Dragsten also clarified that the Planning Commission does not look at economic concerns and wanted the public aware that ..... -7- Planlling Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 they are not taking that into consideration. It was also clarified that moving the units forward 15 feet also would move the drives up by 15 feet. Grittman advised that a landscaping plan was not required at this time, but at development stage they would hold another public hearing. The timing of this depends on when the applicant comes back with plans. Again, he noted this was strictly concept stage. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE HOLTHAUS PUD, WITH COMMENTS NOTED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CONTINGENT ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: a. Provision of detailed landscape plan, including placement of a fence or other buffer as determined by applicant and staff: on the north side of site. b. Provide building finish color and roof line detail for every structure c. Revise site plan showing setbacks as identified in this report and show revisions to drive allowing garbage truck turnaround area. d. Homeowners association approved by staff. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 8. Public Hearin - Consideration of are uest for a conce t sta e lanned unit develo ment a roval for a mixed use develo ment includin ] residentiaL co mercial and industrial. Apblicant: Gold NUllQet Development Inc. , / / Steve Gritt an, City Planner, provided the staff report ~garding the concept plan for a mixed use dev opment including residential, comm cial and industrial. He noted that this property had bee reviously reviewed several ye s ago, but at that time there were annexation issues th roject did not move for rd. Grittman advised that land use patterns had been discussed an yised since then. ...... ...... In their previous transition between R-I housing and some of the Grittman advised that th ity Engineer had re . wed the plan as well and requested the access width to be ad' sted, and also advised that t Parks Commission had reviewed this proposal several y s ago suggesting park land for p ntia1 ball fields. He advised of a substantial area the south that may be a good use for t t area, however they need to be aware that if e Parks Commission were looking at 1ighte elds this may not be . compatible Grittman noted some minor comments regarding out and that the mix -8- (\Qy\ V'\ I ~ t: I t~ ;;)00.;;) - "3 l Council Minutes - 3/10/03 approve the conditional use permit allowing a multi-tenant shopping center with joint parking, based on the finding that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and subject to the following conditions: J. The access to Lot I, Block J is to be shifted to the south splitting the lot line separating Lot I and Lot 2. "} ..-\ signed cross easement and access agreement is to be submitted to City staff. 3. The site plan is to be revised to show an additional landscaped parking delineator covering (4) parking stalls located between the currently proposed delineators. 4. The landscape plan is to be revised showing an additional (7) overstory trees. 5. The landscape plan is to be revised to show additional internal landscaping around the building and within the parking delineators. 6. 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 be need to be processed unless made available for review with this application. 7. 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. 8. Trees at the southwest corner of the intersection of Highway 25 and School Boulevard are not to encroach within the 25 foot ch::ar view triangle area. 9. The site plan is to be revised to show the location of the trash enclosure 10. All grading, drainage, utilities. and easement issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. II. 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. 12. Comments of other City staff. C. Consideration ofa request for concept stage planned unit development approval allowing 8 single family units in a proposed R-2A District. Applicant: Tom Holthaus. Recommendation: Approve the concept plan for the Holthaus Planned Unit Development hosed on a finding that the project is consistent with the goals of the City" s comprehensive plan and subject to the following: I. Provision of detailed landscape plan for entire site. Plan should show extensive landscaping on the Otter Creek side of the development. Provide building tinish color and roof line det::!i I for every structure. Revise site plan showing setbacks as identified in this report and show revisions to drive allowing garbage truck turnaround area. ., ., .'. D. Consideration of a request for a concept stage planned unit development approval for a mixed use development including residential. commercial and industrial uses. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development. Inc. Recommendation: Approve the concept plan for the Gold Nugget Planned Unit Development based on a finding that the project is consistent \\ith the City"s future land use plan and subject to the comments noted below: I. Adjust site and lot design as noted in the statf report. D~velop a landscaped berm as a bufti:r between the residential and industrial area. Address tranic circulation issue. ., ') I]) ;/ II I Council Minutes - 3/ 10/03 4. Reduce the number oftownhomes relative to the detached single family making single family detached housing the predominant land use. 5. Review and approval by the Parks Commission. E. Consideration of granting preliminary plat and concept/development stage PUD approval for the Hillside Farms residential subdivision. Recommendation: 1) Approve the preliminary plat of Hillside Farms allowing an R-I style subdivision in an area generally designated for R-IA residential development; 2) approve concept and development stage PUD approval allowing development ofa subdivision meeting R-I standards in an area guided for R-IA development in exchange for development of homes that meet R-IA standards. This approval is based on the finding that development of R -I A homes at this location is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the City. F. Consideration of Change Order No.2. Front Street Improvement Project No. 2001-06C. Recommendation: Approve Change Order No.2 on the Front Street Improvement Project No. 2001-06C increasing the contract amount by $875.00 G. Consideration of a revised preliminary plat. concept stage PUD approval and development stage PUD approval. Applicant: Maple\\iood Residential development. Recommendation: 1) Approve the preliminary plat of the Spirit Hills residential subdivision; 2) Approve concept and development stage PUD approval of the Spirit Hills residential subdivision contingent on final approval of the plans by the City Planner and the City Engineer. H. Consideration of a request for a special home occupation permit allowing photographic studio in a residential district. Applicant: Wayne and Patricia Mayer. Recommendation: Approve the special home occupation request based on the finding that the method of operation proposed is consistent with standards identified in the City Code. K. Consideration of a joint resolution for annexation of Wright County right-of-way. Recommend~ltion: Approve Resolution #2003- 14. a joint resolution to annex Wright County right-of-way located in Section 13, Township 121 North. Range 25 West. Glen Posusta asked that item 50 be removed from the consent agenda and Robbie Smith requested that item 5G be removed from the consent agenda. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH ITEM 5K ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA AND ITEMS 50 AND 5G BEING REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. GLEN POSUSTA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ... ,) . - -- 8. Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 Public Hearin~ - Consideration of a request for concept sta~e planned unit development and preliminary plat approval, and consideration of a request to rezone from AD to R-IA, R-2 and R-2A. Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Shadow Creek Corporation is requesting concept review for a Planned Unit Development proposal and preliminary plat approval of an approximately 80 acre mixed residential development to be known as Carlisle Village. The site is located off of C.S.A.H 18 (Jason Avenue), just east of the Wild Wood Ridge and Rolling Woods developments. The northern 40 acres of the site is proposed to consist of a mix of 76 R-2A single l~mlily lots and 95 row-townhouse units. The southern 40 acres includes 76 R-IA styled lots. The site is currently zoned A-O, Agricultural Open Space, and is proposed to be rezoned R-l A, R-2A and R-2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site for future R-l A development. The southerly half has been annexed and the northerly half will be reviewed by the City Council for annexation in June. The Planning Commission needs to make comment on three major issues in order to determine the direction and process of this application. The first of these issues includes the appropriate type of land use for this site. The Planning Commission has a great degree of discretion as to what zoning and land use pattern will be approved. The Comprehensive plan designates this site for R-l A, large lot low density single family use. The n0l1hern portion of the proposed project includes a mixture ofR-2A. small lot single family lots, and row-townhouse uses. Is this mixture of uses acceptable for this site? The second point of discussion, also tied to land use, is the requested use of a Planned Unit Development. The applicant is proposing to use a PUD to average the density of the site to meet the 3 units per acre low density qualification as well as to narrow the street right-of-way and street cross section in the southern portion of the site for the purpose of salvaging a number of major overstory trees. Should the averaging of the lot sizes in determining density be exclusive to the northern portion of the site as the southern portion of the site is simply meeting the R-l A standards? Is the narrowing of the street right-of-way in the southern portion of the site accomplishing its purpose? It is the applicant's responsibility to make a compelling case as to how the granting of a PUD will make this project superior to what would be developed under the strict standards of the ordinance. The third point of discussion includes the design and layout of the site which will be discussed, along with the previous points, within this report. Planning staff would like to emphasize again, that although this project has somewhat jumped ahead with their request for preliminary plat approval, it is important that both planning staff and the Planning Commission start from the beginning and determine the correct zoning, land use and density for the subject site. Land Use: The currently undeveloped site rises in elevation from n0l1h to south with a few fairly steep grades in the southern portion of the site. There are 12 jurisdictional 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 wetlands dispersed throughout the site and the majority of the southern 40 acres is .. covered with a large area of overstory trees. As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan designates this site for R-l A (Single Family District) development. The R-l A district was created for the purpose of delegating area with amenities such as rolling terrain, considerable vegetation cover, and visual appeal for low density, larger lot styled development. The southern 40 acres of this site matches this description and is being proposed to be developed in this manner. It can be argued however, that the northern 40 acres of this site lacks the amenities needed to develop in the R-IA standards. The most common zoning distinction for the low density land use class is the R-l District. The applicant is proposing to zone this portion of the site, R-2 and R-2A, with a PUD alIowing a mixture of row-townhouse units. The purpose of the R-2A district is to provide for low to medium density, detached single family housing and directly related complementary uses. The R-2A district is distinguished from the R-2 district in that it has more extensive development standards and is intended to accommodate small lot residential development in traditional neighborhood arrangements with high levels of amenities. The following table illustrates the lot summary for the proposed project: Lot Summary R-1A 76 Lots R-2A 70 Lots Row 94 Lots Townhou ses TOT AL: 240 Lots . The proposed density for the entire 79.68 acre site is as follows; Gross 3.01 Acreag un its/ac e re Net 3.13 Acreag units/ac e re It has been the City's standard to consider low density as being under 3 units per gross acre or 4 units per net acre. Arguably, the R-I A district density should be considered lower than three units per acre. The southern portion of this site, which is proposed to be developed under the R-IA standards, is at a density of approximately 1.9 units per acre. As such, staff suggests that the southern 40 acres be taken out of the equation when determining the average density. With the approval of the PUD averaging and land use designation ofR-2A and R-2, the applicant would then have to stay within the 3 units per gross acre as defined as low density development within the northern portion of the site. As the site is currently designed, the gross density of the northern section is equal to .