Planning Commission Agenda 08-25-2003
.
.
f<UJ
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMIVIISSION
Monday - August 25, 2003
5:30 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart. and David
Rietveld
Brian Stumpf
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch. and Steve Grittman
Council Liaison:
Staff:
1. Call to order.
2. Citizens comments.
3. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for concept stage residential
development for a townhome development: and a Consideration of a request to re-zone
from A-O to R-l, R-2A. and R-2 PUD. Applicant: Bison Development Company Inc.
and Sylvia Development. L.P.
4. Adjourn
.
-I~
.
.
.
City Council & Special Planning Commission Agenda - 08/25/03
3.
Public Hearin : Consideration of a re uest for Conce t Subdivision and Rezoninu.
A licant: Sylvia Develo ment/Bison Develo ment. (NAC/JO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission has set a special meeting to address this item
immediately prior to the City Council meeting, therefore a Phmning Commission
recommendation will be reported as part of staff presentation to the City Council.
The Planning Commission and City Council agenda information is the same.
The applicants are seeking the initial approvals for a 282 unit residential development on
94 acres of land. north of 85th Street NE and east of County Highway 117 (Edmondson
A venue NE). The Planning Commission had tabled action on the request at its original
August 5th meeting.
Discussion in the attached staff report focused on a number of issues related both to
design and land use. The report highlighted the land use issue by noting that the area is
guided for Low Density Residential development. This designation directs. in practice. a
predominantly single family residential pattern, dominated by R-I zoning subdivisions.
The plan distinguished areas directed for Low Density Residential from those identified
for Low Density Residential- R-I A. a "Very Low Density" designation that was
intended to take advantage of identifiable site amenities (trees, views, etc.). The basic
Low Density designation was placed on land had limited natural amenities, with the
expectation that neighborhoods in these areas would be developed in a similar fashion to
those which already exist such as the Klein Farms or Groveland areas.
The plan made several accommodations for the increased residential requirements made
by the newly created R-I A designation. Another new zoning category was created,
providing for "detached townhomes" - the R-2A district. This district w-as established to
accommodate the gro\\:"ing market demand for townhome-style living but in smaller,
detached units. For the traditional R-I neighborhoods, other accommodations included
averaging of lot size and widths to provide greater design flexibility for developers. It
was hoped that this flexibility would allow developers to create neighborhoods that
provided a greater diversity of housing opportunity within the R-I district.
An outgrowth of the planning activities that resulted in the above changes included an
interest in permitting a limited amount oftownhome development in the Low Density R-
I planning areas. Two baseline reference points were established, each designed to
ensure that the dominant land use pattern remained the R-I neighborhood. The first was
an overall 3 unit per gross acre maximum density. The second was a maximum ratio of
R-I single family to townhouse units of 2: 1.
In this proposal. the applicant is seeking to exceed the 2: 1 ratio. The attached and
detached townhomes total approximately one half of the proposed units. Staff noted this
issue in the original report. The applicant has suggested that they use a "PUD"
designation to substitute the proposed unit mix for the 2: I ratio. using the rationale that
the detached townhouses could be counted as detached single family units, rather than as
townhouses. In a subsequent drawing. the applicants support their request by showing
City Council & Special Planning Commission Agenda _ 08/25/03
that they could achieve the same unit COunt (282) hy revising the lot /ioes and eliminating .
their version of the detached townhomes. apparently meeting the City's ratios and density
standards.
Planning staffs review is that the alternative illnstration pro\'ided by the applicants is
consistent with our understanding of the intent of thc recent planning and zoning
changes, TIle purpose of the changes was to allow some higher density design within the
low densi ty areas, but wi th limits that ensure that thc typi cal R _I single fami ly pattern
remains the dominant land Use, There are areas within the Community that are designated
for higher density development. however. the applicant's property is not one of those,
As an additional note, the request that a PUD approach be taken to accommodate the
applicant's request raises separate concerns, Planned Vnit Development is intended to
result in a tangibly Superior design. which justifies the flexibility granted by tbe PVD,
The planning and zoning changes were made to specifically identiJy those areas where
flexibility was acceptable through the averaging techniques and the introduction of
townhouse-style housing, The applicant suggests that under their original proposal, the
remaining R~l neighborhoods would have lot sizes that are larger than the new
altemative, Planning staff is unconvinced that the small increases in lot size would result
in significant improvements to the size, style, or value of housing in these
neighborhoods, There would be no change in general plat layout nor any obvious
amenities that would result in the tangible justification for PUD.
