Planning Commission Agenda Packet 08-14-1984AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
+ August 14, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Don
Cochran, Ed Schaffer.
7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held July 10, 1984.
7:34 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - Final Plat Approval, Meadow
Oak 3rd Addition - Applicant, Ultra Homes, Inc.
7:49 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone from
B-4 to R-3 - Applicant, City of Monticello.
8:04 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a
20 -foot Rear Yard Setback instead of the Required
30 -foot Rear Yard Setback - Applicant, Riverview
Manor Apartments.
8:19 P.M. 6. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow
More than a 12 -unit Apartment Building in an
R-3 Zone - Applicant, Riverview Manor Apartments.
8:29 P.M. 7. Public Hearing - Concept Plan and Preliminary
Plan for Planned Unit Development - Applicants,
Jim Powers and Kant Kjeliborg.
8:59 P.M. 8. Public Hearing - Subdivision of a Rasidantial
Lot for Proposed 8 -unit Townhoueos - Applicant,
Jay Miller.
9:14 P.M. 9. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a
15 -foot Sidoyard Setback lnotead of the Required
30 -foot Sidayard Setback - Applicant, Key Tool
6 Plastic, Inc.
9:29 P.M. 10. Public Hearing - Conditional Uoo Roquoat to Allow
Outdoor Storage in an I-1 Zone - Applicant, Rainbow
Induotriao.
9:39 P.M. 11. Public Hearing - Reoidontlal Unplatted Land Lot
Subdivision by Rogloterod land Survey - Applicant,
Marvin Kramer.
V
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 14, 1984
PAGE 2
Additional Information Items
9:54 P.M. 1. Set a date for the next Planning Commission work
session on the Comprehensive Plan.
9:57 P.M. 2. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello
Planning Commission meeting for September 11,
1984, 7:30 P.M.
10:00 P.M. 3. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MUTING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
July 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Don Cochran, Joyce Dowling, Ed Schaffer.
Members Absent: Richard Carlson, Jim Ridgeway.
Staff Present: Cary Anderson; Thomas Sidem; and Public Administration
Student Intern, Prank Cocchiarelia.
The meeting was called to order by acting President Don Cochran
at 7:41 P.M.
A motion woo made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Joyce Dowling,
to approve the June 12, 1986, regular Planning Commission meeting
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Roaring - Conditional Use Request to Allow More than
a 12 -unit Aoartmont Buildinq in an R-3 Zone, Applicant - Construction
S, Inc.
Zoning Administrator Anderson opened the public hearing with
information on the prop000d 24 -unit apartment building. The
24 -unit apartment building is only allowed in and R-3 Zone as
a Conditional Use. A Conditional Use would need to be granted
for any apartment buildings more than 12 units. The proposed
24 -unit apartment building would consist of 18 two-bedroom units
and 6 ono -bedroom unite, with one of the ons -bedroom unite equipped
for the handicapped. It would also have 16 covered spaces or
two 8 -unit garage buildings with 32 open parking spaces and
two of these spaces would be so designated for handicapped parking
only. The building would meat the current setback@ in R-3 Zoning,
30 feet on the front, 30 feet on the rear, and 20 feet on the
olden. Commiooian ---bar Don Cochran asked for any tomenta
from Construction S; and Mr. Gary Lafromboise, representing hie
Dad, Gus Layrombolse, owner of Conatructlon 9, was peocant to
anower queationa on their plane for the proposed 24 -unit apartment
building. Mr. Wrombolae indicated the current 24 -plan under
construction io about half rented co far, with the other 90%
rental to bo eomploted probably by the first of Goptembor.
A motion woo then made by Joyce Dowling, ascended by Ed Schaffer,
and unanimouoly carried to approve the Conditional Uae Request
to allow is 24 -unit apartment building to be built in an R-3
Zone.
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/10/84
4. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Allow as a Conditional 1
Use a Boarding House in a B-4 Zone, Applicant - City of Monticello.
Zoning Administrator Anderson opened the public hearing with
background information on the Ordinance Amendment, with the
basic intent of the Ordinance Amendment stemming from a request
to have a boarding house in a B-4 Zone. Our Ordinance, under
B-4 Zoning, clearly does not address boarding houses. Therefore,
an amendment was drafted to accommodate boarding houses within
a B-4 Zone. However, had the request not been submitted, there
would have been no need to draft this Ordinance Amendment.
But City staff feels that this would be a very worthwhile, allowable
use in a B-4 Zone, noting that there is a need for some type
of housing within the downtown business district. They felt
this would be appropriate in B-4 Zoning with a number of conditions
attached to the Ordinance Amendment. The conditions to the
Conditional Use aspect of the Ordinance Amendment were addressed
briefly, and are as follows; The building or structure has
to be found to be substandard in condition; that upon extensive
rehabilitation, not just basic remodeling, the building would
be in need of substantial upgrading; that there be no lase than
10 unite, nor more than 1B units, and that they be of efficiency
apartment design; at least one unit on the ground floor must
be fully accessible to the handicapped; that at Least 50% of
the ground floor area be developed as a complete restaurant facility
with a minimum of two seats per dwelling but no loon than 25
coats; the restaurant will not be eligible for on or off-oalo
liquor license; the restaurant shall be so equipped to provide
food service to the dwelling unite if required; architectural
appearance be similar to other existing buildings and not cause
Impairment to property values. All conditions are subject to
change by City Council. Commission member Don Cochran asked
for input from the applicant, the City of Monticello. City
Administrator, Tom Bidom, eluded to come additional background
in regard to the proposed adoption of the Ordinance Amendment.