- 2 ~ ....... Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 approximately 4.1 units an acre. Under this interpretation, the northern portion as a proposed 164 units, but would be permitted no more than 120 units. Zoninz: The subject site has been annexed and is zoned A-Q, Agricultural Open Space. The northern approximately 40 acres of the site is being requested to be rezoned R-2A and R-2. The remainder of the site is proposed to be rezoned R-l A. Due to the lack of amenities in the northern portion of the site, Planning stafT supports developing it as a PUD with a mixture ofR-2A and R-2 development, subject to the overall density of this portion of the site not exceeding 3 units per acre. As previously stated, it rests on the applicant's shoulders to present a compelling case [or the use a PUD. Although the Planning staff is comfortable with the mix of uses, the proposed density is too high and there are design issues that will be discussed in this report. Lot Standards: The following table illustrates the lot requirements for both tbe R-IA and R-2A districts; R-IA R-2A R-2 Lot Area J 6,000 sf avg. 7,500 sf avg. 12.000 Lot Width 90 feet avg. 45 feet 80 feel Front Setback 35 feet avg. I 0 feet 30 feet Side Setback - 15 feet 6 feet 10 feet House Side Side Setback - 6 feet 6 feet 1 0 feet Garage Side Rear Setback 30 feet/usable I 0 feet 30 feet Roof Pitch 6/12 5112 3112 Garage Size 700 sf 450 sf none Foundation Size 2,000 sf 1,200 sf none Finished Size 2,000 sf ] ,200 sf none Foundation Size I ,400 sf None none Garage Location No closer than 5 No closer than none 1'1. in front of front front building line building line of of living spaee living space Fa~ade Detail 20% brick/stone 20% brick/stone or standard or 10% if 70% is 10% if70% is covered with covered with wood wood or stucco or stucco Garage Frontage 40% of bldg. 50% of bldg. width standard width in front- in front-facing facing Landscaping Sod & two trees Special standard per lot in new requirements for subdivision or front yard four trees for landscaping corner lots Both the R- I A and the R-2A districts allow for an averaging of lot sizes. The proposed average area for the R-2A district is 12,800 square feet and the average area for lots in the 3 I Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 R-1 A district area is 18,093 square feet. All other performance standards will need to be . met, including building setbacks from wetlands. The exception area at the northwestern portion of the site is ghost platted into five lots, with a p0l1ion of the northern most lot needing a portion of Lot 1, Block 2. The preliminary plat should eliminate the sliver ofland at the southern portion of Lot 1, Block 2. Circulation/Street Layout and maintenance: The project is proposing that a large portion of the street right-of-way in both the southern and eastern pot1ion of the site be at a 50 foot width. The City's standards are 60 feet with a 32 foot street cross section. This is being requested as part of PUD flexibility for the purpose of limiting the damage to a large area of existing trees. The applicant has not, however, documented how the narrower right-of-ways will accomplish this task. Upon review of the grading plan, it appears that grading will occur outside of the 50 foot right-of-way, which defeats the purpose. If the applicant is going to pursue this request further, the applicant must show exactly what trees will be saved and how the narrower right-of-way will accommodate all of the public utilities, a street, a sidewalk on one side, and the "small" utilities (gas, electric, cable). Fm1her, the applicant should describe what process will be used to save trees on each lot - (i.e. marking, site management during construction). If all of this is accomplished and the narrower street right-of-way is justified, staff proposes that we follow the model approved for the Bruggeman project, which was a 52 foot right-of-way with a 32 foot street which may be off set to provide room for a sidewalk. .......... -..-.. Other issues and/or comments regarding circulation and access are as follows; . Although the City has no plans to extend development to thc east at this time, a connection should be made in case it becomes an imp0l1ant some time in the future. . Street connection to the south, east, and west need to be confirmed as to whether they are located in a spot that can accommodate reasonable development layouts. . The street connection to the west should be a through street in the R-2A area and the cul- de-sac should be redesigned to T into it. . The townhouse area shows 12 foot wide connector loop streets to provide service vehicle through -access. The engineer is concerned this may be too narrow, or two hammerhead turn arounds should be employed. . Cul-de-sacs should be used only where necessary due to wetlands and/or topography. Where used, they should be oversized cul-de-sac' s with the landscaped medians. . The landscaped median islands that should be located in the cul-de-sacs should be an outlot owned by each of the lots fronting on the cul-de-sac in equal undivided interests, responsible for maintenance of the plantings, etc. . There are currently too many R-2A lots located off of the cul-de-sac. The City generally limits the number of driveways off of cul-de-sacs to 4 or 5 at the most. Park / Trail: The site does not provide area for a park. The future park and trail plan does not discuss the area. A payment in lieu of park dedication will be required from the applicant and the Parks Commission must decide where a park to serve this area and future surrounding development should be located. The Parks Commission has identified 4 ~ ..... . . . . . . . . . -- - .- Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 a park search area directly west of the site. Sidewalk and pathway systems will be required to allow good access to the future park. The Parks Commission is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Park Plan for this area. A pathway along the County 18 right-of-way needs to be included. The following is a list of additional comments and concerns: The property owner to the south of this project area claims that the property line is not shown in the right location. The little hook curve in street F should be eliminated. City needs to evaluate the feasibility of extension of sanitary sewer to the south. The exception parcel in the NW part of the development needs to be incorporated into the plat. The townhouse area needs to be designed with a minimum building separation of 96 feet - a 52 foot public right-of-way and a 22 foot front building setback. If private streets are used, the minimum building separations are 74 feet - 24 foot private street with 25 foot garage-to-curb distance on each side of the private street. The townhouse area needs to show additional parking as two -car garages, two spaces in the driveway, plus one additional space per three units. Planning commission should comment on the architectural characteristics of the R-2 and R-2A units. Additional thought should be given to establishing a grading plan that trades trees for wetland. The current plan saves wetland at the expense of trees in an area where trees may be the more valued resource. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: South Portion 1 a. Rezone from A-O to R-] A ]. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from A-O to R-IA based on a finding that the proposed zoning would reflect the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning form A-O to R-IA based on a finding that the proposed zoning is not consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. I b. Concept Stage PUD approval 1. Motion to recommend approval of the concept stage PUD, based on a finding that the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the applicable conditions of Exhibit Z. 5 2. Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 Motion to recommend denial of the concept stage PUD, based on a finding that the proposed PUD is not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. . 1 c. Development Stage PUD 1. Motion to recommend approval of the development stage PUD based on a finding that the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the applicable conditions of Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the development stage PUD based on a finding that the proposed PUD is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 1 d. Preliminary Plat 1. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat based on a finding that the plat meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the applicable conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat based on a finding that the plat is premature until the land use and design issues described within this report are figured out. . Decision 2: North Portion 2a. Rezone from A-O to R-2A and R-2 1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from A-O to R-2A and R-2 based on a finding that the proposed zoning would reflect the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning form A-O to R-1A and R-2 based on a finding that the proposed zoning is not consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2b. Concept Stage PUD approval 1. Motion to recommend approval of the concept stage PUD, based on a finding that the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the applicable conditions of Exhibit Z. .. ,., 6 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 2. Motion to recommend denial of the concept stage PUD, based on a finding that the proposed PUD is not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 2c. Development Stage PUD 1. Motion to recommend approval of the development stage PUD based on a finding that the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the applicable conditions of Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the development stage PUD based on a finding that the proposed PUD is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 2d. Preliminary Plat 1. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat based on a finding that the plat meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the applicable conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat based on a finding that the plat is premature until the land use and design issues described within this report are figured out. ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of (1 a, 1 b, 2a, 2b) subject to the conditions listed in exhibit Z and tabling of (1 c, I d, 2c, 2d). Both development stage PUD and Preliminary Plat considerations appear premature in that upon compliance with the conditions tied to approval of the concept stage PUD and rezones, the plat will need to be revised and may change substantially. Staff recommends that Planning Commission members walk the site prior to the meeting if possible. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A ~ Site Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Landscape Plan Exhibit D - Townhouse building elevation plans Exhibit Z ~ Conditions of Approval ...... W' 7 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 Exhibit Z: Concept Stage PlJD Conditions of Approval- Carlisle Estates ] . The southern portion of the site (R-I A) is to be taken out of the equation in calculating an averaging of density. The northern portion of the site (R-2A, R-2) will be permitted no more than 120 units (3 units per acre). 7 The exception parcel in the NW part of the development needs to be incorporated into the plat. (The developer has agreed to this request). 3. The plans must show what trees will be saved by narrowing the right-of-way to 50 feet. 4. The applicant must show how the proposed narrow right-of-way can accommodate all of the public utilities, a street, a sidewalk on one side, and the ;;smal\" utilities (gas, electric, cable ). 5. The applicant must describe what process will be used to save trees on each lot- (marking, site management during construction). 6. A connection should be made to the east of the site for possible future development. 7. Street connection to the south, east and west need to be confirmed as to whether they are located in a spot that can accommodate reasonable development layouts. 8. The street connection to the west should be a through street in the R-2A area and the cul- de-sac should be redesigned to T into it. 9. The 12 foot wide connector loop streets in the townhouse area should be widened to provide adequate access for service vehicles. 10. Cul-de-sacs should be used only where necessary due to wetlands and/or topography. Where used, they should be oversized cul-de-sac's with landscaped medians. 11. The landscaped median islands that should be located in the cul-de-sacs should be platted as an outlot, owned by each of the lots fronting on the cul-de-sac in equal undivided interests, responsible for maintenance of the plantings. 12. The number of driveways off of the cul-de-sacs are limited to 5 at the most. 13. A payment in lieu of park dedication will be required from the applicant as determined by the parks commission and approved by City Council. 14. A pathway along the County 18 right-of-way needs to be included on the plans. Additional sidewalk in townhome area linking to sidewalk at Street A is needed. 