In summa!)', planning staff would support the alternative option as provided by the .
developer as being consistent with the City's planning goals for this area, 11 should be
noted that we have not had the opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the proposal.
however, it appears to address a number of the original design issues cited in the initial
stafT report, with some notable exceptions.
The second issue of concern relates to the provision of a neighborhood park space within
the boundaries of this plat. The Parks Commission has requested a park of
approximately five acres be located within this space to provide for neighborhood play
and tot-lot space based on a concern that nearby parks are not close enough to provide
this oPPOrtunity for small children in this development (inclUding Pioneer Park. the
fnture park in Featherstone. or the school complex), The park dedication requirement for
this plat is approximately 9.4 acres, The additional dedication requirement not taken in
land would be captured as fees. which would then be used to help acquire a regional
community playfield complex in some other location. The Parks Commission
recommends that the neighborhoOd park for this project be located along the southern
boundary of the site to maximize its expOsure and access to 85'" Street and its distance
from Pioneer Park to the north.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision I: Rezoning from A~O to R-l, R-2, and R-2A
I, Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning based on the original concept plan,
based on findings that the requested housing ntix and densities are SUPPOrted by the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
.
2
City Council & Special Planning Commission Agenda - 08/25/03
.
') Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning. based on findings that the proposed
zoning designations are inconsistent \vith the Land Use Plan.
3. Motion to recommend an alternative zoning pattern. based on findings that the
alternative more closely corresponds to the direction in the City's Land Use Plan.
4. Motion to table pursuant to submittal of the sketch plan supporting the City's planning
objectives identified in this report.
Decision 2: Concept Stac.e PUD
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUD for the townhome areas.
based on findings that the plans are consistent with the City's zoning regulations and
conditioned on compliance with the staff reports from planning and engineering.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD, based on findings that the plan
will require revisions to comply with the required zoning patterns.
3. Motion to table action pursuant to submittal of the sketch plan supporting the City's
planning objectives identified in this report.
Decision 3: Subdivision Sketch Plan
.
No specific motion is required for a sketch plan review. The Planning Commission should
provide design comments to the developers to guide the continued planning for the next
stage of this project's review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the zoning and Concept Stage PUD actions be tabled pursuant to the
submission of a sketch plan that supports the City's planning objectives as summarized in
this report (Decision 1. Alternative 4/Decision 2. Alternative 3). The Concept Stage PUD
requires additional detail and study prior to a more formal action.
Ifthe applicant wishes to pursue the alternative plan submitted to staff. recommendations
for rezoning to R-l and R-2 would be appropriate.
If the applicants intend to pursue a detached townhome component the plans should be
revised to meet the 2: 1 ratio of R-I single family lots to townhome units as discussed above.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
Planning agenda item from 8/5103
Draft Parks Commission meeting minutes
Memo from developer to staff - project description - 8/21103
Draft - future parks location study
Long range land use map
3
.
.
.
10.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
Puhlic Acari"!!: Consideration of a reQuest for conccpt staee residential
dcvelopment for a townhome development and a reQuest to rezone from .'\0 to R-l,
R-2A. and R-2 PUD. Applicant: Bison Development Commmv Inc. and Sylyia
Development. L.P. (NAC)
REFRENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Bison Development Company. Inc. and Sylyia Development LP are requesting concept
review of residential development on a 94.6 acre site. The subject site is located east of
County Road 117, north of 85th Street. west of Fallon A venue and south of Klein Farms
development. Bison Development Company, Inc. has ownership of approximately 38
acres of the site and Sylvia Development LP has purchased the remaining 56 acres. The
two development companies are utilizing the same engineering design firm and are
working together to create a unified development consisting of a mix of R- I and R-2A
single family lots with a number of townhome units. The site is currently under the
jurisdiction of Monticello Township and an annexation request has been submitted and
will be forwarded to the public hearing stage once approval of the concept plan occurs.
At the time of annexation, the site is zoned A-O, Agricultural-Open Space. The
applicanfs are requesting at this time to rezone the site from A-O to R-]. R-2A. and R-2
PUD (townhomes). This request is allotted as a special action per Section 4-3 of the
Zoning Ordinance. At time of annexation, subject to approval of the requested rezoning,
the site will enter into the City's jurisdiction as the approved zoning district rather than
A-D.