Mr. Bidom indicated the basic intent of the Ordinance really
atcmmwsd from a request to be allowed to have a boarding house
in a B-4 Zone. He further eluded to had the request not boon
submitted, the Ordinance Amendment before you tonight would
not have boon brought up before you. Mr. Bidom indicated he
had talked with Consulting Planning Firm, Howard Dahlgron 6
Acooclstce, Conculting Planner, John Uban, in regard to the
proposed Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Uban indicated that if approval
of ouch an Ordinance Amendment to allow a boarding haves in
a B-4 Zone had eonditiona attached, and an port of th000 conditiono
attached that it In part of the overall development plan of
the City that come typo of residential housing be in a buoincso
district, he would go along with that idea aloo. Mr. 61dam
indicated the current trend in the downtown buaincoa diotvict
of buninoca development extending south along Walnut Street,
OQ
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/10/84
and there could be possibly at some time their area of the proposed
Ordinance Amondment not being in the Central Business District.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated looking at the proposed
site of the Ordinance Amendment to allow boarding houses, the
businesses around the proposed site are of the business like
nature of eating, dining, and antertainment businesses, quite
unlike the businosses west of the stoplights, where there are
more retail buBinesses in that portion of the B-4 Business District.
Mr. Chuck Carmichael, Attorney for Thomas Hammer, eluded to
his client's background as to the Ordinance Amendment, citing
that his client would be totally in favor of the Ordinance Amendment
to allow a boarding house as a Conditional Use in a B-4 Zone.
Motion by Joyeo Dowling, seconded by Fd Schaffer, and carried
unanimously, to approve the Ordinance Amendment to allow as
a Conditional Use a boarding house in a 23-4 Zone.
5. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow a Boarding
House in a B-4 Zone. Applicant - Thomas Hamer.
Zoning Adminiotrator Anderson opened the public hearing with
background information on Nr. Hammer's bwarding house request.
The property in question was formerly an old army barracks.
which was converted later on Into apartments on the upper level, 10
with the roar portion of the main lover level being used an
a bowling alloy, with the front portion being used as a small
restaurant area. An the yearn went by, further deterioration
of the building occurred with very littlo upkeep or maintenance
to the building, and the building vont through extensive
deterioration and coming to the point of poosibly being condemned. r
Mr. Thomas Hammor inquired into purchaoing of the building and
came forth bofors the previous Building Inspector with his plana
to entirely renovate the otructuro. In doing so, Mr. Hammer
started with the upper level of the building, completely stripping
the interior woll, coiling, and floor covering and started from
scratch with his Interior renovation, bringing the upotaira
portion up to tho 1982 Uniform Building Code, the 1979 Uniform
Plumbing Coda, and the 1984 National Electrical Coda. In doing
no, Mr. Hammor created 10 efficiency opartoont units in the
upper lovol of thin building. Mr. Hammer aloo maw a need for
a omall family typo reatourant and complatoly guttod the interior
of the front partion of the lower main Leval of tho building.
With the interior renovation of the front portion of the building.
the current reotaurant portion han boon brought up to the Btato
Hool.th Coda, the 1982 Uniform Building Code, the 1979 Plumbing
Code, and the 1984 National Electrical Code. The roar half
of the lower main lovol in currently wheat Mr. Hammer hao been
working on. That portion of the building provioualy had two
- I -
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/10/04
apartment units in it. Those apartment unite were allowed to
exist as non -conforming use in a B-4 Zone. Mr. Hammer's intentions
were to create and convert the rear most portion of the building
into a handicapped apartment unit, with the intentions of having
one additional apartment unit. Mr. Hammer, in trying to figure
out an additional use of the existing additional space, Mr.
Hammer then contacted Building Inspector, Gary Anderson, questioning
him as to whether he could convert the additional apace into
three additional apartments or three additional rental office
spaces. The rental office spaces would be permitted, but not
the additional rental apartment units. Therefore, we came about
to his original request here to be allowed a boarding house
in a B-4 Zone as a Conditional Use. Mr. Chuck Carmichael, Mr.
Thomas Hammer's Attorney, indicated Zoning Administrator Anderson's
comments were very true and very to the point,that he had no further
additional comments to make other than that they would like
the Planning Commission members to approve Mr. Hammer's Conditional
Use Request to be allowed a boarding house in a B-4 Zone.
Motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Joyce Dowling, and approved
unanimously to approve the Conditional Use Request to allow
as a Conditional Use a boarding house in a 0-4 Zone.
6. Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide a Residential Lot for
Driveway Purposes, Applicant - Monticello -Big Lake Community
Hospital.
Zoning Administrator Andoroon briefed Planning Commission members
on Monticello -Dig Lake Community Hospital*a simple subdivision
request. The hospital District recently purchased a residential
lot with an existing house on it on the lot immediately wont
of the Monticello Dental Clinic. To convey title to the property
from the previous owners to the Monticello -Big Lake Community
Hospital District, the hospital would like to dead a 10 -toot
strip along the westerly line of the lot which they are purchasing
to the previous owner for driveway access purposes. Seeing
no problem with the subdivision and that the newly oubdivldod
lot would still be within the minimum requirements for a residential
lot in an R-1 Zeno, motion vas made by Joyce Dowling, seconded
by Ed Schaffer, and carried unanimously to approve the simple
subdivision request to subdivide a residential lot in an R-1
Zone.