15. The hook curve in street F is to be eliminated. &xhibit Z- Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 16. City needs to evaluate the feasibility of extension of sanitary sewer to the south. 17. The townhouse area needs to be designed with a minimum building separation of 96 feet - a 52 foot public right-of-way and a 22 foot front building setback. 18. If private streets are to be used, the minimum building separations in the townhouse area are to be 74 feet - 24 foot private street with 25 foot garage-to-curb distance on each side of the private street. 19. The townhouse area needs to show additional parking as tWo-car garages, two spaces in the driveway, plus one additional space per three units. 20. Planning commission should comment on the architectural characteristics of the R-2 and R-2A units. 21. The plan requires approval from Wright County Highway Department. 22. Approval from the Wright County Soils and Conservation District. - - , MAY 02 '03 07:56AM DARREL FARR DEVELOPMENT P.2/2 .~' develo. '.r"e'.li.~ "Wh.e.I"\ ''lie bl-lild. let IoI.S b",nd fol"eve..." joh", I"l.\ski", May 2, .2003 - BY MESSE.NGE.R Mr, Steve Grittman N OR'ni\')'IEST AsSOCLl\'I1ID CONSULTANTS 5775 Wayza.ti. Boulevard Suite 555 St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 RE: Carli:sle VUlage Monticello, Minnesota Dear Stev~: . , , Enclosed, please find a marked plan indicating io-blue trees that will he removed during development and In - orange trees to be saved during development. In real numbers wlut this plan shows .is that out of a total of 1850 trees sU1Veyed, we are sa.ving approximately 1150 or 62%. .. For reference purposes, the City of NIaple Grove has a well thought of tree ordinance and their ordinance te.quires uviflg 50% of thf tl:ees. We are saving 24% more trees than the Maple Grove ordinance would require whicl1 means an additional 222 crees sa.Ved. We have completed two deve10pmenu in Maple Glove .in their tree zone and are very proud of e~l:eeding their requirements in both. I believe you are familiar with One of these called Gladstone. A.s YC?u Can see from the eoclosed plan, we will continue to follow our company commitment to t!:'ee preservation in Carlisle Villa.p. . Should you have any questi~ns or comments in this regard, please contact me. Sinl:ecely . c: Jeff O/Neill Mike Gail' File <6 302.5 harbor tene. auitt 317 plymouth, min.nuo~a 55.4.4.7 763-553-9972 763-553-99.83 fn ?; to ... ~;;i :II It - ~ ~ ~ 'il L ! i III e nil I !~!!~~~II 1'!I~lil !!!! , ""~&/ . ~ V / '" "- ~'5r,,{ 77'-t'>-"r --i : I~'~'-- " / / '^'I'- J A--/-- :-!,l i I ~ "'~ "/ / / I Y / \ / I ii_it --j1.1r:~.......:I ",,~ "z.. / I / / L -.... )- \_ - j r--liV I' ".{)/ \- j f J I l~ -I11~;'~~~f ~ """ .".~ \_ __ -- -- I I:~ -tliT~ ~ " ",'. ~ \ - \__ -- '1 .l+--L'~ ~ .~ "< ~~ \ ..1\_--: ~\ - i~~J''' r~~) ~_ .~." r -=- --1~\-- -- i -<:- 4t '<t- j 1 =r'..J ",-- "'-" ~ \ - ,Ill- - ~ 11 i .---.; - ~ - '.., ""'",,1-~' / I Ill,"jl"l, i ~ - i -.- ~.... ! ' 1 I -" -..., ~ -, ""'" .'..... . // f.......... - ., 1;:1 I 'l' ,,~~ I ......... I I - - ;1 " ':.-.."-' -.......J 1',1- - ~ - - ~ ;r/' , 1;1 '~"j:~ "" I Z 1~- L-- tS 'Xl/;-'" . , ,.11- r ~ ii ~ ~ ....,. ............ " 'I T .:... ~ _~ '::-71 .. ~ ~ 1~\ ~~'..... '::-"t..,.~ ~ I 'J~~ - = ts r'\~ ~ '-..". ..::-::.. . '.--:;"' "-A.V ~ ~~ ~Ez - , ~ ..i .L- :/" -' _ .....,.~ ~,-v .. ::-:::1 _/ N... l>I~~~y~~ ~.....~ _" ....~ - \ ~ .. - ~ 1'''' . ~ . /. ~ 'A-. ... .)'/11 v~~~ ~ i; - ~/~ . ~~ N~ '<7\ ~"I"l:;/ !:...C 'lj ~go J. '7//I.w.,.. . ~ . _" . '~ I,~ J:r~ u ~ _.. ..I..PI :!:t ~ ~ 0 L. ~ ... ....... ~ 1 '-C \ .~l =Dt ~'11l-~ -:--- I'''I''I~JI i ~~ ~ ~tT::: IJL.. ..1"1"i" · i 1M ,~A :" u~ D I \ Q I- ~ I m.. lQ'~_.:" I .. "I" ~III' E) ': N -, ~ .. _._ ;. .~. 'fl'~, ~. ,_' ~=:: "', ~.. \1.....1-../ -~~/j =1,-1 ~~L I::~~ '. __ -, u I:JooFJ11 .~ ~ \ ./ ---- -f- - ~_ .. r...ct:i]' .,.:a:o t;:rllh,~ r, ' ~ ~ -. z" I. oz: . L'~LfVCf/ r _" ,O/L7(;:0 . _7AY;; 7 G _ 0'-="" 0 o t1 - ~ ~;:- ~,,~ ~!:t--.J -e :I. ~ _ iii _ ~ ..'- I \ I J .. _?'\) //x~ -\. ~CJ'1-4 N~I- I I - Ve _\ I ~ . .J<!St' /'.11. go " \.c ~~'o~~f ..,.-j I. ._ I -.., ,~I 0 ~,j ","0 !: . A ~ '-1 J .~I I I ir1 e ~ : ~~ J \ I~. 1. J .. J 1 ~~ e- I~: I!~ lJ i ~ J 1 ~',~ 'J ~ I .. ! ' - d I. i ~ c i(Z i (j€ ':J I:' III I ~ ~ I: '1n s;::. ii: lJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ .. .. .. ,~ III &- Hi ,':.1 I I- II ! c ~':!lJ !! it aJ J E i~iJ j .., I ii~ I? '\ I J ~ !;it j 1 D) I ... IlL il ! 1 i .. "' I r P ,,'J L:::..;.:, t"- ~~~.5'!f~~~~ ~,----_........ ,-~,-~........-_...::....,. .:::, n. ..... -.II =! --- u J!E t~ ~ oaJ\ ....' ~. ~ .~ .~- ~ 0"- .....; c...h ...... -4@ ~ -~ .;s .~i ,0 :<:;: .... " j ("\ "~- "-.. '" I J-..' -. /. '/ -,-or ~ ~ ~ 1\-. ''\> ~" - ~i;'c.... _, ~N_ i: ;..": ,~J"""- .... ,:~~, '/'r"'", .'~ .. '" . '~ ", ;, - ....~.i,'. .. "" 3., 4W..:-:..'~:.. .~~~~ .q,', ~"'''' "'),:7' . :f.~- \OJ ... .:;.;.t .... irJ t fi~~ ;" rdP~; ~ t\~ ~,* :J:.IG) 6-~1 ~i _.,....tt~, ,ra::~__~~.,: i-J.. 'i .f' e, 1(........ . fIt:!<,;,:!.:~. ~. ",; , "Idl hl~ ~!! t 1:1; ~~ ~ 0iii1I~ ldl$j ~-~~'\ r:_~ ~ ~e ~ f .:: ~ ~Ja e li!l~ II ij~ ",I~ ~p . ...' ~-, ; I' -'_.'.1 ';:;" . r \ 't' . .., I , II " II . I . . . . . ~ ~ " 11 ; ._"~;;~, 4.1'<~ . .. '" ~ ." -.,~ '. . -~.,. ,~. n... ..-. '~T"--::' i .. ,./ i1 i 1 -/;/. _.._!,.,____ ': i . ,.' '/' ;" ",--,. f i , ," .: fr..f.; ,~"~~. ~;~'! ~d:i;'; "j , II -'M r-- ~'.-- ; ,__,.t- - i I. o ~~:_ ,____;~:! F :~~~"~._,.~~_:~?_~~ i! ! I:J_ . . r.... ,:1,. i . i f i ! e I I I I j I ) j ) !! ] I Ii I I J J J . (. ) (-{j 6~6' i \ '." ..-' \111 . '.j "'-~ ii"'" ; i ~r:'.....' ImPressively spacious and thoughtfuUydesigned, the Danbury celebrates contemporary ..living. This ewo..bedr()omhomeprovides an open floor plan, incorporating a Jargegreat room, dining room and kitchenintoctf!1ostgracious setting~ The kitchen with is land andwqlk..in pantry are ach~f;; 41"~aTTi,7YUltched by the luxuri()Usnessof~~e ample.st~~),'with ..French doors~:Th~.Danbu.9"sgrand .scalecontin.ues .with.~he large upstairs. bathroOm with doubl~bOUJls~nk,.aridthe' ...... grand. ..Owfter's....bedro()rrt~ith... sitting area. A largelaun.clry room and frtain floor storage area are .... Cldditional ..'featUres of this .home. Village --....----...----.. r;iiul, ( OP" . Fir-eplacc Great Room [] Badal] Main Level ~(.A Collection Bedroom 2 Owner's Bedroom o o Main 0 Bath QO Sitting Area Upper Level '.r"'] ~~JUJ"=~~u)H .P~~ i~mi{,";:i~' ~l Opt. L.L. Bedroom #1 ,,'.'.'.':' '30.'000'0'0;:' ,.,",",'.'..... H Utility :i 1 ::0 :;__n....." Garage Lower Level <t,-b Lower Level Options (10 Bedrooms at Lower Level Main Level Options Main Level Bedroom & Full Bath Danbury Options Owner"" Suite Lu.iuryOwner's Suitew/ Laundry Owner's Suire Loft in Lieu of Bedroom #2 Many excir;ingoptions ate available for you to customize your home. AskaVilIage Home representative to show you the options available for the plan you are interested in. .:w...._~""~".""'~~":.":.,>:,'_...M.,\'^,,,..,....~"""",.,.,, The plans shown are artist's rendirions, Il1<lY include oprion,,1 feawleSlInd may vary fmm actual plans. Dimensions and sqtJ'Ml: footage are approxim<lte and plans are suhject to change without notice. Cl200lU.5. H<lIne Corporatjun. Rev. 4/03 Mill7ll!SOla Builders License # J 968 . Upper Level Options Owner'/! Bedr-oom Alt. Upper Level Layout . Bedroom 2 Owner'!; Bedroom Separate Baths Bedroom 2 Owner's Bedroom Walk~in Ourner's Closet . '::~." Villa e Home Collection ~ _............ r~ _ __ I,.. -........." ~-- - -.' Ii o~~r I ,.--- .:, Opt. Flreplace Great Room Dining Offering a blend of warmth andsophisticatio'tl,the Bently is an iritiliiingh.otrte forfri.encLsand Jarnily. The _allmark of thistwo~ edroomhome isthesub~ stantialgreat roOm and dining area that flow together, creatinga distinctive space fOr entertainin~ '11~elYisland and pantryroufl~out the Bently's. kitchen, ..alldthe spacious 'studyi.~~c;f~flted by F.re.n. ..c.......h....... .........',d.............o......... o........r.........s..'........:.....I...J......p...'... s.t. a... i.r. ....s, .'. the largeb(tthremnwith twinsinksand~~~~vagant owner's........b........edroQrr,..Wit..h.. .c.'.'. sittiT1g...a,.ea...cr~dt~::9.,,'r:.................:.....'................,...',...,.,., graC;i()1,L~::eave~.;~large<,: " "foyer, laundry' closet.and.t'tVo~., ,car attached ,.,..garag~ar~ additional fe(ttures of ,', this home. Kitchen o Main Level J.'\, J' '* lie' )1/'OIlA . IE ~ .... I':. ~tL A Bedroom 2 Owner's Bedroom o o Main 0 Bath ~O Sitting Area Upper Level 'b'-', :::; I,: ~~'R~~ 'lir'r~~ll Opt. L.L. Bedroom #1 rr3~i1itv 't:nr....:~~.:.:.:r Garage ~~D Lower Level Option ~ Upper Level Options BedtOOm 2 Owner's Bedroom Separate Baths Owner's Suite Luxury Owner's Suite Owner's Sul.e '!ry Owner's Suite wI Laundry Owner's Bedroom Alt. Upper Level Layout Bently Options L_~~.~~~. L5~~t~~~~_~~~._._. Bod...... 2 Owner's Bedroom Walk"':In Owner's Closet 0,.- ;.... c._ ~---- Loft Owner's Bedroom ~ Loft in Lieu of Bedroom #2 "........'."",", .''''~X_.X~'*,..._~. Many. exciting options are available for you w cuswmize your home. Ask a Village Home representative to show you the options available for the plan you areinreresred in. ,'O,,,:">U"',,.___.................:__:':',.....~ .'.'.>:<.:.:",,",:',' "<<0",*",,"'>'-. The plans ShllWll ~ anist's renditions, may include optional features and may vary fmm actual plans. Dimensions and square fOOtage arc approximate and plans are subject to mange wi.hout notice. (>200l u.s. H"...e Corpnra,i,m. Rev 4/03 MinnesoudJuilders License #1968 . ~II ~lV4"r Bedroom and 314 Bath FI."el . Hearth Room Hearth Room in Lieu of Study Lower Level Option Two Bedrooms at Lower Level . '::~" Bedroom 2 Owner's Bedroom jr~~-. -.- ~.-'- - .~r._r_ -. -.~.. - ".-"11 ;: OptIOnal :: ;: Deck! ;: ji Porch i; ~\ ;; o o Main 0 Bath ~O Sitting Area ;' OPl' :IFirep ate \ Opt, . Fireplace Study Great Room Upper Level The Hampton is truly a . gracious-retre-at.Thisthree... bedroom home . m.akes _~tert.ainin. g. a de..li..ght. .......!...... . ~e. : ~ampton's main floor is open and airy with aRexcep... tionally spacious great room, large dining area and study with .' angle d French doors .......... Adjoining the kitchen is a convenient laundry closet and bath: At the end of the day, the Hampton provides the perfect escap~--<l sweeping.' OWfler.'s..bedroom" with'sitting.drea,. extravagantly......$ii~.dfor... the ultimateinrelaX~ti?n. A large f01eranci d~tCJ.Che4t"'o,; .... ........:.n.....:'.,..'...,..A...,.' ........ tar garage are' additional: ',fea.tuf'es~f this. home. Shel Foyer /!\~;:::~j! ::; ',: Bath:: ~~\t~~:n l~.\).._._, X Opt. L.L. Bedroom #1 Main Level \rO:"U~;ilitY ":O"--"O"T '~-"-"-'r :: :~un_"__~: Garage Lower Level ~\e. A ~-b !-..-............~....,..........~..,'-~.._.----...........-..........: ~ i i Lower Level Option , . \.,"...ww~..wv" ..,..~~,.".~~~...~,. .~W"--~~...~"._~~.~."'....w""....,~, Two Bedrooms at Lower Level Hampton Options . Upper Level Option Upper Level Options 'n. ..^,. .W ,',', '._~."." _ "V" 8<<ltoom Z Owner'fiI Suite ()y,'ner's Bedroum 002 Luxury Owner's Suite with Laundry Alt. Upper Level Layout Owner's Suire . E Owner.s ReJroOin Luxury Owner's Suite Separate Baths B<"1l,oom Z OWner'~ Bedroom '.'~,"'" ,...: ":- ..^"""-'..',.....w ~,,'.,,' >, .,.~,.....,..,,_ '>:<^,., ,:,..", . ;, ~,',,, ,.. ',',,...'.:, , " ',. >:,",' ',^:,"~_ . Many exciting Options are available for you to customize your home. Ask a Village Home representative to show you the Options available for the Planyouareinterested. in. Walk.in Owner's Closet . ~M'.~"w=.<.',=" '",,^~"""'mM ":;'.,':,....,y,,, '.'h,:,' ,ym."'=W=I'",.Y0" ."". : ~'-- ,~ . Luft Owner's Bedtoom The plans shown are artist's rendirions, m"y include oprional feHtures and nlay vary from actual plans. Dimensions and square foorage afe approximate and phns are suhject to change without notke. (l2003 US. HUllleCurporntion. Rev. 4/03 ._~ Sittil1~ Area Loft in Lieu of Bedroom #2 .::~~. Minnesuta BuildeTS License #1968 The Amherst offers caSual elegance and spacious. design throughout every room. Ideal for enter.. eaining, this two..bedroom home is high lighted by the impressive great . room, which opens to a spacious dining area and kitchen. Preparation and serving isa delight in the Amherst's kitchen. withfslandand pantry,. and theculjoini1lg.. laundry roOtnnwkesclear upa hreeze.R.etrea~ingto ..... the upstairsbedro011lswith large, walk..in(;losets provides. a leisurely .endi1tg to the day.. A l(J,rg~Joyer andattclchedtwo;;car: garage are adciitipnal features of thishonie. 7k Village Home Collection ..... - - ~.. - -- -.. - -- !n~~;;nl ,.... Op" '! ~ Opt. Fireplace . .' Fireplace Study Great Room Dining Room /op':--' D ~ .", ~ 3 o Main Level ~\1.- t) z- D Bedroom 2 Owner's Bedroom Upper Level '...n....:: <~::, : ';..:.:,:' :~:.7_~~..' ',_: ,,:. Opt. ]i. Bath (.-, :r~:--> .J_~~~:~;;i Opt. Rec. Room Foyer Garage Lower Level . Main Level Option . ~N~," "~'''',''''',W,~','., "~'~"""'~~~'~_^~""",__~,~~~" _m,v.'"... ~,~,~.,.., 'V~'~. , ~-...-......._-_................_---_....,,;: or~~kllll Bedroom & 3/4 Bath at Main Level Amherst Options Upper Level Options Upper Level Options Loft Bedr"""" 2 OWner'~ Bedroom Owner's Bedroum Loft in Lieu of Bedroom #2 Optional Luxury Bath >--~--'-':_~<<"\\"~"+>:""'"">>"''', "":""""""'.'''''"''''''"'''''''