Land Use The proposed project consists of a mix of R-1 (detached single family). R-2A
(detached townhome), and R-2 (attached to\vnhome) type residential uses. The south and
eastern pOJ1ion of the site, as well as the northern most triangular area abutting Klein
Farms. consists of the R-l type development. The R-2A and R-2 lots are centrally
located on the site, just east of County Highway] ] 7 and south of the overhead powerline
casement. The R-2 portion (townhomes) of the site is proposed to be zoned PUD.
The following table illustrates the lot summary for the proposed project:
Lot Summary
R.] 140 Lots
R.2A 42 Lots
Townhouses 90 Lots
TOT AL: 272 Lots
The proposed density for the entire 94.6 acre site is as follows:
Gross Acn~a!!e 2.87 units acre
Net Acreage Approximately 3.6
units/acre
oA
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
The future land use plan designates the subject site for low density residential
development. It has been the city's standard to consider low density as 3 units per gross
acre and 4 units per net acre. The proposed project is consistent with this standard. In
developments that are attempting to utilize both attached and detached housing. the city
requires that developments not exceed a ratio greater than one attached townhome to
every two detached single-family homes. In calculating the 2: I ratio. the applicant has
included the R.2A lots with the detached single family lots. This allows the site to
increase the allowable attached townhome units to the 90 units as presented. Staff feels
that this method takes advantage of the R-2A district standards. allowing for more
attached housing. and undermining the intent of the 2: 1 ratio. The 42 proposed R-2A lots
more clearly represent detached townhome units and are more closely linked to the
attached towhome development. As such, staff feels that R.2A standard lots should be
included with the attached housing units when calculating the overall 2: I ratio.
Staff is comfortable with the types of residential uses as well as the location of these uses
on the site. The applicant is not requesting to deviate from the zoning district standards of
the R-2A and R-2 portions of the site. The townhome portion of the site would need
development stage PUD approval, which can be obtained during the Preliminary Plat
stage of the development. The applicant should also be made aware that although the R-
2A district was created to accommodate small lot residential development, as is being
proposed, the district requires a high level of amenities.
Lot Standards The following table illustrates the lot requirements for the R.}, R-2. and
R-2A districts:
R-l R.2A R-2
Lot Area 12.000 sfavQ. 7.500 sfavg. 12.000
Lot Width 80 feet av\!o 45 feet 80 feet
Front Setback 35 feet av\!o 10 feet 30 feet
Side Setback - 15 feet 6 feet 10 feet
House Side
Side Setback - 6 feet 6 feet 10 feet
GaraQe Side
Rear Setback 30 feet/usable 10 feet 30 feet
Roof Pitch 5/P 5/12 3/12
Gara!!e Size 450 sf 450 sf none
House Size 2.000 sf 1.200 sf none
Finished Size 1.050 sf 1.200 sf none
Foundation J .400 sf None none
Size
Garage Standard No closer than none
Location Setbacks front building line
of living space
Fa~ade Detail none 20% brick/stone or standard
10% if70% is
covered with wood
or stucco
2
.
.
.
.
Garage none 50% of bldg. width standard
Frontage in front-facing
Landscaping Sod & two trees Special standard
per lot in new requirements for
subdi\'ision or front yard
four trees for landscaping
corner lots
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 08/05/01
The proposed lots appear to meet these requirements, how'ever at concept level the
overall makeup and layout of the site is of more interest to staff. A closer look at the
individual lots will be taken at time of preliminary plat.
Circulation and Access The site consists of two connections to the west off of County
Highway 117. two connections to the Klein Farms development to the north, one
connection to Fallon Avenue to the east, one connection to 851h Street to the south and
one connection to the remnant site at the northeast corner of the 85th Street and County
Highway 117 intersection. The two connections to County Highvv'ay 117 align with the
Gold Nugget development. The applicant will need permission from the county for both
of these access points. Staff suggests that a connection be added to the remnant piece of
land. south of the power line easement and owned by Mr. Klein, for future development.
It should be noted that funds will be requested for the reconstruction of both Fallon
avenue and 851h Street.
.
Staff is generally comfortable with the overall street pattern with the following
suggestions;
.
The east/V.lest connection from Fallon A venue to the southern access off of County
Highway 117 should be more of a direct route.
The Citv Engineer and Public Works director should make comment as to the
.. ~
acceptabi Iity of the two eyebrO\:vs.
Although staff is comfOltable with the meandering street pattern, efforts should be made
to eliminate corner lots that are difficult to determine the front lot line.
.
.