7. Public 11carinq - Conditional Use Re,juost. to Allow_a_n Ambulant(_
Garage to be Built 1n on R-1 'Lone, Appllc,�nt ; Monticello 11
Lake Community lionpital. -
On this newly subdivided lot which wan approved on o provioua
motion, Monticollo-1119 Lake Community Hospital would like to
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/10/84
build an ambulance garage. The ambulance garage is permitted
as a Conditional Use in an R-1 Zone with conditions attached.
The proposed new ambulance garage would be of such type of construction
to blend in with the existing residential housing in the neighborhood,
that being a wood frame construction with different wood exterior
with a shingled roof. The proposed new ambulance garage would
meet the setbacks in an R-1 Zone, with one of the conditions
being the sidoyard setback would be doubled from the required
setback of 10 feet, which would be a 20 -foot sidayard setback,
with the front and rear yard setbacks being 30 feet.
Motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Joyce Dowling, and unanimously
approved to approve the Conditional Use Request to build an
ambulance garage in an R-1 Zono.
R. Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide Residential Multi -Family
Acreage, Applicant - Ed Doran.
Mr. Ed Doran was present to request a concept plan of a simple
subdivision of the current Rand Manoion property, which is a
3.12 acro parcel. Mr. Doran'a request in of Planning Commission
members to look at his concept plan for creating throo 1 -acre
parcels rleparato from the 1.12 acre parcel which would be allowed
for the current former Rand Mansion, which in Ed Doran's place
of residence. Commission members voiced their approval of Mr.
Doran's concept plan but would be looking at, at a future meeting
data, further details in regard to sito layout and water and
sower facilities for this property.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Ed Schaffor, and approved
unanimously, to approve the concept plan for a cimplo subdivision
of the former Rand Mansion property, currently a 3.12 acre parcel.
9. Preliminary Request to Rezone a Proposed Preliminary Plat Approvod
Subdivision, Applicant - John Sandberg.
Mr. Sandberg van present before Planning Co®teoion mombara
to oxpr000 his interest in rezoning the entire parcel to R-2
Zoning, singlo and Two Family Dwell ingo, with throe or four
unit apartment building and an B -unit townhouse building only
allowed ao Conditional Won in an R-2 Zone. Currently, Mr.
Sandborg'o final plot wan approved for R-1 housing on Block
I and Block 2, and R-2 Zoning on Blocko 3, 0, and 5. Mr. Sandborg'a
Indication as he wou going through the plat in !to developing
otagen now indieateu that he would like to have the currently
zoned R-1 blocks, Ulocko 1 and 2, bo rezoned to R-2. In doing
oo, we would give the developer, Mr. Sandberg, control over
the numbor of and the placement of multiple housing units on
in hio oubdivfolon. City Administrator, Thosao Eiders, indicated
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/10/84
to Planning Commission members that it was the original staff's
recommendation that the entire parcel be zoned R-2 from the
start, and indicated that Consulting Planning Firm, Howard Dahlgren
6 Associates, through Consultant John Ubon, had suggested the
entire parcel be zoned R-2, that the entire subdivision is basically
located with buffer zones around it on all aides, those being
the golf course, the railroad tracks, and the power lines which
run by the subdivision. But at that time, Mr. Sandberg didn't
want to be tied to the number of multiple unite he would be
allowed to put in. Mr. Sandberg indicated the possible percentage
numbers of R-1 housing vs. R-2 housing units could possibly
be 50% and could go the other way, 40% residential or 60% residential,
or 401 R-2 and 60% R-2. But those figures aren't known at this
time. It basically depends upon the upcoming housing trends.
Mr. Sandberg indicated to Planning Commission members that the
design of the multiple unite be of such to blend in with the
existing R-1 housing to be built out there.
Motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to waive the
public hearing by the Monticello Planning Commission and pass
on to City Council their recommendation to hold the public hearing
at their next July 23, 1984, City Council meeting. Motion by
Joyce Dowling, seconded by Ed Schaffer, and unanimously approved
to recommend approval to Monticello City Council the rezoning
of the entire approved but not recorded final subdivision plat
of John Sandberg to R-2 Zoning.
Additional Information Items
1. Key Tool presentation of proposal for now building.
City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, woo present to d_ccuao Key
Tool's Tax Increment Financing Plan to relocate a portion of
their bucincoo to Monticello. The location of their proposed
cite is the East y of Lot 10 and all of Lot 11, Block 2, Louring
Hillside Terrace Addition to the City of Monticello. The Monticello
Housing and Redevelopment Authority has agreed to purchase the
above Iota and in turn recall them at a reduced price to Key
Tool. What is needed from Planning Commiooion members is a
resolution to approve the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Kay
Tool.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to approve
the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Key Tool as prosontcd.
Motion carried unanimously. Sea Resolution 1984 129.
- 6 -
a
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/10/84
2. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members present,
Don Cochran, Joyce Dowling, and Ed Schaffer, to tentatively
hold a scheduled morning meeting on Monday, July 30, 1984, at
7:00 a.m. to go over the second portion of the Comprehensive
Plan, Goals and Policies.