-'-'' Many exciting options. are available for you to customize your home. Ask a Village. Home representative. to show YOuche options available for the plan you are interested in. Owner's Suite "'~"O>'~_ ""-",~:,,,,,,,,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ."..."...."v..,....".N;'." Luxury Otvner's Suite The plans shllwn <Ire artist's renditions. lIlay include Optional {eaWte; and may vary from actual plans. Dimensions aud square footage arc ;Ipproximate and plans are ~ to change without notice. @2003 U.s. HOOle Cnrporntino. Rev. 4/03 MinlleSOra Builders License # 1968 . . . .::~, Luxuriously spaciousancl thoughtfully designed, the Canby'will indulgey()u with .aaceful entertaining options. ~is two..bedroom floor plan offers an expansive kitchen, with dining and great room areas thatblendtogether to make a trt;tlydistinctive setting. The Canby's well designed'k~tche!l. i~ .loculed. with features including .' abundant counter spac~,a pa.....n.. ..t.. ry.. '.. .... a.. n. d.....s. riac..................... k.........b..... ..ar.......................T..... ..h..............e .", ", ','.". .':., , ',.,', c',",'. study.. is generously sized' and incluaesa'closet... Upstairs, the,large...owner's .b~d~g~< withwalk..inclosft:cr~Clt~s .a private.. ret..r.............e.,.. .a..............t..........~.......o......,.r...,....:'e.... ...v.. e..TY........... '.. ..da. y enjoyment.A.natt~ched two..cargarage and ample storage .' room are Cldditional features of this hOme. Great Room Opt. Fi",place ...------.-...m unnn ~ -'.':,~:,},\Xt~j:/A/<\. ," ,. ViII ge Home Collection ....... ~~ - -- - - - ~ ~- ~ )f ~~ - - ~--- - - ~~.... .~1 ii Optional il :: Deck :: ;1 ~; Dining Room Kitchen g Main Level ~\Lb Study a-D Bedroom 2 Owner's Bedroom Upper Level '.........:: (::' : ~-,:~:.=' ::;---0..... "-.' ,.:. pt. ~i.BatA #1 .".....7_.. .,', .' :: ,.... (/' d~~:.:::.::~ 11 Utility :: c:::J 1:0D Optional Enlarged Rec. Room Foyer Garage Stoop Lower Level ,. Opt. Roc. Room Lm.uer Level Rec. Room Lm.uer Level Bedroom Lower Level Bath #2 Canby Options ,~~...~.,=". ~'-.':~'_"".~""_..':'~Y".m~'..'_ .... ..'^"""""^~_._.,^"...w,','~ ! i L._~a~.~~~~~~.. ?~~~ns Study 3/4 Bath' at Main Level ~ ~~J~ Great Roou, Dining Room o Owner'!1, Bcd room Vlllk.1 CI..,II" Main Level Owner's Suite ~''''~-'''~'~~-'''''"'_'~_:'''''''"''=<<;<~''>':''W_W''''~' Many exciting options are available for you to -custornize your home. AskaVillage Home representative to > show you the oPtions available for the plan you 4re interested in. "',..N..'....""*""':>,......."..,,_,'..'..~"",,'..:<<<'''''''..,,,y,.,'','''..",:v.o",">""',,,,..,,,." 1he plans shown are artist'stenditions. may include "ptional features and may vary from actual plans. Dimensiuns and squate flllltage are approximate and plans are subject to change withOUt notice. t:>2003 U.S, "'"me Corp"'"' j"n. Rev, 4/OJ 'l1:_~~A~.'" D....rl....... T ~~.......... .u..nt:.Q . Upper Level Options Owner'lIi Sui Ie HI Luxury Owner's Suite # 1 Owne["'s Suite H2 y . Luxury Oumer's Suite #2 Bedroom 2 Owner'~ Bedroo", Optional Computer Desk B.d,,,,,,,, 2 Own~rlA Bedr""", Luxury Bath Loft . Owner's Bedroo", Loft in Lieu of Bedroom #2 ~~"'~"'" .~. ~'." Village Home Collection With remarkable space and irresist.iMechann.'. the Ess.e. x. is truly ~xceptiOrttd.Thist;wo.. bedroom home offers a eubstantial kitch~n, . with dining and great room areas that blendseamlessly into a grand main floor. setting. Glass doors off the ..greatroom, invite guests to the horne's front deck.. The large~i.tf~ef1: . island andwalk~in.pantTY make the Essex'skitcheit a dream, and the upstairs owner's. bedroOm with spacious walk..iridosetcreate the.per[ectatnt6sp.here{ora' peaceful night's sleep .A large m.a. ......t...u flo.or 'lau. n.........d... TY...... r.....o. .....om................. ..'.......,...........'..........'...., attached two~car garage and foyerwitharigled staircase are additional features of this home. t:ll ~ Dining it Room 0 ~ Great : "": Room Opt. ["_"::_ Fireplace Deck Main Level ~lt- b ~-D Bedroom 2 o ~~'_"PD Owner's Bedroom Upper Level ;: (~~I ; 'r.'~' :C:o~t: &th ;:~ .... '1 '~i ~~: ;: :: rf~ :,Nu-:.::::. ::~-" Utility : : c=::J !!OD Optional Enlarged Rec. Room Stoop . . Lower Level Lower Level Options Op.innal Roc. Room Lnver Level Rec. Room Bedroom Lower Level Bedroom. Essex Options r---~---"'-~"~"'l ! Lower Level OptIOns I L..,,,.,. ..d.... ..._,.._"_......,...,"",,........ " """",,' Upper Level Options Opo;nnal Roc. Room Lnver Level Bath Location #2 Owner I" Suire: Luxury Owner's Suite Bednltlm 2 Owne-rt~ Bedroom Many exciting options are available for . you to customize your home. Ask a"Village Home representative to show you the options available for the plan you are interested in. Luxury Bath -,."_'O"""."'''''l',.'''...~x',.,..''''',:,.,'''.............,,:,''',>,,:_:''',.,..^.''',.....'.,',R":M:OI:',,",'<<"_, The plansshown are artist's renditions. may include optional features and may vary from actual plans. Dimensions and square footage are approximate and plans are.. subject to change wi thout norice. @2003 U.S, H",ne Cnrpnraliun. Rev. 4/03 Minnesola Builders Ucense # 1968 . . . .:M;l~, May 2, 2003 Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Initial Review Comments Carlisle Village WSB Project No. 1160-23 Dear Mr. O'Neill: We have received the preliminary plat submittal documents from MFRA for the above- referenced project and would like to address the unresolved issues prior to providing detailed preliminary plat review comments. We believe that these initial issues should be addressed prior to completing the detailed review and starting the preliminary plat review process. Our issues are noted as follows: BOUNDARY SlJRVEY 1. The south 40 acres of the proposed plat includes wetlands that were not previously addressed in the wetland submittals and permit. The resolution of the permit addressing those wetlands should be completed prior to preliminary plat approval. 2. I was recently notified by the engineer for the property owner to the south of this plat that there may be a dispute on the south property line. This dispute should be clarified as to its validity. 3. We have previously requested that the exception parcel located on the northwest side of the plat be included in the plat. This has not yet been addressed in that manner. TREE SURVEY 1. The developer has requested reduced rights-of-way and street widths to accommodate the preservation of the treed area. While we do not normally reduce street widths, we feel that the developer should provide a detailed tree preservation plan identifying which trees are to be saved through the reduction of the City standards. Without that information, it is difficult to determine the need for this reduction. (": """/"H'.' nAil' OjOJ03-1",,,.,I/.d'K ~ E Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator May 2, 2003 Page 2 PRELIMINARY PLA T I. City staff needs to evaluate the proposed location of the stub streets to the south and west to determine if those are in an acceptable location to allow for future development in those directions. 2. It appears that a street connection should be provided to the east at the corner of Street E. This wiIl need to be evaluated to determine if that is the best location for a connection to that property. 3. Street F includes a slight curve towards the end of the street that appears could be eliminated. 4. Access to all ponds and wetlands should be provided with a minimum 30-foot easement. This access should include a Class 5 base with topsoil and seed on top. It is important that City Public Works has reasonable access to these facilities for future maintenance. 5. The intersection of Strect A and Street E should be revised to provide a through movement from Street A to Street E directly to the south, with the east/west portion of Street E teeing into that intersection. 6. Streets should not be proposed with less than 90-degree corners. It would be preferable that the inside radius of all streets be a minimum of 40 feet. 7. The intersection of Street C and the Street C cul-de-sac may need to be revised to allow Street C, from east to west, to be the through movement with the Street C cul-de-sac teed into that intersection. 8. The minimum cul-de-sac street width is 30 feet face-to-face. 9. The plat includes a proposed center island at the end of Street G. This island should be platted as an outlot, with the maintenance responsibility assigned to the lots that access the cul-de-sac. 10. It appears that there is inadequate parking for the townhome areas. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 1. The 12-foot loop streets behind the townhome area should be addressed as to how conflicts will be avoided from one side to the other. The southerly-most location appears to be of the greatest concern. 2. The spacing between townhome units with a public street and right-of-way should be a minimum of 96 feet. The spacing between town home units in a private right-of-way location should be a minimum of 74 feet. ...... 'W' (',' u""u.IO\I'.\" II'.AII' 050:03-)Ullj'i/l.df)( Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator May 2, 2003 Page 3 3. The townhome area does not include any sidewalk. This should be added to one side of all streets within the townhome area. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 1. All existing wetlands should be better denoted on the plan. 2. Several of the lots in the southwest corner do not appear to be a minimum of 1 foot above the street elevation as is required under City code. 3. The plans should identify how runoff from areas outside the plat is intended to be addressed through the proposed lot areas. 4. City staff is working on a pond vegetation plan that will need to be incorporated into this plan. 5. The developer should provide high water level signs around all stormwater basins as a notification to residents of the proposed ponding elevations. 6. The proposed pathway along CSAH 18 should be shown on the grading plan as a graded pad area. --- 7. The location of the proposed mitigation areas should be analyzed. Currently, there is as little as 20 feet from the rear pad to the wetland mitigation or wetland area, which is very minimal to provide use of the rear yard area. 8. The typical street sections should include a sand section commensurate with the soil conditions on site. 9. Soil borings should be provided to the City for review. 10. Stormwater design is being evaluated for possible elimination of the proposed lift station. The developer will need to work with City staff to look for possible alternatives to address this issue. II. The proposed wetland mitigation area in Outlot D has a note stating "Provide water source for wetland mitigation." The developer should provide information as to the water source for this area. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN ...... 1. The City will evaluate the need to extend sanitary sewer to the south and how that will be accomplished. ....... ('. \l'/Iultm.\ IJ~AII' OjO!(}J-j("Il'fll.lh~{. Mr. leffO'Neill; Deputy City Administrator May 2, 2003 Page 4 2. The plan should show watennain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer design to City standards within the right-of.way. In the past, we have allowed the developer's engineer to hastily show the utilities for preliminary plat documents, which has caused significant concerns during the final design stage. This plan will need to be redeveloped to accommodate City design standards. 3. Sanitary sewer services should be kept to a reasonable length under 70 feet. 4. Sanitary sewer manholes should be kept within City streets, and preferably on the center line. As is apparent fi'om my comments, there are significant issues that we feel should be addressed prior to granting preliminary plat approval. Addressing these issues in conjunction with the Planning Commission review will allow the Planning Commission to review the actual lot configuration and design issues prior to sending this plat forward to the City Council. Please give me a call at (763) 287-7190 if you have any questions or comments regarding this information. ..-.. Sincerely, ...... t ! , WSB & Associates, IlIc. Bret A Weiss, P.E. City Engineer cc: lohn Simola, City of Monticello Steve Grittman, NAC Lucinda Gardner, Shadow Creek Corporation Dave Nash, MFRA sb . ('.. 11h,doll ,\ II~AfI1 OJ()](J3-jOI!l'i/!.dfl{ . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 9. Public Headn!! - Consideration of preliminary plat approval of the Otter Creek Crossine commercial subdivision. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC (10) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Review of the Otter Creek Crossing plat has been delayed pending completion of land acquisition of the roadway (Chelsea) need to serve the plat. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to open public hearing and table consideration of preliminary plat request. 2. Motion to approve with conditions that it must meet city platting standards and on the condition that the roadway access ownership has been resolved. 3. Motion to deny preliminary plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative 1. This request will be on the agenda as soon as the land for road\vay is under control by the developer of City. SUPPORTING DATA Reduced copy of plat \ JOo\oJ., 20.~ 7 ~ ~ ,.I.~ .~ ~~~ "i H ~~ i~ ii ~~: &i RI! ,~, ~ ~~i ,,/ r::-""",,~I , ;~ --.-I - 'i-~-' ~I! ~ ....