Park and Trail The Subdivision Ordinance requires that approximately 10% of the final
plats gross area be dedicated for park use or that a per lot cash payment in lieu of park
dedication be paid to the City at a cost determined by the City Council. The site does not
provide area for a park. The Parks Commission is currently in the planning process of
expanding its parks plan to an area which includes the subject site. In recent meetings it
has been determined bv the Parks Commission that a five acre site at the southwest
corner of the site, abutting 851h Street. be obtained from this development for a
neighborhood park. The applicant \vill need to incorporate this neighborhood park into
the plat accordingly. The remaining approximately four acres of required park land will
be taken in cash payment in lieu of land at a payment to be determined by the City
Council.
.
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/03
.
A public trail has been added to the plans. providing a connection between the Klein
Farm's development to the proposed trail system within the Gold Nugget development to
the west. This trail connection is an important aspect of the overall trail system
connecting the large park in Klein Farms with the future City park in the Gold Nugget
Development. The applicant's plans must also provide for a north/south running trail
along the west side of Fallon. connecting 85th Street to the park adjacent to Klein Farm's.
as well as an east/west running trail along the north side of 851h Street. The City needs to
determine what portion of the trails are to be paid for as basic improvements of the plat.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site, from A-O
to R-I, R-2A. and R-2 (with concept PUD) based on a finding that the request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion contingent on Developer
meeting the 2:] ratio (single family to townhome) with the next submittal, and
contingent on identification of a 5 acre park to the satisfaction of the Parks
Commission. The formula to count detached single family units as townhomes.
2.
Motion to deny the request for a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the sit form A-
o to R-I, R-2A, and R-2 PUD based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan.
3.
Motion to table the request for the rezoning and concept PUD approval, pending
revisions to the plan that result in a 2: I ratio of single family to townhome
development and inclusion of a 5 acre park. The 2: I formula to count small lot
single family as a townhome.
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval under alternative] above. or table the item per alternative 3,
based on the applicant having to redraw the concept plan and meet the 2: 1 ratio
requirement prior to preliminary plat submittal.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Site Location Map
Project Narrative
Draft copy of Parks Commission meeting minutes
Site Plan and Building Elevations
.
4
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - PARKS COMMISSION
Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 4:30 p.m.
"To enhance community Ilride through developing and
maintaining city parks with a high standard of quality."
Members Present:
Ben Flitter. Nancy McCaffrey. Larry Nolan and Rick Traver.
Members Absent:
Fran Fair
Staff Present:
None
1. Call to Order.
Chair Nolan called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
2.
Approve minutes of the Jutv 24. reeular Parks Commission meetine.
Nancy McCaffrey noted some typin'g errors for correction. Robbie Smith asked if the Parks
Commission had given Mr. Posusta a time frame in which to remove the berm constructed on
park propel1y. Larry Nolan stated the Parks Commission had directed Public Works Director
John Simola to send Mr. Posusta a letter specifying a date for the removal of the berm.
NANCY MCCAFFREY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2003 WITH
THE TYPING CORRECTIONS. BEN HITTER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3.
Consideration of add in!! items to the a~enda.
None,
4.
Citizens Comments and ReQuests.
Jay Roos representing Bison Development came before the Parks Commission to discuss the
park location in the proposed Hunter's Crossing development. In their initial reviev,' of the
plan. the Parks Commission selected a 5 acre site which abutted 85th Street and was located
southwest corner of the easterly portion of the development. The Parks Commission was
unav, are that there is an existing home in the location of the proposed park. Mr. Roos
presented overlays depicting possible layouts for the park. The Parks Commission indicated
which overlays they felt could be considered and suggested that another possible location for
the park could be the southeast corner of the easterly portion of the development. This
location would still have access to 851h Street. Mr. Roos indicated that the developer \vill
vvork on these options for park area. The consensus of the Parks Commission \vas that i r the
park abutted two streets. \\'as 5 acres in size and was reasonably rectangular in shape. they
would be satisfied. Jay Roos asked about the time frame for the park development. Larry
3b
Nolan indicated that usually within a year or two of the development going in, the park
development takes place. .lay Roos verified with the Parks ComI11ission that of the 9.4 acres .
of park dedication due, 5 acres would be in land and 4.4 acres of cash dedication.
5. Consideration of locatin!! lift station on park property and accentim! parkin!! lot
amenities in exchanl!c for allowinl! the lift station on park land.
This item was tabled until the September meeting.