3. Motion by Joyce Dowling, acconclod by Ed Schaffer, to set the
next regularly scheduled meeting date for August 14, 1984, 7:30 P.M.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to adjourn
the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Acfdorson
'Coning Administrator
7 -
0
V
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/14/84
3. Public Hearing - Final Plat Approval, Meadow Oak 3rd Addition -
Applicant, Ultra Homes, Inc. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Ultra Homes, Inc., is requesting final plat approval of the
3rd subdivision to be called Meadow Oak 3rd Addition. Everything
on the final plat seems to be in order, meeting all the requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance. A new Environmental Assessment
Worksheet has been done by private engineering firm, Barr Engineering,
and has addressed the whole Meadow Oak Development and has recommended
to the Council to declare the EAW to be adequate and find that
an Environmental Impact Statement not he required. It was recommended
that the City meet with the developer, Ultra Homes, to determine
a point in the development at which time the City will require
the installation of an outlet from the ponding system. This
is the point I would like to highlight in the Reference and
Background Section, that at some point in time we do set a time
table when the developer should put in the outlet from the ponding
system. Some possible suggestive time tables would be at the
point when 50% of the whole development is fully developed,
or at s point when the City accepts the area dedicated for park.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the final plat request for the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition.
2. Deny the final plat request for the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommondo approval of the final plot for the Meadow Oak
3rd Addition with the one condition that a time table be oct
up with the developer determining a point in the development
at which time the City will require the dovolopor to put an
outlet in from the ponding oyatem.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the prop000d location of the prop000d Meadow Oak 3rd
Addition; Copy of the final plot of the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition;
Copy of the Consulting Engineering Firm'o commento; Copy of
the Consulting Planning Firmlo commonto.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/14/84
4. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone from B-4 to R-3 -
Applicant, City of Monticello. (G.A. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello is proposing to rezone the north y of
Blocks 50 and 51 from B-4, Regional Business, to R-3, Medium
Density Residential. The current houses in the north 4 of Blocks
50 and 51 have been existing as non -conforming uses in the B-4
Zone. What we are seeing are the current older homes being
renovated, with the older residential structures having been
removed to accommodate residential development for a proposed
elderly housing project. In thin current area, we are not seeing
any development of the busi„ess area or any businesses expending
into the north 5 of Blocks 50 and 51, primarily due to the homes
that are existing have been well maintained. Even with the
two houses which were demolished in the past couple of years
we have seen no business interest in the vacant Lots, which
are currently existing there. we have had several telephone
calls and also had a couple of people atop in that are either
homeowners in the area or business owners in the effected area.
There has been an overwhelming favorable response to the rezoning,
both from the business end in that they are seeing no future
business expansion into that particular area, and also from
the housing sector, that being to maintain some type of residential
in this area, even where the vacant lots are now in existence.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the rezoning request to rezone the north S of Blocks
50 and 51 from B-4, Regional Business, to R-3, Modfum
Density Residential.
2. Deny the rezoning request to rezone the north At of Blocks
50 and 51 from B-4, Regional Business, to R-3, Medium Density
Residential.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The otaff recommendo approval of the rezoning request to rezone
the north As of Blocks 50 and 51 from 0-4, Regional Ducincco,
to R-3, Medium Density Residential. The rezoning in conducive
with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the prop000d rezoning.
- 2 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/14/84
5. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a 20 -foot Rear Yard
Setback instead of the Required 30 -foot Rear Yard Setback -
Appllcant, Riverview Manor Apartments. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Brad Larson, partner in the Riverview Manor Apartments,
is requesting to be allowed a 20 -foot rear yard setback instead
of the required 30 -Foot rear yard setback in the southwest corner
of the proposed elderly apartment building. Due to the configuration
of the lot and the beet placement of the proposed apartment
building on these lots, it requires the need for a variance
request. In this southwest portion of the building, only the
approximate south 10 feet of the building would be affected
by the 20 -foot variance request.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. Approve the variance request to allow a 20 -foot rear yard
setback instead of the required 30 -foot rear yard setback.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a 20 -foot rear yard setback
instead of tho required 30 -foot rear yard setback.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a
20 -foot rear yard setback instead of the required 30 -foot roar
yard setback in the southwest corner of the prop000d elderly
apartment housing project.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the propooed 31 -unit oldarly apartment building; Copy
of the pito plan.
- 3 -
CSS
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/14/84
v
6. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow More than
a 12 -unit Apartment Building in an R-3 Zone - Applicant, Riverview
Manor Apartments. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Mr. Brad Larson, partner in the proposed Riverview Manor apartment
building, is proposing to be a' -loved to build more than a 12 -unit
apartment building in an R-3 Zone. Mr . Larson -a partnership
is proposing to build a 31 -unit elderly housing project. The
building would be 24 stories in height , being strictly rented
to elderly only, and the building would meet the current setbacks
required on the side and front yard setbacks, except in the
southwest corner of the proposed elderly building, where they
would need a variance request for a 20 -foot rear yard setback
instead of the required 30 -foot rear yard setback. The building
will accommodate 18 off-street parking spaces, where 17 spaces
are required, with one of those spaces required for handicapped
parking. One thing in our parking ordinance, under the elderly
housing, requires that the developer have at least one space
per unit plus be able to show where additional parking could
be provided if the City Council at some future date determines
that the housing project would need additional parking. The
proposed elderly housing apartment building also meets the minimum
square footage required for lot size.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use roquec t to allow more than a
12 -unit apartment building in an R-3 Zone.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow more than a 12 -unit
apartment building in an R-3 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommondo approval of the conditional uoo request to
allow more than a 12 -unit apartment building, in thio cane a
31 -unit apartment building, with 18 off-street parking opac co
and one of th000 apacoo for the handicapped. Aloo tho devolopor
must chow on hio alto plan where additional parking opacoo could
be put in if oo needed at come point in time in the future.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the propcood 31 -unit apartment
building; Copy of tho pito plan.
- 4 -
�' �•�• /ti A Conditional Use Request to e11ov
., `/T'�,..• - _ '\ more than L12 -unit apartment buildin
In an R-3 Zona.
P • / V verviev Manor Apartments.