\ ) ~~~ ~\l~ 1___/ r',::, s~i lS~ l ""I~== ~U ~~~ :J $;8;<-'!lg~ ~~ r~ "'" '" ~t: 1 ""t lIS . ~,~ ::l~D I W . ~i ' '" ll'!lr""\" ~ ~~~ ijU I ~il!~~ "~\>r\~''L'~~.f~! f~ f.. ~~ l ~ / i ,,~,'~~ ("",-'~' '\~~~..".............~ J>~,;J7\f"<: 1/1 /'if....,.'," "-', ~~ \"...... \;\J: ~Ii (L ----"" f: '~>~;5!~~~r(Jt "<:::-'; I!;of ~i~\..,,-_/~~'..,It'" :,; ~F "".p." (.....) '"" '>",' 1) I~II ~~, "J!1" ",-,,=-- ~~.1 ll'0;20,,101<0)-<-"('} I; II"" '-'-'''''',,/, xI'" ----.'!L -'--"~---"---/ " N~~"'O'w tDE~), "'\ i i .. I !i I: . '''', ". ,.-' .,'" ''>-" ':" '" ,~ d.:<\ '."'~\~-4...j \ " ~'" ; \l~ /,\ / /~ij(/ "\ i / ~l:i' \. \ ! I i:tI!tt I \ I j J ,~ '\, ,C' , / ,: lIIi ), I I I ~, ! . , ' / I) . , ~" '. ' ::..~ - , " \. '--, f- J) /" ( I'~ _______ - \ ,/ ./ -~' "'~ .."*~ ~/ ",,-...---i~,,,, /" gel .s00'20'16"~ }L,.-- ",,,,,. , 1322,0:J < '>'~~~:>,:' [":" " ""'.....,' ,......-',.,' .~..</.l...,,_~. /.... ~~ .i :i ~ ~ , . ~l 5('i , "' .... \~"'J ..' '~ " _10, ," ---,,~V~) , ' r ~'I.oIc:;.' ~: ~ ( "q,,,.. / O~i \ :~~ + ~ ~ jI1~: i \ - ~ ~ ....'...1, ,/ b.,:-: '.,... " ',1'." , / ._'- '-~,- "",,-- ',- I '- ( \ -,,- ""'_. " \ '" ) e \,l," I c "-i! ' ~"-, ../ \:~ ~ I'" ~-:..~, '>/ 8:'9 \,.. -<: ~ i?, ' -,,4''- ~o ....~'" ~~' c-"l' 4~ /' \..~ ~ v,') " ;; . \, r::l <ii\/'> ---- "~ 14~,<;.ij i;..' if "'~ '-940--_..A t\<;. ~ ."~ "\9-;;),.,.. ... C".) ,,<;.' ....... ''j '). ""'. ~~ ...... ...... ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I Ii 4, ~ ~ "y ~ "'- 4>- ~ "0 ~~ "y .0 ~ <b "y ~ ~ " 'Bo.. I " ~ 8 " I , I! III Of' V{*.03~~oI"~_!,,,,~ow\>""'I"'na;9>~~.h~"'+"'lHCIll:llllil:' 0 too. . I I I . . . . . . . . 1M MI' . . . . . . I . I . I I M M I I . . . . . i~~il~~~~~~~~~~II~~;!isgg~~iliil~~~i~!=~~ ~ · ; ~ ~ ! : I i ~ ~ I ~ i ~ ~ ~ I ; ; II ~ i a i ! i a ~ I ~ i ; ~ B :11 ~ ~ ~ i ~! g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ji i 0 ~ ~ i ~ 0 z 8 --<11)- 8 8 Planning Commission Agenda ~ 05/06/03 . 10. Public Hcaring: Consideration of a request for Concept PUD review of a 3-unit detached townhouse project. Applicant: Richard Carlson. (NAC) Reference and Background Richard Carlson has submitted a proposed concept sketch plan for a three unit "detached townhouse" project at Vine Street, north of the Burlington Northern railroad. The project would rely on the use and vacation of the Vine Street right of way, and would include a driveway that accesses the stub of Vine Street, and extends both east and west to provide access to the proposed attached garages. The units shown on the concept plan would bc 1,350 square foot one-level ramblers, with basemcnts. There are a number of issues that should be discussed by the Planning Commission. . . Lot Area. The proposed parcel consists of 17,820 square feet, according to the sketch plan. The site is zoned R-2, which permits single and two-family units. Townhouses are attached units, as defined in the zoning ordinance, and may be allowed by Conditional Usc Permit. Detached single family units require 12,000 square feet of lot area per unit. In the R-2A District. detached singlc family units require 7,500 square feet oflot area per unit. To meet the R-2 standard, 36.000 square feet of lot area would be required. The R-2A standard would rcquire 22,500 square feet of lot area. To comply with the R-2A standard, the applicant would need a rezoning and the vacation of Vine Street to have enough room for 3 dctached units. . Right of Way. As noted above, the right of way vacation is necessary to meet the lot area standard, even with a rezoning. The location of the lot makes access to the public street an issue. With a vacation of Vine Street, the access would be at the end of a stub street with no cui-dc-sac or other approved turn-around. . Driveway Width. The sketch plan shows a driveway that is just 14 feet in width. This dimension has been used for one-way alleys in other projects, but is too narrow to carry even limited traffic in two directions. . Driveway Layout. The driveway layouts would make turning movements for residents difficult. Access to garages for both the east and west units would be tight for passenger vehicles, and probably impossible for larger service vehicles, such as a garbage truck. . Setback Issues. The front of a lot is typically judged to be that lot line adjacent to the street frontage. In this case, that would be adjacent to the end of the Vine . 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 Street stub, after the vacation. However, the rear setback is defined as the lot line opposite the front. The applicant has illustrated the site plan with a rear setback to the east, and a side setback to the south. This issue would need to be resolved if the project proceeds. . · PUD Purpose. The intent of the PUD ordinance is to permit development that does not comply with the strict interpretation of the zoning regulations, but because of significant design elements of the project, justification is provided for flexibility in zoning standards. The Planning Commission and City Council should make a clear finding as to the factors which would justify the use of PUD on this site in the event that the applicant is encouraged to proceed. Alternative Actions For a concept PUD plan, the Planning Commission provides direction and feedback to the applicant as issues that the proposal raises regarding both land use and site design. Plalming staff is concerned that while detached single family use may fit with the development pattern of the neighborhood, there are a number of site design issues that may make the proposed plan infeasible. Ifmore than one detached single family home is to be proposed on this site, an alternative layout should be explored. . Staff Recommendation No specific recommendation is offered at this stage of review. The issues raised in this report are intended to guide the Planning Commission's discussion of the project, and the applicant's decision to proceed to more detailed development planning on the site. Supportin2 Data Site Concept Plan 2 . fD r . . . t I " -...,: -.; , ??: JJ " " ;;; I i i I I --l I I ~ ! " " q -' .,.. I / '- &< I I I () o ~ i is "' ,.., ~ (f> " ~C-l " / I I ," " --'> ~ 2 ~ ~ (f> " /.--- ----- ~'\ I -- .-...........- , - I ,i L-f', : '~~~I _ --- J ~ I -.. !(; , ~ ).. --l~ : \~~ _ __ L. _ d .-l7cJIt-y 6k 1/~)'~~ II.: "Ie ::i ~ ~~~ ~~o 4 ... r .. L1-'~ Cis , -- --~~._- 'lL ~ \;':J I \ () l~iG""">!- .....:_- _ ~1 -~ . I , , ~ l ~~~ ,~ 0_ -T "" Q t~ ~, 1 I I l ~ ~- G~ 3'\~~ I" ~ '0 t ~ c:. >? ~\ .j 1? '''':.,- ~ "'. ~ {[ . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 11. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for development stage planned unit development and preliminary plat approval, along with a request for re-zoning from Agriculture-Open Space to a combination of R-l, single family residential, R-2, single and two family residential, I-lA, light industrial, and B-2, limited business district. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development Inc. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Gold Nugget Development Inc. is requesting preliminary plat approval of a 220 acre multi~use (residential, commercial, industrial) development to be known as the Featherstone subdivision. The site is located directly south of the Kjellberg East trailer park, abutting Highway 25 to the West, 85th Street to the south, and County Road 117 to the east. The project, which went through concept approval in March of 2003, consists of 150 acres of residential (single family and townhouse units), ] 0 acres of commercial, and 60 acres of light industrial use. A 60 acre portion of the site (Phase 1) has been annexed into the City and is currently zoned A-O, Agricultural- Open Space, of which a request for a rezone to residential uses is being pursued. The application includes development stage PUD approval of the R-2, townhouse portion of the site and a PUD overlay for the R-l portion of the site allowing flexibility in lot width requirements. Concerns including site design, buffering between uses, and limiting the use of cul~ de-sacs were discussed during concept approval. The applicant has revised the plans to deal with such issues. The following report is Planning Staff's analysis, review, and recommendations regarding the revised plans dated April 14,2003. Land Use. The land uses proposed for the Featherstone development are reflective of the City's Comprehensive land use plan and have been the subject of numerous discussions between City Staff, the township, and the developer. The project proposes that the subject site be rezoned from its current A-O designation to a mixture ofland uses including 60 acres ofI-IA (light industrial), ]0 acres of B-2 (limited business), approximately 20 acres ofR-2 (townhome development), and 130 acres of R-l (single family detached) development. During the Concept Plan review, the IDe recommended that the land dedicated for industrial use be increased to 65 acres, thereby reducing the commercial land to 5 acres. After some discussion however, it was recommended by the Planning Commission that the land use should remam as IS. Preliminary Plat. During concept review, staff recommended a higher amount of detached housing versus the number of attached units. The revised plans have addressed this issue by eliminating a ]argenumber of attached townhouse units planned for the north end of the site, replacing them with detached single family lots. Other design issues that have been revised include the removal of "Butt Lots" and elimination of the need for temporary dead end connections. Both the single family lot layout and the townhome lot design generally meet the performance standards for their perspective districts. The following table illustrates 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 these performance requirements. followed by a list of issues and concerns that remam: R-l Requirements Lot Area 12.000 sf Lot Width gO feet Front Setback 30 feet Side Setback - ] 5 feet House Side Side Setback - 6 feet Garage Side Rear Setback 30 feet / usable Roof Pitch 5/12 Garage Size 450 sf House Size 2,000 sf Finished Size ] ,050 sf Foundation Size -- None Garage Location Standard setbacks Landscaping Sod & two trees per lot in new subdivisions or four trees for corner or double fronting lots R-2 Requirements Lot Area 12,000 sf Lot Area per unit / 5,000 sf Townhome Lot Width 80 feet Front Setback 30 feet Side Setback- 10 feet House Side Side Setback - 1 0 feet Garage Side Rear Setback 30 feet / usable Roof Pitch 3/12 -'\Io~n ,'. · The plat provides the frontage of the lot on the street, but does not detail the width of the lot at the 30 foot setback line. Some of single family lots are close to the 80 foot minimum lot width requirement. The R-l District permits averaging, but staff would need to have the lot widths identified to ensure that the minimums and the averaging requirements are met. · Building elevations and floor plans for the townhome units need to be submitted and reviewed. . . . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 . Planned Unit Development. The application requires Development Stage PUD approval for the 20 acre R-2 (townhome) portion of the project. At concept level. the Planning Commission and Planning Staff agreed that this mixture of residential uses was adequate. subject to decreasing the overall ratio of attached townhome units compared to detached single family units. Development Stage PUD provides the level of detail that is necessary to verify that the intent of the PUD ordinance is met. Design. landscaping. building. and open space comments below address the pun request for the townhouse portion of the project. 