6. East Brid~e Pathway.
The Parks Commission reviewed information submitted by Park Superintendent, Adam
Hawkinson ~egarding cost estimates for replacing the existing steps at East Bridge ParK with
new steps or installing a pathway in lieu of the existing steps. It was pointed out that
because of the substantial footings needed for the steps, the cost to replace the steps was
higher than putting in the pathway. The cost range to replace the steps was from $ I 1,000 to
$16,000. The
.
.
2
~ug 21 03 02: OSp
Scott D. Bilben. RLA
952-546-9065
p.2
-
t
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
-
Memo
TO:
Jeff O,Neill
FROM:
Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner
cc:
Jay Roos, Hokanson Development Inc.
DATE:
August 21, 2003
SUBJECT:
Addendum to Hunters Crossing Site Plan
.
Per our meeting with City staff on Wednesday August 20, 2003 we are providing
additional information to be inlcuded within the Planning Commisison packet. As
noted at the last Planning Commission meeting, this development can be done using
all R1 lots and continue to have the same number of lots as the proposed patio home
plan. Under both plans 182 single-family lots are provided with 90 townhomes.
The prefferred plan is the patio home plan. This plan provides a variety of options for
the single-family home buyer instead of catering to a single market. With the patio
home lots, the development provides a range of housing for families who are first-
time home buyers through empy-nesters. It also allows for larger sized R 1 lots that
meet the demands for families looking to uuild larger homes.
The comparrison of the two plans are as follows:
Patio Home Plan R 1 Plan
Number of lots:
R-1 single family 140 182
Patio home 42 0
Town homes 90 90
Average lot size
R-1 single family 14,000 sq 11 13,000 sq ft
Patio home 9,000 sq ft 0
In the patio home plan there is only a single R1 lot that is under 11,000 square feet
while the R1 plan has 60 lots. Both plans meet the required R110t standards.
.
1
F:\Users\TGoodrum\Hokanson memo.doc
30
Au~ 21 03 02:0Sp
.
..~.-= ..~.I!W-._
.1:"''':;:'~
~&I
.....
, '
.....
'\...
I
II'
.'
,
.j'
"
~, .--
..~ 1--
--
d
....,
1'--
I'
, .. ,
-'-0.
-...p-
Pc:.. ~\" H()..... ~
{)Q.. fc..v... 4. J /...~ -t S 0... 5 'S i, j i f!
Fo."",;IC 'ots wL.oQ..."",\
dt..hR."":~ ;;)-1 RC.tIO
'5" -4()" fo.-: ~ 1 () fl tfr...t.lt vi
8
fo..""; ~ lots o.,-f
t,oll6 s} f t
:s ~o,,,'JtJ.(cJ .
'Ivo.c.1-
v.l;Ll '-J;e.lJ
rus ,M..t <;
Scott D. Bilben, RLA
952-546-9065
PATrO l-tOY1iJ
PLAN
C
I
~
~
Lo",., ~ :s
...: [
.?ii'iU.
p.3
'I: "S;II()I~
00.1\ A,,-trCroQ
L c.,'j.v1 f \...(l.I'\
'S~o..*~ J\lIt (,0/1",' nLtel
(0 is
"
....,
. ...
.~.:: . ....
. ".~ . ....
: ~ "
" . ......a:
. . . ..'"
-
-.
.... woe .....
-;
-i.-
,
-r
- - - -i
- - ...."
M'I
----
, , ...~,
I
I ,
.
.... : ,
. ~
, ,"
- I ,
,
I,
....
'I 'f
· , 1
I, '.
, 'I..J
.
,
""
, .
t-
1:3567'19
F:\ENG\63981\OOl\DWG\llOO\( ::ZONING SUI
3~
Au~ 21 03 02:09p
Scott D. Bilben,RLA
952-546-9065
p.4
.
Pla-,v" U "5 t (J f ~
p(~{~(S +~l~
Of i 10 /"\
.C"....._
..:&.iIi:"'___ .
.r....,..",
"... I
,~ ,
.~....
..~' , -~ ....'"
,I ...... .... ..-
, ,
, - - - - -
::_ 1'-- ,
, , CJ ..""
, . ,
.., ' , --
,,,
.
t
I
~
.A
l
.J-,.
PL AN
t
fLC.J~H ~ ~ - \ o?.e..1' 0
~(>..M.','", "\ () 7 c v.J " ~.~
~~,,~.ll ~
.>> ~\J -..A Go- 0 Q S F- ~ " "t.l.'
"S-\.....f\. cl (>..,J.
,..,..Q....t-1 s
... : I'
I I
, ...
: I :
=, '
, I '
I 1~1
'="'=
..... ..... "--
..... "'- ~-
.... -- I --
...- -- J ~ --
, !