•v 1 �� B .� i tir /i i��I �' ���
.. �, : � 1_ / { •� r, j �n tea/ .� i � ;
8a
\I{ \ C3
J
AV
ILI
II 14 i � •\1 ' i
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/14/84
7. Public Hearing - Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit
Development - Applicants, Jim Powers and Kent Kjellberg. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. .Tim Powers, along with his partner, Kent Kjeliberg , are
proposing a Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development. At
this time they only have the Concept Plan done and do not have
the preliminary plan done as was published for the public hearing
notice. Just the general concept stage of development for the
Planned Unit Development requires 10 separate questions to be
answered along with subsections to some of the 10 questions,
which are needed as part of the concept stage of the Planned
Unit Development. City staff members Thomas Eidem, John Simola,
and Gary Anderson have spent a considerable amount of time with
the applicants and their attorney, Brad Larson, along with their
surveyor, Dennie Taylor, and also with the Engineer, Winkleman
Enterprises, as to the required steps needed for a Planned Unit
Development. The first step is the concept stage with the 10 questions
with subsections specifically addressed to the concept stage
of the Planned Unit Development. These steps aren't difficult,
but thay do require considerable amount of time and planning
to address all 10 items with their subsoctions attached. As
you will note in attached pages, the items aren't addreesod
in general concept stage order, but they are a piece mail work
of things put In here and there as a result of lack of time
in putting together the concept stage part of the Planned Unit
Development. We have two baoic concerns we would like to address
in the supplement to their concept plan. The number ono item is
the driveway access through the parking lot of the property
to hook up with the Sandberg Road. The applicanto arc intending
to kcap thio road a public road, but It would be put in privately
by the applicant. The applicant would be responsible for the
water, tower, curb and gutter, and otreot. We have alight rocervationn
of the street going through a parking lot, even though We
not a publicly carved street by the City, we still have our
reservations an to a street going through private property through
a parking lot and entering into a virtually doad-ondocS street
at Sandberg Road. We are anxiously awaiting John Uban's communto
from Howard Dahlgren 6 Ansoclatoo, Conoulting Planner, and hit
comments on the road being put in ao a private road for use
by tho public with Sandberg Road thus dead -ending right there,
being our public street. We , at staff, fool there should be
a public atroot put through directly along tido of thio property
abut ting the Monticollo Ford property all the way out to Oakwood
Drive, thus, eliminating a public atroot going throug Mo a parking
lot and eventually hooking up with Sandberg Rood. Tho other
concern we have So with the drainage, that the drainat3o be calculated
- 5 -
v
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/14/84
by their engineer and reviewed by our Consulting Engineer, OSM
& Associates, as to proper containment of water from this project
once it goes through the stages of completion. There is no
storm sever in the area, and we would like to see the water
all go back into a ponding area that was developed for Sandberg
South project, and the applicants in this case expanding that
pond further on to their property to contain all of the water
run-off from this project. We do, however, feel the Planned
Unit Development of this project, being a good proposed development,
adds a blend of commercial, recreational projects into one area
to blend in with existing businesses in the surrounding area.
B. ALTER14ATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the concept plan of the Planned Unit Development.
2. Deny the concept plan for the Planned Unit Development.
3. Approve the concept plan as presented with conditions attached
that the conditions be corrected or incorporated into the
preliminary plan before approval of the next stage, the
preliminary plan of the Planned Unit Development.
4. Approve the concept plan of the Planned Unit Development
and to deny that certain conditions be included or incorporated
into the preliminary plan of the Planned Unit Development.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff fools this would be a very good projoct for the City as
presented in the early stages of the concept plan with the Consulting
Planners suggestive comments possibly being incorporated Into
the concept plan, that the drainage be fully studied with the
results coming up with the boot plan for containment of the
future run-off of storm water from this proposed Planned Unit
Development; that something be worked out on the proposed public
road through the property, that it either be maintained by the
City and installed by the developer or maintained by the City
and installed by the City as long as we have some means of connecting
Sandberg Road with Oakwood Drive in the boot possible interest
of the City.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the Planned Unit Development;
Copy of the site plan of the proposed Planned Unit Development;
Copy of the concept report for the Planned Unit Devolopmont
with the attached data shoot; Copy of the Consulting Planning
Firm, Howard Dahlgren & Aacociatos, commento will be presented
at the Tuesday night Planning Commioolon meeting; Also o copy
of the Consulting Engineering Firm, OSN & Acoociatoo, comments
to be presented at the Tuesday night Planning Commission mooting.
- 6 -
Fin,
I ,
'• Y � ` 1 � I l � ` I I � , , ' r 1
i
• I
� 1
� J 1
I 1
1
I
, 1
70
CONCEPT REPORT
For
I-94 P7.A7A
A Planned Unit Developnent
Montioello, Minnesota
August, 1994
Prepared by:
Kent K,jellberg and Janes Pmere
Introduction
7be proposed project for City review includes an approximately 121 acre parcel
of unimproved, open, untreed land bounded on the North by the frontage road, on the
Fast by Monticello Ford, on the South by Sandberg South and on the West by Marvin
Road.
Prosect Development
'Ibis planned unit development is intended to be a practically aesthetic blend
of carmexcial enterprises. It is anticipated that the commercial enterprises will
include, but not be limited to, a fast-food sit-down restaurant located on Iot 1,
(tentatively Wendy's), a sit-down restaurant located on lot 2 (anticipated to be
Pannekoeken Huis), a proposed Health Club with some professional office space within
it on Lot 3, and on Int 4 a 38 unit Motel. 7be Wendy's Restaurant is projected
to conta-in 2,300 square feet, Pannekoeken Huis Restaurant 5,240 square feet, the
Health Club and sales and offioe area 23, 815 square feet and the proposed Motel 5,734
square feet. As you will notice on the Concept Plan which is attached to this report,
lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 are somewhat larger than the buildings located on than, and
this ovessizing is to anticipate and plan for future expansion of these facilities.