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 851h 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 and MnDOT approval will be needed for the access off of Highway 25. Some right-of-way may be needed for the realignment of the intersection at 851h Street and Highway 25. Additional right of way may also be needed within the commercial and Industrial area to accommodate medians and turn lanes. It should also be noted that funds will be requested for the reconstruction of both Edmonson and 851h Street. . Staff is generally comfortable with the meandering street pattern throughout the project. The plan consists of a collector street with an 80 foot right-of-way connecting 851h Street to Edmonson A venue. The future Cedar Street Street extension within the Commercial/Industrial portion of the site is currently shown with a 60 foot right-of-way and should be changed to an 80 foot right-of-way with a 40 (perhaps 44) foot street. The remainder of the minor streets provide for a 60 foot right-of-way width. As requested during the concept stage, the site has eliminated two of the previously proposed cuI-dc-sacs and lessened the length of the remaining three cul-de-sacs to well under the maximum allowed 600 feet. The plans show landscaped center islands in each of the three cul-de-sacs. The islands meet the design width requirements of 80 feet total radius with a 40 foot radius provided for the landscaped median. The islands are to be platted as outlots. The two landscaped medians located in the R-2 district are to be owned and maintained by the association. The landscaped median in the R-I district cul-de-sac is to be owned by each of the lots fronting on the cul-de-sac in equal undivided interests. A maintenance plan for this outlot will need to be submitted and approved by the City prior to final plat approval. Staff suggests that the maintenance plan be accomplished through a restrictive covenant agreement where the six lots fronting the cul-de-sac are held jointly responsible for the maintenance of the island which include any costs incurred on the City if forced to maintain it. . It has been a general development practice of the City to minimize the need to use spur driveways. Spur driveways make it difficult for City maintenance, garbage, and fire protection vehicles to maneuver. As such, planning staff encourages the developer to consider a looped road development within the row-townhouse area as opposed to the proposed cul-de-sac and six spurred driveways. The loop would 3 ~-~'~. - Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 likely be in the shape of a "horseshoe", with the area adjacent to the street providing some open space. The site plan provides for two future connections to the 20 acre piece of land southeast of the site for future development. The applicant has provided City Staff with an adequate sketch plan of how the site could be developed in a reasonable manner in the future. Park / Trail. The plans show an approximately 17 acre linear park and trail connection running n0l1h 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. In accordance with the suggestions made at concept level, the applicant has revised the plans to include the following; an east/west trail connection along 851h street 10 State Highway 25 and a trail running along the southern portion of the most northern pond rather than the northern portion abutting the trailer park as shown on the concept plan. Upon further review, the Planning Staff suggests the following revisions; character of the linear park should be enhanced by including mounding and increased landscaping, Public Works staff suggests intermittent split rail fence sections be used as delineators from the park to the rear yards as opposed to vinyl bollards. It was suggested in concept review that the parks commission has been looking for an area to develop a larger, active park with ballfields and 1hat the proposed parkland along 851h street may be suitable for this purpose. The parks commission has since decided that this may not be the best location for such a park as it would require lighting for ball fields which may conflict with neighboring residential use. The Parks Commission will continue to review the possibilities for the larger southern park and will likely require a small parking lot off of 851h street. Building style. The applicant has submitted elevation and floor plans for both the four unit townhomes and the quad homes. The 42 slab on grade quad units consist of 4 units each with 4 different styles that can be combined, depending on the desire of the buyer. The 48 townhome units, located around the northern most cuI-dc-sac are 2 story with 2 car tuck under garages and 1600 sq. ft. of finished building space. The townhouse plans need to be revised to provide a 74 foot building separation. The buildings appear to meet the building standards as far as roof pitch and building material. Planning staff suggests that the blank side of the townhouse buildings include windows or some type of fayade treatment to enhance appearance. Landscaping. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan which generally meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The R-l district provides for two boulevard trees per lot (four on a corner lot) at 2" diameter. The boundary of the site appears to be sufficiently buffered from both the trailer park to the north as well as along 851h and Edmonson Streets. Discussions were raised during concept review as to how to most efficiently buffer the residential portion of the site from the industrial/commercial portion of the site to the west. The applicant is proposing a dense mixture of plantings including (River Birch, Scotch Pine, and Mugho Pine shrubs), to improve appearance and lessen noise pollution from the light industrial ......I.:....,-~:'~, ~ . . . 4 Planning Commission Agenda ~ 05/06/03 . uses. Staff is comfortable with the landscaping plan however, it should be noted that as the industrial lots develop, they will be required to add their portion of the required 50 foot landscaped buffer between the industrial and residential uses, which include 160 planting units per 100 feet of abutting property line. It should also be noted that a grading plan and landscaping plan will need to be developed that results in a '\vet" pond, with plant materials that can tolerate periodic inundation. SiRnaRe. The site plans show two monument signs, onc located at the western access off of 85th street and the other at the northern most access off of Edmonson A venue. Plans for these signs are to be submitted and reviewed by City Staff and should meet the requirements of Section 3-9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Gradil1R Plan. The submitted grading plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Utilit)! Plan. Plans for sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer for the subject site have been submitted. Ponds need to have street exposure for aesthetic and access/maintenance reasons. All utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS: . Decision 1: Development Stage PUD 1. Motion to approve the development stage PUD allowing 20 acres of the low density residential site to be utilized for townhome development based on a finding that the overall density and land use pattern is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the development stage PUD allowing 20 acres of the low density residential site to be utilized for townhome development based on a finding that the overall density and land use pattern is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. Motion to table the request for further study. Decision 2: Rezoning from AO to R-l, R-2, 1-1, and B-2 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Rezoning from AO to R-l for the single family portion of the site, R-2 for the townhouse portion of the site, 1-1 for the industrial portion of the site, and B-2 for the commercial portion of the site based on a finding that the proposed zoning would reflect the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. . 5 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Rezoning based on a finding that the proposed zoning does not consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. Motion to table the request for further study. Decision 3: Preliminary Plat for Featherstone 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Featherstone, and mixed use development, based on a finding that the land use pattern is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions; 1. The developer verifies that all R-I single family lots meet the minimum 80 foot lot width requirement, or that the averaging allowances of the district are met. 2. Permission must be obtained from Wright County for the access points onto County Road 117. .., :>. Access approval must be granted by MnDOT for access off of Highway 25. 4. Funds will be required for the reconstruction of both Edmonson and 85th Street. 5. Additional right-of-way may be needed for the realignment of the intersection of 85th street and highway 25. 6. Additional right-of-way may be needed near the intersections in the Commercial/Industrial portion of the site to accommodate medians and turn lanes. 7. The future Cedar Street extension in the Industrial/Commercial portion of the site needs to be revised to include an 80 foot right-of- way and 40 foot street. 8. Maintenance of the two landscaped center islands located in the townhouse section of the site is to be provided via the association 9. A maintenance plan for the landscaped center island located in the R- 1 portion of the site is to be submitted and approved by the City. 10. Townhouse building to building separation needs to be 74 feet. 11. Need to add character to linear park areas, including mounding and increased landscaping. . . . 6 Planning Commission Agenda ~ 05/06/03 . 12. Intermittent split rail fence sections are to replace the white vinyl bollards to be used to delineate the park from the rear yards. 13. The three landscaped center islands are to be platted as outlots. 14. The landscaped median in the R-l district cul-de-sac is to be owned by each of the lots fronting on the cul-de-sac in equal undivided interests. 15. Ponds need to have street exposure for aesthetic and 0'" access/maintenance reasons. 16. A portion of pond bottom to be lined so that it holds water. The balance planted with plant materials that can tolerate periodic inundation. 17. The southern park will need to be reviewed by the Parks Commission as to whether to require a small parking lot off of 85th Street. 18. The applicant is to look into adding windows or some other form of building treatment to the side elevations of the four unit townhouse buildings to add to the character and visual appearance of the . buildings. 19. As developed, the industrial lots are to provide their portion of landscaping in the required 50 foot landscaped buffer between industrial and residential use. 20. Plans for the two proposed monument signs are to be submitted and reviewed by City Staff. Signs should not be located in a center island median. 21. The submitted grading plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 22. All utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 23. A revised set of preliminary plat drawings is prepared and submitted, demonstrating compliance with the adopted plat conditions. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat for Featherstone, based on a finding that proposed plat is not consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or the land use pattern of the Comprehensive plan. . .., Motion to table the request for further study. .). 7 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of each of the requests, with the recommended conditions. Although there are numerous specific recommendations, it is staff s opinion that the plat is laid out in a manner that the conditions will affect only slightly, if at all. The site has been the subject of considerable discussion between the City and the developer, including a concept plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed plat with the recommended conditions, closely reflects the intent of these discussions and should meet the City's zoning and subdivision regulations, as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Parks Master Plan. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Preliminary Plat Exhibit D - Preliminary & Site utility Plan Exhibit E - Landscape Plan Exhibit F ~ Townhouse building elevation plan Exhibit G -Townhouse building layout Exhibit H - Quadhome building elevation plan Exhibit I - Quadhome building layout . . . 8 LOCATION MAP NO SCALE .. --------,------,- ~-------I . ~ I / ,~. \v'\ I 1\ I \v'< 1\,\ I / I" 1\,\ , '.1 I;: , I \-, I. \- I \",'v~ I~ \",-\'-\ "'\ ~7 I I I ci ~\ -i I I I 1,1 U I t- I . --~lL-------~l - - - - - - - - - -7 r - - -- - -- - - -- --- -=- ~;:.-=--=----=- =-=-=---=-1 I I I I 86 TH STREET I I I I \~'\ I II \~'\ I' \~'\ 'III \~\ I' f\ 101 I f\ \ f\ I I f\ \ .J ~I I \ I \\ 1,1 \ I / iEl,J...' I / 1'1' I r~~/ ;'''1,,'' I r\/ 'II r~~" I ~J J-) ~J III ~J I ../ I 1../1 1../ 111../ I . - - - - - - - - L _l-L - - - - - -.L - - _ _ _ _ _ _ --.U ~ _ _ _ _ _ ---.J / \. < / . / .~ -i~ \ . SECTION 22 SECTION 23 TOWNSHIP 121 N, RANGE 25 W " , .. \ ,~."" ..,..ft-~);.:...'t.. .' ....i&!.... -~..~:,......J .';. ,.~'" ,...: :.__ ..:- ... /~ / // /:y !J~!j II A Itr;; lit-. . 'il 'I ~I : I' I 1,1 T ,,.0 .....: -, <>~. ~ . I'i ~8 ~ ~ ::z:: !o- ~'~n I IIlTII~~( i 11 m~lt __~,n L ~ Iv,I' M " U I i'!U~ t ,~ -.1 Iii ~ I ", ((f n~ II i j , ,>: oJ I, i _.J I '1 ~A .Jr.- I ' ,I' " t~ ;~ ~ ( \l?~' 'J ~ \, ~, ,~~.,.. .~.=:-- ~ r; c r () i \ '" "~ I"~' d ' It \ 'J' \,~. > .,,~, ' · "~ ':r1 \" .~ :!i I, I; 11 lIP, i " '-V-4: '- '-'if ~"III= I~ EID- J W~:~, / t\l,l._'[ '. ~~ i~i; '~~ 'i;i~ i; ~~ liU! ~ ~ !kll{ I') ::' 'I' ','~i!i i I \ l ~ j , I 1'1'\ ,'~l,' !"ii ;' I; .;,- .-. '[j t I; \:;--- Ii ~~ !~:~ . I ~. \1 '; ! 'n,'! ' i '1 ~:",' I I . ~ ~ ~ lj" ~ II~ ::i i!- '.I 1,1 I. I'! STREET B - I~.f -' -, ........~......"O _.~ '- ~. ". ,,~. -.", " "", 01' "" ", ", .{"'-it",,_ "', . " ' "'V/If " "", ~,yl)~- """ " /'" "'~~~S"'" "-. .,' ~t;.,"~'~~':::.:.:,->" , ............. ~ .. ...... ....... (10 f ;'" - ",". '~,<:,.." (') - -i- ,. I ><<'::~'" '?O> --/ / '-.-...,<.---, ' 'I) _., ., -t.l t.,; r-, " " ...., '_'. ii' (, J/ ", _ ' " . " ,0)&, " " -t.l '--J I~@ . -: i ~,. . t5~ b'~' ~~ f i S 'i'~ -H ~ ~ IS' . ~ .~; Q , t'e 'I, 8:: Qi · S u. · *' t 1 ;:!g i J l.~J . '" L ~i . f ~ ~H~ ~ .~ !-L-...-, L~r=~- ---=-:0 __~ '" "-, """ "'~ "" ".,.,....... / <........." ill '. i! J.: I $. ~.a II II "j~ .1 i r j P-' "-- t f -/1 I _,I . i /., ~11U~ ~~ . LIS, ~tr!l ~ I I :' '1'" .. :,' eIlli4!L'j ,.II~ '-. '-', · "t-1J !~. .. a. ..~ ! ~ tl'" '.. ..f ~ l) .. <.> I~ a / / / '-, il! ~" fH~: I ! . ..., ..::,a II ! r l-nl____..-':l f II '(-1 I f~r ~ ~jilll , ~ ,IIi! ~.~ '~ ~. j ..I~~ ri./ ~ . .. '"J ~.JIII :(!'-~ t..., --.., . 1.1, I!, '" U. l · "1 it . ~, .. " I Pi l1.r I A )jlb . ~I ,I!i! ..-~ --- ~.'I Wi..! II : r.I.'~... )'CJl9iJ)J I E .. l i f. '1; '". fi 1~ x".... , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ J. ", ^" --"I i#lr' j~p : Id~ ~----~ i i ----..