, ,
, ,
, ,
I i..
,
, j
I ,
I _..
IIIIIIM -- -- : ~ ~ J
k<-c CTf ~ --" -1= l ~~ : d
'~ ;= t := -- ~..,'" == r = '\:= ,fJ
.r::- t:;-I..~! l ~k';f)<I+'
~ '1 _... ~ __ '="= I ,
_ __ __ __. __ -- -- r-:- -- "
..- _.p ~ - -;~ -< p .-;-- p - -~ . -= --- --- ~-~ =- p- - - - - .- ~.,'
:::~. - . ~" ~ \ - ~ .... - .. - - - ~ - ...... -..,"
- .~ - i - - - _.p - - 1 - - - - . ;.!.:.....J. -. ,f> t-
- - ,...
F,WNG\63981\001\t:lWG\ 1100\63981001 DWG. 0812'.
/'.358.473
3~
"'''-.
'~~"
"<~,
:~"""""
I ,
.. .1
.t>-
O
.f>.
C.)
1...-
3\:1 ::Jl GJ G'J 'CrJ ~f:;
<b 8 Pl, g (b ~_ ,
.92 ~ () 9.\. -.., LT1
lJ9" ojo,'~u
f\' 'l.1 ("\ () D.)--
;,- (" f3. iti I'n ()
........ Cl 0 (/1 1
():J ':leo-'n,
...... :J n
:::r ttl a 0
~ ~' :1
o",~ :3
} ~ (n ~
r\
<b
SU,l
i
~
o
':J
(11
-t>.
C)
:f.
'"'0
ru
--"\
~-
\J G'l (Jl
0 (j)
:f ::J
<b (t) 0
., -,
:'5 ~ )>
~: ()
'1l tl m
fi. L...
ill
(D -f>..
:::r
0- n
0
..,
:::T
0
()
o.
\J
f\)
'.1 1
".-,r:;-
.
1\..)
cn
ill
cn
/-.;"
(91}11
"
.~
.,
d"'j;..
=
t:::3
=
=
=
~
=
i r::':'::J
1'=
,r.;:::J
~ 'g
~', 1::'':1
'-.... "':01
,..~._.J~ =
r ~ ""-""-""-'-<71~
. \ JfC:;;'
I'
I ,)
""""~,~:~_ , .,; ,:~..I..i.'
. . Tn'--I County~dl11 i
! ......., '" JI I I' I
, / i
I~ / II
/
I
~,
1, ..
.L~\,_
\
'-"-..,~.",..,:
i"'\'~:;"
r' ._~ I
. .":'.It . i', .'..<t.
./"'\ Ill"'~' r
1..;Lw" . "'"
I
I
I 'j I i
, 1'1
i,ll' i i
OJ
. "li-:,'m
91, ~ Z
- ill
.........' -.
t:J<LJ
(') 6:
9; 0
Q ._,
'5 6"
(}.~. 61
nl
I
"'''1
I
1
,
,
"" '
~
LT1
en
'J4
tV
(J)
..,,*
I
I
(.cl
(1)
......
....,
=
=
=
1::7::1
r.c'""
~
=
.,.""
t~
I:!
111 \ !
U. (
........."' J.
"""'", /.
~',',. ~)~.........
,....
lr)
~
~
"-
~
~
'~
i '
'L~
'" ")
MONTICELLO
LONG RANGE LAND USE
.
, '
'I,"" " ,
'~.1'
.,'~...~~:-:'.;
't ) ~
_,~ /i
,) --
!
""
.
",i,
, )
,(
. ,
\~ ~..../
l, (
h
~ "
,
,.r~ '
'-"" ""~'
'I" ~'" 37
\ '\:'JD '-~\:\
L)
"
, I
lOW DN1Slty Residential
F x pan!HOn Area
Low DenSity Rellldentlal (R-l)
Future Land Use Objectives:
L"ow Deoslty Residential (l{-I A)
..
Allow for s mix of land USN
Preserve and protect natural resources
provide road system to support growth
Retain rursl chsrscter and a small town feel
Use existing amenities (/.e. views, lakN, trees}
to enhance development
Prevent sprawl by encouraging compact
development pattern
..
MNlIl"" [lenSlty (attache,j hSQ \
.
..
()rban M.. eo-llse
..
..
..
(~Oll1ll1ert;lal
Industrial
.
.
iIiit'~
.'," ,''':':' ';'.
()pen Space
Mobile Horn!' .'ark
38