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~