(, c:s- - " o '" ;:) '" o DJms ~- ~ ,....... - ., 0- n c! 6 ~ I : 'I I li " " " "'. '. ~.~~.: ~" .~ ..~ '. "-. " " -"- ......, .... '.. -" ...... , ..,.......... ......, '~. .~~.. '. '" " ". , , ' , ..A,... II ,,'~; .. ...... ~~.... ,_ ... J " ...., } {} , :1: ~!i ;! t ~\,,~ ]) I~. ? ::c. r, -, / / ! / / ,/ ,} ~ " I: /" \i; I \\ S '-/}:~ '<',\, ':.'.~"t:,;=...... ..-- .--- --- '" X "J r' e, ....x PI 0(; ~'l "r'! / I:' o .... , i._ ~ I~ ffi mU 2' -Q. .. '" .~ . " ';j VI :> ~ is ;I; I ~ ~ J ~ g .<1. I; .,."'il\t.. (~J\.'< '.; ;\ , (.. ..... V. \' , . " ...:..' o )1 ,...... I o i ~~,~, /. .ltif~" '.' ,.'\ ~...... .,t {~ ." ,~: t! ". ~1 h.' I t" \ ~ ", ._-~~.~:.:-.:~ . ~ ' 1(, "::'~"':'1:\.' VI' ,.. .. Ii \.. ,\ ~, .'i' II I' I" ! II w--' I"''' "'I r:t;j ",0 1 iali I il'" i !,lj Ion. .! 1111: I", &:t --' ...;j' loJl-_ ~~ n::(jI lLlZ ~r..: l~ '-'~ ~ ~~ <>~~ hi illl~ lS~J;~ ~~e~ i~~i as!:e ~3lnj ;!;i~lll g~~~ lIlZih os:l:l t--::Iz~ ~sU ~ g 9 ::; '" ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~ ; i ! i ~II'II ~ 2222~ 2 'IlIlIl;I/W ... ~ ~i ~~ ....g i~ t;I~ J IN CO I m 3: ---, I ---, (J) N I 3: ---, I' III IJ,~'" f IJ ~l' It,' \; 'I l~ .. .1 'I t f tij ill~Ji III:: Ii l 'fl Ij f H lldl~ i !lli: f: ~,L'i~'(~.'~('P ~11~.!1.11 ...'" "Ii .~ I! ~}! l~ jl :':1 li'li~ i! Ii.! a !-:.~~,~~\. ",':z'l ;.: II d i! J If III R I,;ll '. "'-~~:;'~;=-=---"" I l\' " .1 rltl'l'! ,I: le\11 I' 'II III '}:;~74i( A,( "/". J ~ .ift\ .,H 11: m inj~l' .1,i'it:,J1i, i~ :I'l:!:'l~ ,l',~ r . 'I .( . . l' fl" II ..."', , ., I ':1 -; :1'1 --' V h ~l 1(,'1; I 'l".~ '!;,..!, li<l!,'. ;1 , I Jl' . ,,~ J." .. - I' ... !!... ,"1 ill LIU ~ ~'\~1~!.~!d~~{!:{1.1llj~!~iUb{i; ~"~'._'-"._,~._._~----_..~- --_._~~~.~~ -~ - ~~~ -- f"- 'I!! i! !! - III I ,! '. II I , i I !f1~'~' e IE ~.~ 't' i_~' !~!:lil ;;1/ 11 i' ~ ~-~~~ ~~~ ~ Q.Q I ! ~ , I, .11 s: I!: . ji i I a; ~ I 'i! . ii, n ~t;1l IIi!! ~j il~.i i.. Iii & H!{, I ~ ~ il I,~ r i~l.i i~: :.1 ~ 85 ~~n 3ajr i~::i n 6lii ~ ~ U1t I~ i lit I - . ..~ ::z::: Citl.'Il: f!f~' ~ r I " E ~ I v: ~j .; ~~ ~~ ~g u i;j~ // / ---- /~- /1 ,/ / / t'~ ::> n I~~ I " ~ H ~ ~ . <-' i ~ o ::i j d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ is ~ ~ -. \~ II I!;' t ~g}:1!f! -t-tf'T1:() ~~~~ iJH.nf"Tl~ .P>~&; ?~~~ )oOt(/) 6cnOd 1'TI)Jo "TIOJ )J-~~I'1 ~n :,,>:: ng C ~ g~~2 ~a{f)a ~o 2 Jf oZ8:tl 25! C :r""M~ ""I!!~~ J::200 ~~(/)~ =l " ~~8~ ~~~~S -<" =l vCO czti~ z-< 2 .....'" 0 ~Q ~ f!i~ ~ OC c;) ~M ~ "'0 ,/ 2~ ~ffl ~~ .....'" <5 I~: ~ ~ ~ '" ;;/ ~ . z: Xp"", ~ ,\"" -" ~~)i.-:-::-_c_-::-,",_____>)"___Oc_"""''',,, _____ '- -'. ---'-"-,--'----.:.:=:===-~~_::~~lb "'-., ---------------.,,--'-- \ - ~,,--- '---. -----.--------.- _,_l~ __ ) -n-Il -~---- .::::=1_ ._~ ? '" o o rT1 -1 )> r o 96<, IZ-O ~~OZ r,_ D <D (() CilCil-....J Ul~O _____JO o rT1 -1 )> I ------ \ I \1 - ~ 1\ I' :\ \ \ C:r.i'l . I - I , I ; ! ~ ; I Ii: : I , ' I ::; _.L -~i 1 j D ~: / ; I ~- I I I I I I I I I L?~ L'~J I 'VI.. 1 J~U:'I ____.1..-_.__.,. '._n -., ...,..------ -.---- I~~ .~~ ~ ;z:,iw. ":)NI }I:):;I'1.!I->IVAON IN _"-./ ';:u...a '>>laJ.(lQ .~5'IWW~ ""'" ~""' ~,,~ ~"''''vW) ""0<.11' V O~ ~?ilrgno;IG TlI~ ~Oll~ NV"l.'l>Ial.IV Olav" Sil<lNVH? ,).>IV -....,"-'l>I HV"l.' ~ (,).>IV ~I) a:ll V?laNl ~ ~ ~H9 H...I.IM G9H1~ ~ ~'( ZAlI IbiLlva .. ~Ij! . _,- 0 6> 1- i=~\!) ~~~ . ~~~~ ..JI-W ',)-(-Jli i'i~ml1: ~. K"IZ \)~IOQ ~>-::l'!i .01~~ 1~1~ ~ ~~ D ~~d~ 'Ii w ~2~ -( ... . t-~ ~til\J ;:: j(~ ~ R;;i~ 1; iii:i >' v" Olt lfiu;~~ ~z \\"' \)0-"' Uii=~~ ~~~~ -Il. . n~~~ t,u:f --' liI~z -4'....,0;(, lfu~ ili:L1l' WI" i\)\.) UI.r{~ . fS Ii Ul ~~ IQ~~~ ~I~~ill! ;{-("~ 21~~~ ~1I,u iil"ffin 'g'--Cl [j K: ~ \) :Jo:wlY <<t lOll: ~~ ......U ~Pil OOH t:~ ~ I ~~ ~<t: > o Z u Z - W- rn Pil E-i~ _0 ZP:: ~Z ~ ~O ~ VI l~ Q) ill ..cl ~ E-< It .~ luil ;lHOH HO.Lli(r.... l.II.l I ';)NI )l;):;I1.!I - xv AON Ln, -......../ '.......'" I Y O.L.L~ ;,G-nIi,i'i;Qii\;n,i; IE9NVH<I J.NV 1>Gl1~ NY'" ~ ( _~~_. ~ ~H? ~.~~.~.!.~~, 'a.1,va OIVo ul --' I'~~ () UJ --:l ol ~~~ G) ,- 'iI ;:'F~) !in'/) ~~" \hl?' ;;"- ~ ():LW ct~& "I"" 1- ?, lU ,- ~~\) 101..) ~~SLl If)-L'(~ . a-Jw ......I~IUlJl --Il)J: ~\)~!L BiiI~ h~~ lU \3 ..J1'.'W Sl:!Z): \)<(--, \nt)6J~ ~iJ1<<i'; <<lit . F-t ;;!"'i:l~ ~l- Uj~ ~~<(Ol ,) ()[19 a ~ttJ ~r!Il!W UIZ ..JI.Il iIiF~\.l !" <( - I iiP--'z ~1:ll'~ 0:':~~ lI<(rljl ~~ ~><~3 wR;'Il'iS 51!, iK 5!!J~~1j! ,)i:l) ~fllim ~~'rn.( :z1'5 II: " Ie Ill. f ~ ~~~ ~I'll' \)~il' "\(11 ~2 !I<(~ \):t1L ~''l!:ii ,- <; -}- ~UJU) 14[ r-; i:W'",: 'Z!811' <<,,:>:"' >Wr,> "'w }- ~D~~ ;;;illMl III ~z lij ~2~~ ~ "1ii1"'.. ~ <die; u t, Z l--I rn ~ t:il ....... U Ct< \:':I;:l ~ rn .....:l .Il; E-< ~ h ....... I ~S1 ~ ~ l'>'l ~~ :::s ~ :>- n.u "n' 0 Z If> 11)\U ~ :>- :> ~ L\ ifi? \) ~ ~ ~~ in ~ H " rn3 i1iO b ~ ~ 11) Cl O~ \1 &-4 ~'-) It:!:: in ~, &-4 ;; I 0; Z~ l--I ' :i1 l--I -. ~~ 2 P=l:! ~ill :>:Jl .~~""~""_. U~ ~ N b ~~~ ~~ ~fl 9 A~i:i Q '-- '-- Z "- , ~ 1- ,,0-." I t~ ~ ~o ,.. :r ~ r \ yO",OZ: I I I \ ~ \ I I \ \ I -Iw I I 0 \ Iii i I "i~ I I \ 'IL "1 ~ 0 ,- I iii I I I ill \ I I .....:l ~ \ i"i,~ , 1 \ I I I ~ , I 1--' , ~ I I , '--____ e~ I , I I I I J< I. b I ~ I I :t I 19 .' " " -+ l- I I 1'Jl G I I III " ... Iii ,I I I I" (I ~ I ~ :~ I I I I , ~~ ~I I I. LJ I I I- I ill ~ '';10..t"t: (f1I ,__ ." I I '-i ~ .... .......n>u -..00'';;-:''; ,>Ii I I Ik I , I I ~ I I I I L---1----- I- I $ 9j r, "O.,OZ:: -"----_:~=:j ..0-...'" ~ ~ N ~r'" ~~ ~~ U ~~ j~ ~~ - ~ tilL \ ~ -- --~---~----ff-\.= _ ? 0 ,,""'~ 0 ; iD;;'S9n~.l ~OOi..d . ~I'" ~ ~ . g; I . ';> 2 ~ I "L2 .,- "' 1- ~ .1 ". f ~. ,,0-,;' I 10$- I- ~ :p ( ~ . \~ G'; ,r' J '" ~O~Ic:.?1 llitij 1Ii~ :l:~ 1:g ~c:: ~'"d ~'"d ~t%j ~=:o t'""'l t1j ;3 t'""'l~ ~~ t'""'l o o ~ '"d r; Z !,"'-O' "1'_11" e'_IM 10'-6" ~ ~ Hl ~ ~ "'-0" i~~ ~~ ~!ii @ ~ :/~~~' t_ ' ' ",8 II I .,,3: /1 I . ~ '.....-~::::...... / lr r1w~ ~ II ",.u.V I ~ r:-~=5S JIJ 0;; .. \\ \ " t.J ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ "-0 '" ): Q q ~ f 1&'-10' I I I /1 '~ .--- ~:c ~,~ I I is ij; qq ~ ~ :I~ ~~. :1:~q ItC)O"~II!:!t . ~4" ".G. ~ '" "! ~ -i z ~:~~i~~; ;~~~~ un ~~ ~t"'" 0 ~ Em ~I-i a= ~~~~ ~~~~ ~F~~ m: I ;,.,z ,Z '<;l t?=:l ":~ ~~EIEE g I ::tl ~~fi\~ rn~~~~m~~ {~6" z ~1-"3 qZ. , , :=3 q .-<: ," . '/' '...... ." ~ - l\ )-::J. l!!~ Q~QQ i" i' ~~~~ ~~~i ~~~~ Em ~ ~ g;; U,) 1\. "" lj, ~ :1: C> lJ t?=:l &c\-&" 1) tIj, t"'" '" n ::tl '"~. .~. ~~~I 5~55 Gz t"'" t%j ." ...... t::t:j <: ~ t?=:l ~ ~ ",,(Ii ~ " .' m(l\ - tI.l ;1 r~-" \J\ :<: ~!H 6 ~;:J~ - . ~i~ l]1 6;- '0 z n r m:t r iji ~ ~ ~_I'I,Tii ~ N!> ~ P...1t!, " />Nf) r"ItDMl'V<H R1M!!l'i,l,K'( CII,I,Na!5 Ni' NOVAK-FLECK INC. ,f"l,.,l,N R1M~ I'IILL ee ~T TO ... ~. n,,\.,.,.. 'aJ!lTGlM HOMe BUI~' ....- -- - -...-. ,-...,....- Ii ~ ~ ~ CD ~ ~IH~ .. ~ t5 !U~ I ~ @@iiI~ ~ : ;:i~ ~ ~ ~'~[2lj; lA: rn ~~~ i5!H ~i~ rm r " j .U i, JD ::n C 'm :> .. < :t::::l )> )1 ~ ::j ) 0'. () Z !; is:: ::.U\ t:rj UJ:+- >-4 Z n -~-~"'TII~M ...."",., .lDIGAlm> (Jr- I'J-r() _1"l..AA R!!VIIM AN( GHA_ :API!i ~ f"V,H ~ 1'llU..l!t! lUUlGT TO A ,QQ,Q2 CH"N5~ ~ FEE ""' O'''NS~. 1!ll/'r'l"I<. l~ I ~M ~ j ~J>i ~ .. tj !~~~ ~g~~(5 m6'1i2 2m%O~ ffi~~~ m~h ",,::l~ ~~ lli~ffi~ ~~~~ ~~~g ~r.~" ~~i ill; ~s~ ~~g m 0 c{.z ~g \II DAle, D...'fl!i, ~ ~ ~ :i: ~ ~ ~ j ~ ! ~ tf ~ ! IJ' .. < l2'~ ,;~ ~q l\~ ~Sj ~a; 1'F NOVAK-FLECK INC. 'GU5TQM HOMe I!lIILDeR' rw.ltl~~IIOf,IoIM:' 10'.0' 1-1" I'-~' 'f; () ~ z). I ~I 1< -l~ ~ i:1~ a; ~~ ... . Ul '" ~ I-J 0; \ ~ ~m ~ I~I "----./ ~'~ICI" 12'-0' I~I " Ii ... ,- ... e'-Io' is q "' @ It q q ~ @ "' q cr, q 'EI Em J~ I!ZSIZSI ~ " ,- ," q .,; . " .- q ~ " q --~.~--~:....._"~ ~~ ~~. I b! 1< I , ~ I (~ I I l-l 0: I c; 6 1 . . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '\ \ , " <'i 4t>....,. "-0' 14'-0' 10'-0' 4'-/" ~HI" "' .0; '" .- ": " ~ ~ . 2~' 0,c, ! . ~ !!~'" .1l1....._8~;!A' \ ' .....-, / :r ill f \ \ 3' .11\,- ,'-0" " S'-6" \ \ I ", ' , PATld\VR.. 6' PATIO Dj;t, ...... I , ~ ... ~i OJ q 5 so ~LO" :i I I II / \ II / \ )r /1 "" l"~~" ~rn~~' ,/ !i /g "-'-_ ~ ~ ~+ ~'i! >> :: ~UJ ~ /~ 8-u ~ II ~~ ~'\ I'!N~" I ,,"-2" , tIi 0 \ I IV l V :r,,/@ 1I MOP ;~!"" U\ -- I . ::24" 0.(;.. m ,{: I',! ": \il"~'l I; ~ "" ~! <>: - - , ... ~ li" ( "I a\l$ -II "!~ , ~: I~ ' ' I ,. ~, Ii ' I ~~ 1 I :e: 7< I, 2'-t>' IO'-4~ I iii \~; -~, 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 _~______.J ............ :24'-O~ /I ? ~ 8 ~ fI' )- Ul v" ii ,- '" '. / II'-~~ III MOP" TR1JS5'l:'f1 . 24" O,C, '1l f8j ~~~~ ~ Z " "- lImv :r:!!~f': ~g~~~ m~~~ ~(j "'"'1('; m , " ~1;",. .. 0 !ll r ~[!! r ,~> ~ \l51J\~ ~ (\:il pi 01\J~<;! S! 111 ~ cjD1 ;;,td J:ij~~ i:!::: 8ntxm m~(\~ ni~ m "11(\ ~ ~ ~~~. m~r ~~~ ijir=--<r;; ~~~ ' rn~ Z ':1--1 ~, ~ t::I:j ~@iil~ m~~~ ~mg(\ x () ~Z <j~< ,11 I ::cl ~ml~ ffi r.rI, 4trJ {; -~ 1-'1 !f,E!!i:~' ~6~~ ..u '"%j >-3 - (; , it::! ' 1-:3 ~ 1.l~<!(. './' ~~ 'r- j!: (\ 'Cl... :r; \1\ ~~ jl ~ (JJ ~~j!:~ ,I' ~ -'mill ,,>:15>:1 0 ~"ll -',Ii '" t::I:j ~~ ~ ~ flJ trJ III ~~i! " ... ' ~~- ~gg~ ~~ II n ::cl U\J'!';Jl :r:l _Cl 6 6 - z ~ I ~~~ ...... '[;;).IJI mf,,~ U 1\1 ~ tJ:j (\(\~ (\(\ 'l555 m(jl trJ .) ((J ;jm ~-'~ -(\ . .' lj\ ~F -<::: j ~h ~(jQ G\;;l:l I \ ~(;~ .() - ~~~ 0' -I.-(~ \II (,Ir' ' Z U' Cl:..,. \ I "l.1'" ffig ~ IlU' n j:m n,;l:I~ IJI ~ ,~DRAI'IIN6S ~I"Ill CI1~""'; ._ .... _ n__n__.. '-~--_. ----- <YJ '""""'"' I'\.AN I'U!VJ~, ANY Cl<AN$1!l'l ~ DATE, .~ """"..... ~'W- = e<.e.JI!lCT 1"0 " W NOVAK-FLECK INC, ORD~ I'eI\! _ CH).N6!". !lIJ'feRo DA'lI'S, 'WSTCl1-1 ~ !lUILD~' ~U~~_I . -....-.--. .-...----- "'001' TlWSSES Cl · 2..' O,G., ~ ~~ ~ m~~ ~ ~i~' 5'.0" I ~ i~ ,\ I \ \ 6' / \ \ "ATIODJ">: 'e^T~ ,~ ." I / I I~I '>: // ------ / ,-,' r ~----_// \, ~I \ I~,,, 1J<l' " " ~ili , II..,JI ',II ~~ !r~--/-;'" II / " / m" I " I II ' " I _------II-L " ,-~ " " " II - 1/ ~II COl'yWlil..ap fj ~ I~I 10'.0" '" " -J i:J " '" ~ ~I-:I:j ~~ 'i;O ~o <1::d ;0 ~ I I I S}l!!' \ i.f \<ei ,7< " III ~"~51!!!$ . 24. O.C. - 24'-0" :-C; C >- t:l ::c: o ~ t:rj (I) 2: ~lJl ' ~ ~~~ ~g~~ ~~~~6 > a:: 8m~r,; 1ll<'i1S1 S1ir.z....n1 _ tIj :i1~i'C\ zn1i'\i!j i!j;ItO- ~~ ~ ~-~~ ~~;~ ~~~~ '..b ~ fa~E~ rn~~~ ~!R~~; ~ ~!!I~", ~(h;' l!!~~ t?j ~ ,~~~~ :<i<m& ~~~C\ n ~ ul~;J!P ~~" 5!~~~ :;x:: tXj ~ i'; :~ m L 0 {1l8 ~ rn ;il'n ~~ili ~i'J ~~f ~o~ ~~~ z~t r,! ....~~ r-Iil 0_,. r- iljf '" mrn lfCl ~~ ~(~ ;n ")> z - I~. 14'-0' /1"iI 2.26~ CSMT 2 2650 .xp, '""\ ~OOfl ""~US~!!!5 . .:14" a.c.. r----- ,0' I~ :~ :~ I I e' ---$- : I I I I I I I I I L_ 50'-0" 2/;'-0" t)'.II" q'-," 4'-6" 4'-5' 5'-1" ~ "'''' .:.' ..'" ~~ ~(\ ,~ i:j q ~ U' ,- '" 1_: ~- c' ~ ~ <'I ;n 5'-b' I :r4'-o~ t2'rO. I ----I \ I \ I I I \ I \ , I "I I -'-I I \!! I I ~ I I j; 1 I 'I I ~ I I ;n I / ~ 1 / / / 1 I 1 I I I I ' 1 : I $- ~~ ~~ -uf " o ~ 7< U]"~~~ " . ~ "OJ> /I ,- .h (\ ': . '!:llJI ~ . U) I~ "-' (j 15 I-~ . ((~ -~~ ~ m:t ') iiI x;n' \ ~ ~~ ~ ( -; ~... ') ( g ~~ ) 1, ~". ) ~,.r E./lZSL3J (j ~5; 'fr" u ' 'I '<Em" 1;11' : :> ' ,trj' E IZ "lC7J ' :.~Em q. <i ""'4 ~ ~z ' "',1,""1"1'". I_~ I~." I 1)I,j "'''' o~ t1('\ ~~ H' 1"-1.1' "',- ::::; I"i\ ~ l\~- l','ljl \11 x' ){ G\l! .1 c:()( q~, o h~ "P'l:l: r:"jAiI- < <~-l'" I bOlo " 01;)",- 71\1"'ffi ~f-~~ <"iiI- ,.~~}: "z-z <5~~ i'ii",S' ~~;; i'riffi~ "J:f ~ )>tl\ ;n~- !~)- ~ t11t'1g (,:~;ll ~!tl~ ~ ! pili.. r I FIN~-! ~~! 1- G\....+ ..... ........ - .... .... .... .... .... .... I:S"S s' ~I""D"'. "'-IC" I~'~,e.. _ 4'-6- :z;'~o" 4C'-&" ~ ~ Z ~ -EI~' ..-.:I . ..... ,.... ..... "... ~ ~~~~ ~ '~fm n -, <. (> n1 ~~ ~ . Eo .. ~~~~ . >: jitz:j - .~~ .~ -... i. \ I Z ~~~~ U 4~ tzj ]lm_Z "~ffl~ .-.3 0<:1<:1 ~~r !': ijilll- m('l Z ~ '<ffl x~ a ~trJ ~~~ ~~ ~~ nI rri .~ ~ C:;:t~ 66 I ~7' ,. ~tzj ~~~ ~5 ~ Cl... .!!,-<: ~~ ~ z jlJ;:n q. ~ ~~~ 666- ~~ q ~~., - ~ ",."'::1 '! q u' ~~ ~ . ... q I I I I I I I I , Q ~ I q I q " ~ I I ill \1 I ,- ~ \ ~ I \ \ 6"-0" \ I4'-C" --------., ij;' ,I --II ~: . I ~I I I I I I I I I I I I I :~ I'" :~ I. il I I I I I I I I I ________.J ... q ,. ~ <> ~ u o r-- '1'-'1" " ~ ~ ,,;11 ~~~ ~ ~~:r" ~l:1 . on I f! (), - 1\ 1.::_ r> ' \ \ e iii(j) \ \ :! ~ \ \ ill:. " " ............ r <: ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ -- ... ~ t 11'-0" /"'- I "" J~ 2, ) ~~ ? rr m~ 'I ~ ~-1 ( ~ g ;:>ffi . . t - -'~) .., - \2 0-] z: ~w.v 5~~F ~~~~6 ;; l:1' 0 J CD r\~~~ i6~<J <J I Bnl .~ -< x ~- - I5 .. .! :>> a:: ~b~ ~~;m ~r:-{rn J t>=j J' .D "TI .~ ~~iiI r\~ffi- ~Rl~~ ... ~ c: ;u I >-3 !a ~f rn~ ~ ~p;~ ~ >- ~{Jl '":Ij ~~<!~ h~~ ~~~(\ t;:-; ~ tn ~~ ", ~ ill " '" tzj t>=j ~rn~~ ~~i ~~~~ i1 IJII1 ~ t ~Ir n - 0 ~ t>=j ~ ~ n(\ ~ '1 ~ _0 CI:J ~~~ ~~~ ~~g " tT.J ..:-.11 - ~~~ 0: B~i '1 tfl Z ." \\ n /We ^"",,-,lVE _ ~1r<65 "'I'lli (;tj~ U, '=lI'I'eR. ,Iil:>ICA-m:> 01" ANT'J ~ ~AN IItI!VIIlI'l. ANT' CNAN5e!l -fAl:>Il .~ !"LAN I<evllll'l >'IIU- DIl ~T TO ^ IllI'1"IlI>l.. "0000 Cf'^t-lSl': ORD~ FEE ~ CH"''l6E. D^TIl. ~ NOVAK-FLECK INC, 'l<:u$TaM HaMI:: eotLDEll' "''''"tIBIIIlll'~~IiUI' DATIl. :eo .... ~.... .. ~ ~._".. @ fOCCI" """'5"~5 o :24" C.C. .... ........ MC"T1'<Vl'>!'<~5 . :24" O.C, ~I .1 /~ ('\ () (i ~ .,. lJl .. [/ j; " ~ -- cl~~ - ll~ . <:I " @ " m:z:~ ~~ 71 .... .... '- \ \ \ \ ~~ \ ~"'Tl lo.lo.~(> ! H !<J-m~-'- ; ~-I " : ~~~ / ,,// .. :< / z._- u'" !lI J '" \~ '" ~ ~ ~ I " }~I+/IVI ~ ~1 1= I(Ul ~ ." ~ ~~ ~ " .. ~ 42- Hl6H ~" OVH~, 5'~'::>" .. ~ I:..SIIIU'. :.11'; 1"111, I ,. .1~1I11 IIIJ'llItlllll\I.'~I\01J{illl~l UIIAlIS\UIMllli'J,1 dtrftJ CUl'y\\'dLtlQl) "" "". H nil. III 29 20nl :~i",:', .{;.~; :1::, if,i: fIf'dWU ny 'IlU~llll 1J1~lInM "4'~O. ~ TRU55E:!> . ~4. O.G. il :ij ~ ~"' (\f' r i' ~ ~f"%j .. ~ ~o ioO <'1::c ~ r; Z <- ~ +- ~ Z - tE), ~ ~ ~~ .. "- \ (\ t:::I \ :;. I .. I .. / ~_.......l.Jfa ~ ,r~-"\. . ~ ~ I ~ \\'t! r ~j)). g ~m ~' \ '~ ,",-----/' - - > ~LP... ~ ~.