1be four proposed improvements oLll lie on the Northerly approximately six acres of
this parcel. 7be projected Concept Plan ccmpl1r3 with the City's Ordinance and
contains 323 parking spaces, as well as expansion room for acre. A topographic
water drainage plan has been attached to this report and it's perusal will rovcal
that the Northwest portion of the pramisen that will be improved, n large majority
being roofed and covered with bi tunincus paving, will flaw towards Marvin Road and
to the South. Chi tho North^,stcrly two lots of Sandberg South there in a storm
Pond created, and It is antieipzLted by the Developers that this pond will have to
be expanded unto their own property to accomrndate adequate storm water nut off and
possibly seek an easement under Marvin Road to the West, for excess drainage from
the pond to handle storm water.
The sewer and water stubs are in the Northerly end of Sandberg South and since
this a P.U.D. Development, the sewer and water would be installed according to state
specifications of being privately owned and maintained and a restrictive covenant
recorded against the land, which would give the City of Monticello the right to
install water meters and the right of shut-off for non—payment. The Southerly six
acres of the parcel would be unplatted and retained for future expansion and develop-
ment, at this time.
Site Analysis
The site consists of rolling hills that are open without woods and some
wet land, due to ponding on the Southwest corner. This site is surrounded by
cacmercially developed or platted land, except West of Muvin Road, South of the
parcel owned by Olson & Sons Electric, Inc.
Circulation
The circulation of traffic is proposed by a frontage road, Mtarvin Road and
through driveways provided within the P.U.D. 'Ree object of private non -dedicated
roadways within the P.U.D. is to out down on the amount and speed of through traffic,
although the public will have the right of ingress and ogre s throughout the parcel.
DATA SHEET
Land Owners James Powers
Route 1, Box 3718
Partnership Monticello, MN. 55362
Powers Strength
Kant K]ollbezg
Kjellberg Park
Monticello, MN. 55362
APPLICANTS Same
Professionals to Consultantes
Surveyors Taylor Land Surveyors
Monticello, MN.
Attorneys Larson G Metcalf
Attorneys -at -Lav
Monticello, MN.
Engineers Winkloman Enterprises, Inc.
P. 0. Box 1144
St. Cloud, MN. 56301
Existing Zonings
Construction Stages
B-3 Property and all adjoining.
Lot 1 ---
Wendy's would be started September, 19841
completed in 90 days.
Lot 3 and Lot 4 ---
Health Club (Lot 3) Metol (Lot 4) otartod in
September, 19841 completed in 120 days.
Lot 2 --
Family restaurant to start in upring of 19851
completed in 90 days.
0
10-20-2
10-20-7
the continuing public i.axproveumnt program or at such ti -/-h.,, .
residential developer agrees to furnish such faciliti or im-
�%,ments put forth by the City or other public agency
If it a be demonstrated by the petitioner that div ""anon from the
points will not cause an irnreaeonab1: burden n the City of
Monticello providing sezvicen and utilities o GaOse a deleterious
impact upon t naturel'enwironment, then the C y Council may con-
sider granting variance to thio Policy in r towing A proposed
development.
No major PUD will be
sanitary sewer avail
the date of FUD approve
(N) TOWNHOUSE"
1. No single townhouse
dwelling unite.
2. Minimum unit lot fr
twenty (20) feet.
7. Townhouses, coopers
an individual unit bael,
10-20-2 (F) (1).
fitted in are ny�E having City water and
within a reaeo le length of time from
contain no more than eight (8)
shall be not less than
fleas and condkminiums will ho subdivided on
according to Va provisions of Section
/Nobu
RSI
The front a side yard restrictions et o periphery of the
d Unit velopment site at a minimum she 1 be the same as im-
in the espective district".
bu ding shall be locatod leas than fiftee (15) toot from
c of tAe curb lino along theme roadways whi arc part of the
otroot pattern.
building within the project shall bo nearer to nothor building
one-half (5) tho owe of the building heights of th two (2)
ingo.SUBMISSION REQUIREMENPS1 Twenty (20) copies of the ollowing
exhibits, analyses and plans shall be submitted to th Plan-
ning Co=iooion and Council during tho PUD procoas, at a
times opocifiad in Section 10-20-0 of thio Ordinance.
(A) GENERAL. CONCEPT STAGE.
1. Goneral Information.
i� (A) The landowner'" name and address and his interoat in the
subject property.
(0) The applicent'a name and address if different from tho
1 andowner . ��
s
14
10-20-3
10-20-3
(C) The names and addresses of all professional consultants
who have tvi�tributed to the development of the PUD plan being
submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and sur-
veyor.
L/ (D) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over
the subject property to effectuate the proposed PUD, including
a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual in-
tezasts held in or affecting the subject property and includ-
ing an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered
property report, and such other evidence as the City Attorney
may require to show the status of the title or control of the
subject property.
2. Present Status:
X(A) The address and legal description of the subject property.
(0) The existing coning classification and present use of the
subject property and all lands within one thousand (1,000) feet
of the subject property.
/
�/ (C) A map depicting the existing development of the subject pro-
perty and all land within one thousand (1,000) feet thereof and
showing the precise location of existing streets, property linos,
easements, water mains and otorm and sanitary sewers, with invert
elevations on and within one hundred (100) feet of the subject
property.