-O' IO'~O' ~'-O'. I' / .,.-.o~. ~"'no roo" - 0-3 Z tT ''')J~}- tll 15~ :D 0 ~rn F rn~~ "~;J!~z g!(g ::!} ~a:: n 'J~ -<(, ili)o () nUl D ~~. 8~!S~ RJ~~! ~~~C!~ ?55 -' I ~t:o::l jB;t ~~~ ilif""-<(IJ! c; "! & ....... 8-1 I ~ @iil~ ffil\~~ ilD~!'i -0 I> ." "1t ~..., _ l\ .}- UI rn..~ i:J, r ~ :>r ~ U} i1lIl1;:1~ ~h(, ~~lt Hiz I: a tx:1 t:Jj ~~~ :<. ~ !.:;~l\ _J () (") :;c ~~.. ~;:j ~~~~ '1;.:; IJ- ]1 - "- ..... r~~ ,,~~~ ~ ~~. " " ~ ~ -''' .-<:. ~Em h%j . l~EI ~ ~U> ~~ I~I v 'i> 1-1 :~ I' I~ I' I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I '- ~ ~ ~ III ""'OF T........ee.. . ':l4~ a.c.. 42'~OM ':l: :;~: + \ \ 1 \ I \ '" I \ ~ I \ ~ I \ ': I \ ~ I I . 1 1 ~ 1 1 li I 1 "' I I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I / I '! IJ Y~/"'. /~ <-. m '\~~~~ i E~'9.f ~ ~/ ~ -i - '.' "" .:.. .)., a CS> < " / ;S ">~ / ~ II ~+ y/Y' IO'.q. Cilt.J ........... ldl6 ~ \ """ ~~~ "-",,_"~i~ : ~ ~-~ ~ ':~ ;u~ ~~ gm QUI mt\ 3:'11 !] .. ~~ :11< iB 1.2'--4" :1 ~9 1.2'-"''' ~2'-o. -' " -' (") :> t:l:l _. Z tx:1 ~. ~~ H:z.:t ~;<q ..- " -' illl I I I ! i I I: I !! I : I I ' I Ii, ; - P' , ~ i~ i .. ! I I ' I I i I I-h- l'~; I~ t,!! ~ " ,- ~ .n ,- ~ q .. t. @ ~ " .. ~ 0" I; ;n 0: ill I~ ~ .. q ~ .. 6 ~ . ~ ()m~il' z i!li1/n,.. () ~~...(\ iil ~::!O~ " 1:*Rl~ ~...~: ,9n1~ "iH'- ~~~i!i <.'1\,=1 . ;z; 1.:1 ~i~ ~t~ ~~k rn~~ ~;<I~ ~ . May 2, 2003 Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Initial Comment Letter Featherstone (Gold Nugget) City of Monticello Project No. 2003-03C WSB Project No. 1160-79 Dear Mr. O'Neill: We have completed an initial review of the preliminary plat documents submitted by Pioneer Engineering and have outlined the principle issues that should be addressed prior to the preliminary plat approval. Those issues are noted as follows: . EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Topo should be provided a distance of 300 feet beyond all boundaries. This is imp0l1ant information in order to make sure that there are no drainage facilities, drainage issues, or other concerns that may be a detriment to the project that would need to be addressed at this stage of the project. 2. There is a 50-foot proposed UP A easement along the north side. The developer should provide information as to what the current status of the easement is, and whether or not this is a realistic proposed easement width. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. The proposed right-of-way width for future Cedar Street and the stub street to Trunk Highway 25 should be widened to a minimum of 80 feet. In addition, the intersections with 85th Street and the stub street to Trunk Highway 25 should be addressed to see if a widened right-of-way is necessary to accommodate turn lanes or possible median improvements. The location of future driveways at the intersection locations will be important information to include in the preliminary plat documents so that median improvements can be addressed to accommodate the future traffic volumes. . 2. City staff and the developer should work with the Kjellberg's Mobile Home Park to address an acceptable location for the termination of Cedar Street. (': \ II'INI)( )WS\ JJ.AIJ!I05()]()3-ji!.drl( Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator May 2, 2003 Page 2 3. Street A will include both residential and industrial propeI1y accesses. The street width and the transition from industrial to residential property should be addressed. 4. The current City policy on townhome area streets is to make sure that an adequate turnaround or loop street is available for garbage collection. In addition, stub streets cannot exceed 150-200 feet of depth in order to satisfy fire depm1ment requirements. On previous projects we have encouraged providing loop streets as opposed to turnarounds because we would prefer to not have garbage trucks backing up in residential areas. It is appropriate to develop an official policy on this issue. It appears that the northerly townhome area could be revised to a loop street scenario which would address our concerns. 5. The proposed townhome separation is only 68 feet. which is less than our minimum on private street areas of 74 feet. 6. Overhead electric is shown along 851h Street. It would be our recommendation that the utility be relocated, or preferably, buried. 7. The engineer should provide a soil analysis of the site for review. STREET DETAILS ]. The proposed street section depends on the underlying soils and will be dependent on the actual soil survey. 2. The collector street section is not adequate as is currently proposed. 3. The bituminous path should be 2 inches of bituminous, 6 inches of Class 5, and ] 2 inches of granular. GRADING PLAN 1. The collector street design through the center of the project should be evaluated for street width. Sidewalk should be proposed on both sides of that street. 2. All cul-de-sac islands should include a 40-foot internal radius and that island area should be an outlot assigned to the adjoining lots. The developer should make sure that utilities are not placed within the island if they intend to landscape the island area. '" .). The lateral park area should be improved with berming and landscaping to create a separation from the adjoining lots. ('.1 WI NI )(,m'SI, JJ.~\ fJ!1fJ5{}J03-iruI0l . . . Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator May 2, 2003 Page 3 . 4. It will be necessary to develop an attractive pond design and vegetation plan that will involve some lining of the storm water basin area and other vegetation to create attractive storm water basins. 5. It will be necessary to develop a future profile of 851h Street and determine the potential reconstruction cost for the Developer's Agreement. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 1. The design of the utilities should be completed to City standards. Currently, the , plan does not address spacing guidelines, storm sewer design, and sanitary sewer Issues. MISCELLANEOUS 1. All street width dimensions should be noted as face of curb to face of curb. 2. No street widths will be allowed less than 24 feet. " ., . The City must have access to all storm manholes in the rear lot areas with an acceptable stable subgrade to support a large truck. This will involve Class 5 with topsoil and seed on the surface. In addition, access to all stormwater basins will require a 30-foot easement area. . 4. The path in the south park area should be connected directly to the path along 851h Street and not zig zag through the park area. 5. The path to the north, which will be used to access the stormwater basin, should be a 7-ton design with a lO-foot width to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. 6. A parking lot will be required for the park area on the south side. The remainder of the park should be graded at a 2% slope to accommodate future park development. 7. This plat needs to be submitted to MnJDOT and Wright County to provide comments. . As is apparent from my comments, there are still issues that we feel should be addressed prior to approving the preliminary plat. Addressing these issues in conjunction with the Planning Commission review will allow the Planning Commission to review the actual lot configuration and design issues prior to sending this plat forward to the City Council. ("1" 'IN')( JU',\'I, 1I-]'lIlltJjO:()3~i/).l"!t Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator May 2, 2003 Page 4 Please give me a call at (763) 287-7190 if you have any questions or comments regarding this information. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Bret A. Weiss, P.E. City Engineer cc: John Simola, City of Monticello Steve Grittman. NAC Horst Grazer, Gold Nugget Development Paul Cherne, Pioneer Engineering sb (':\ IF//y'!)()WS', IF,\ f1l\fJ50103-:i(J.,f(J{" . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 . 12. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request to amend an existing Interim Use Permit for temporary automobile storage. Applicant: Monticello Ford. (NAC/JO) Reference and Background Monticello Ford is seeking an amendment to its Interim Use Permit that allows the automobile dealer to display additional cars on an empty parcel adjacent to its west storage lot along Sandberg Road. The original permit was approved last fall and limited the storage to approximately six rows of cars east and north of the child care facility as depicted in the attached plan. The applicant is now seeking to extend the allowable display area to include one row of vehicles for display. The vehicles would be parked in a single row facing the freeway at the northwest corner of the site. There is room for approximately 20 vehicles. . The applicant is requesting the temporary use, without significant site improvements, based on his plan to develop a permanent automobile dealership on the vacant parcel. Extensive site improvements would interfere with this plan, and would potentially be wasted when the future dealership is constructed. The City needs to balance its consideration of the temporary use with the regulations for automobile display area. The ordinance permits limited areas of car storage and sales associated with dealership buildings, and requires paved surfaces and landscaping improvements, among other regulations. The expansion of this use would not appear to be any more likely to raise compatibility issues with surrounding uses. The gravel-surfaced area will be small so dust and maintenance problems should not be an issue. Allowing use of unimproved temporary uses tend to discourage the potential for improved, permanent uses. The City resolved this issue on this site previously by limiting the area and the duration of the Interim Use Permit. Alternative Actions 1. Motion to recommend approval of the IUP amendment to extend the area of temporary automobile display as described in the attached site plan, maintaining the current time limit, subject to the previous approval conditions relating to site grading, lighting and tree planting. . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 2. Motion to recommend denial of the IUP, based on a finding that the intent of the permit is for limited storage, and that the expansion would be counter to the intent of the original permit. Staff Recommendation Staff believes that allowing this small expansion of the sales area to a gravel surfaced area will not significantly impact the incentive to develop the site. The ratio of developed area (building) and sales/storage area is in compliance with this addition. Approval of this request should include the requirement that all conditions relating to the previous approval are met. Supportin2 Data Proposed Site Plan 2 . . . I ~ I ;~j it ..- c., ..Q.. ..4 :> " 0 ~ '" ~ rt W 0 1J 0 -1 - # I ::tl ~ f g. j ~ !i~! ~!lgi ;~iQ,{ ~f!>i .I!P~1 . " 0 8' -, ~ I 2. ~ ca ~ ,en .,' 3' !'I . ..... . . !1m: ! IH ~ l! ! H ! H ! m!:fHIH ~ ~!li:~ Iir It ~,~ Fr" j't;t,';:l:lfi "I' ~ J J he " I ' !' ~Ii fi ;; ~:111H~; dJyl-l 'l J r~ f; BI"'lf"f ., 'J' Jr , 'f 'I il'" Ii IIi' ;; ,~ I ~ .11:11 'I I l:i'I 'f : r r II!it' Jf, Jl;t'ilr l; ! J J If'lr",;!.!!r , III 1 l '. (I,.. !l/' 1:'; 1j!,"Il!iff 'I,!!; ,$ :' f,f 1'1 ,. !t~jf;: :: ; 1 ; i,;;:f!!l~ 1-,' 'II i~ I I I llll!l:hi I- i I ,r f IItl,hal "it If. ,hi,.;,;;, it!i: !r i !H:Hm; 'II:' I!: 1,I':JI"f~ I' hlf fr"' f W,h, ; [' 'ff' , I 'U'"! ,~; 'f I ; ; i;i'fil, l'tl'l' I' r f I :;riJ';!fJ'r J' 'I "'1 ,., I "I Ir f r (h /1' ' ..... " t ... .:1 '- ni ifi I I i ... 11.. iif iil fll"'fl 'J 1t'Jil 11 ~l:ill 1'/' 11 t! 1'~18 Prt ,f n !Illl,f '.d ti {J'tit l,lf I I'lli" , f~Jr ml:ll .$ I~ Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval for Interim Us Amendment - Dave Peterson/Monticello Ford Approved 9/3/02 1. Interim Use Pennit will be valid through September 30. 2005. at which time it will tenninate and all use of the property will be required to come into full conformance with the zoning ordinance in effect at that time. The subject site is Lots 9 and 10. Block 3. Lot 1 Block 1, and Outlots A and B of Plaza Partners addition. 2. The storage area to the west (back) of the day care property may be surfaced with a gravel or crushed concrete base. The extent of this area shall be no more than 100 feet north of the existing paved storage lot on Lot 8. Block 3 of Plaza Partners addition. The applicant shall plant a row of 8 evergreen trees along the boundary with the rear lot line of the day care building to screen this area from the neighboring use. and the gravel surface shall extend to no closer than 10 feet from the lot line of the day care center property. 3. No parking. storage. or display shall be allowed in any area of the subject site that is not either paved or surfaced with gravel in accordance with the approved plans. 4. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for City review and approval, prior to use of the property for storage, display, or parking. .. 5. Violation of the terms of the Interim Use Pemlit shall not affect the original PUD approval, but shall be cause for revocation of the Interim Use on the subject site. 6. The site shall be graded in conformance with City standards as determined by the City Engineer. !.( e. c- OiNI /ll\Vld.. f;.. J. i c:/\ t 'SQ,M(' LC/l&:tio/l ~ b~-t o..llouJ - o .., e. R ovJ 0 l sf la."(j A/o/)j Fw ed,e . A(<2...C\ EXHIBIT Z . . . J~