J3. A written statmaent generally doocribing the proposed PUD and
the market which it is intended to serve, shoving its relationship
to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be
designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development
and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable
regulations of the City.
C%�
10-20-3
10-20-3
dSite Conditionst Graphic reproductions of the existing
r si
to conditions at a scale of one hundred (100) feet.
(A) Contours - minimum two (2) foot intervals.
✓ (B) Location, type, and extent of tree cover.
i (C) Slope analysis.
(D) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands and
streams and floodplain within three hundred (300) feet
of the subject property.
V(E) Significant rock outcroppings.
'/.(F) Existing Drainage patterns.
( (G) Vistas and significant views.
JH, Soil conditions as they affect development.
All of t))a graphics should be the same scale as the final plan ,
to allow easy croon reference. The use of overlays is recom-
mended for clear reference.
�/S. Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including
but not limited to the general location of major circulation ele-
ments, public and common open space, residential and other land
uses.
Y 6, A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling unite
proposed for the PUD end a tabulation of the proposed opproximato
allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the
total project area, which shall include at least the following:
M Area devoted to residential u000.
(b) Area devoted to residential use by building type.
(C) Aroa dovoted to common open space.
(D) Area devoted to public open apace.
•
41
I
10-20-3 10-20-3
(E) Approximate area devoted to streets.
7'(P) Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street
parking and loading spaces and related access.
f (G) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial
uses.
(H) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial
or office uses.
L/�. When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of
time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for
the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating
the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or
unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space
and dwelling unite to be provided or constructed during each such
stage and the overall chronology of development to be followed from
stage to stage.
,/a. When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common
open apace or service facilities, a statement describing the pro-
vision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open
space or service facilities. If it is proposed that such open apace
be owned and/or maintained by any entity other than a governmental
authority, copies of the proposed articles of incorporation and by-
laws of such entity shall be submitted.
✓9. General intents of any restrictive covenants that are to be ro-
corded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD.
10. Schematic utilities plana indicating placement of water, sanitary
and storm sewers.
DEVELOPMENT STAGE
alopmant staga submisaions should depict and outline the pro-
p-. implementation of the ganoral concept stage for the PUD. In -
format n from the ganoral concept stage may bo uded for back-
ground •n to provide a basis for the aubmi plan. The Develop-
ment Stege issions shall lncluds bg0 of be limited toy
1. Zoning clasoi ation required for Devolopment Stago submission
and any other public to
necessary for implementation of the
proposed plan.
2. Twenty (20) cats of proliminib plana, drawn to a ocalu of not
leas than one (1) Inch equals ono h red (100) foot (or scale re-
quested by the administrator) contalnl at Ion the following in-
formation.
(A) Proposed name of the dovolopment (whlc shall not dup-
licate nor be similar in pronunciation to the name any plat thereto -
[ore recorded in the County wherein the subject props is a ad),
� a
Consullinp Planners One Grovel" Terrace f6121377 w
Minneacobs
Minnesota 55403
1104- DeMgren AnwhM /Inoo Waled
DATE: 13 August 1984
TOi Gary Anderson, Planning Coordinator
Members of the Planning Commission
CITY OF MONfICELt.O
FROM, C. John Uban
REi I-94 Plata A Commercial Planned Unit Development Proposed by Kent
Kjellberg and James Powers
The Comprehensive plan calls for commercial in the area proposed as the
commercial P .U.D. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
In the preparation of the I-94 Plata concept the proponents should have used
professionals who were experienced in the area of land planning. Under
Chapter 20 of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 10-20-1 (B) 'Higher standards of
site planning and building design are encouraged through the use of trained
and experienced land planners, architects and landscape architects.' The
present site plan has many problems listed below.
1. The concept oubmitted does not show the proposed land uses on the
total of the property. A full concept plan must be submitted for
approval at thin stage.
2. Sandborgs Road, a public street, must be completed and linked either to
frontage road Oakwood Drive, or to Marvin Road just west of the property.
Switching suddenly from a public mad to a private road as proposed in
the submitted_ plan will of meat circulation and oafety roViremonte
of the city. Enclosed you will find a cross section of a typical
private otroot which will function much as a public street will. The
otracto proposed within thio development do not meet this minimum standard.
3. The proposed parking pattern is under designed having only a 55 foot
parking bay. The ordinance calla for parking stalls to be 20 feet in
depth with a 24 foot aisle. This standard must be mot in all cases.
The smell iolando left within the parking lot provide no recognized
function. once caro are parked against those narrow islands there will
be no room for people to walk along them plus they will inhibit the
efficient rcmval of snow within the property. They are not wide
enough for plantingo an anew and caro will be bumping into constantly.
Iolanda within parking area should have a minimum of ton foot in width
co that they can accomodate the neceasary plantings and/or sidewalk system.
Page 2
The Parking circulation to the north stops in many dead end Aieles which
are highly cumbersome when it comes to searching for parking Stalls. This
parking pattern should be revised having a circular access system totally
throughout the parking lots.
4. The proposed access point to Oakwood Drive meets at an accute angle
and does not accomodate good sightlines and entrance geometry. This
road should be aligned perpendicular to Oakwood Drive.
5. The incomplete plan points out many other problems left on the site. The
80 foot strip directly west of lot 3 is not of sufficient size to accomo-
date anything except parking. The only parking that this would serve
would be the health club itself or the motel and this should have been
included then in the P.U.D. concept plan.
Other areas of the site are also left in what I believe to be a poor de-
velopable condition. On the east perimeter of the property is a narrow
area caught between the private road and the property line. This
narrow strip is about 115 feet at its widest point and only 70 feet
in its narrowest point. This is not a piece of land that can be easily
developed in a manner pleasing to the overall concept.
Additionally there is a narrow strip of land approximately 35 feet in
width that adjoins the property to the right of way of State Highway 25.
From the plan submitted the beet location evident for the road extension
from Sandberg Road would be along the eastern property line leaving a
large outlot without separating small strips to the east.
6. Also proposed within this development is parking directly off the right
of way of Marvin Road. This is adjacent to the proposed motel. Public
roads should not be used for the circulation of parking lots. Although
an island is shown out on the right of way, the actual access and
circulation for this parking lot Lo within the right of way of the road.
7. The following items were not completed in the general concept stage.
There was no exhibit showing zoning classification and present land use
of all property within 1000 feet; there was no exhibit showing precise
location of exioting Streets, property lines easements, water mains,
sotrm and Sanitary severe, invert elevations within 100 foot of the
proporty; the written Statement did not cover the intention of the
control of the common area in which many maintenance itomo must be
addressed; the analyoio of the site was very poor and did not completely
address the noceooary itemo; there was not a complote drawing showing
the total concept plan; there woo no otoging of the development plan; the
utilitioo and storm drainage system should have adequately covered the
entire site.
B. SUMMARY STATEMENT
I believe the proposed uses would work well on the site, however I be -
Rove much has to be done with site planning to create a package re-
eponoibla to the concerns of the city and addressing the needs of all
the future development within the area.
07
loft
d
C
14ft 14ft.
501t Rgad Easement
Proposed Road Easement Section
loft
.N -F- . • I.
ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
L u0 Survcyors August 13, 1984
Mr. Gary Anderson, Building Official
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Planned Unit Development - I-94 Plaza
Dear Gary:
On Friday, August 10, 1984, Jim Powers of Monticello delivered to my office a
concept report for i-94 Plaza, a planned unit development in Monticello west of
Monticello Ford. Attached to the report was a topographical map and a general
plan showing the building and parking lot layout by the contractor.
Reference is made in the concept plan report that a topgraphic water drainage
plan was attached to this report. Other than the map indicating existing con-
tours, no drainage plan which would show finished contours, building elevations,
parking lot elevations, etc., was transmitted. Also attached to the report that
indicated an agreement was reached with Milt Olson, owner of the property west of
Marvin Road, that the planned unit development would drain into his property
behind his office. The concept plan report also states that the drainage will
flow towards Marvin Road to the south, and the drainage pond in Sandberg South
Subdivision will be enlarged.
All this information is not supported by anything, so i cannot review or
recommend how the drainage from this development may or may not affect the area.
It is known that certain low areas exist west of this property and Marvin Road
that could be utilized for ponding on a temporary basis. The ultimate drainage
for this entire area, including the Sandberg South Pond, is in the so-called
"wetlands" area west of Highway 25 and southwesterly of Marvin Road. At one
time, I indicated that the City should acquire this low area for future ponding,
Until more information is available regarding the finished drainage plan, i
cannot act upon this planned unit development.
If you have any questions to this regard, please call me.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
ASSOCIS, INC.
lohn P, Badalich, P. .
:i ty Engineer
JPB:nlb
cc: Thomas Eidem, City Administrator
2021 Lost 11cntu pin Avenue - Surto 1.38 - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 - 6121331.8660
X
In response to John Urbane continents on I-94 Plaza:
Item I, If truth and honesty have a place left in our society a full concept
plan cannot be submitted at this time, "For we know not what tomorrow
brings".
There are roughly 5 acres to the south of the Health club that can be
developed in a number of ways. Present intent is to use it for a
number of outdoor recreational activities. In the future we hope to
construct for indoor ten- is.
The property could be sold for other business interests.
Certainly we can be deceptive and depict some dream for the property
that may never come to reality. Therefore we left this area as a
vacant lot.
Item 2. Sandburg Road and Oakwood drive can be linked with a street through
the property.
This should be done by keeping the street on the eastern boundry of
the property for the following, reasons:
Answers Item 5, Para 2. It lays waste to as small amount of property
as possible.
It follows the route of and covers the water and sewer.
We prefer to keep it private rather tl Fan public but we will bow to
the wishes of the city if they so desire.
We wish to build the road ourselves because of the cost and not have
to complete it for at least a year. We did not have the funds and
did not attempt to finance for this additionnl expense.
We do believe that keeping it private will exceed the cities safety
requirement. It is a long streatch and will invite speed thus a
curve in it will tend to slow traffic and if need be ripple strips
can be placed in a private road.
Also by allowing it to sit for a period of time will allow for the
earth to settle over the area dug for water and sewer.
Item 3. The parking plan will be adjusted to ment the city ordinance, out
contractor used the State standard.
Some islnnda can be eliminated and oth ora enlarged.
Item 4, Will change as rroposed by the planner.
Item 5. Para I. This 80' strip is to be added to lot 3
Para 2. See Item 2
Para 3. At this point in time ve hnv oo no idea whnt to do wi th this
strip of land.
Item 6. This Is probably a misunderstanding by the planner. The parking
is to accomodate the lower "walkout" portion of the motel. Access
is not from Marvin Road but from the parking lot.
Item 9. Zoning is all Q-3 within 1DD0'
The adjoining streets are shoos—Sandbirg Rd. --Oakwood Drive --Marvin Rd.
The property lines are shown. There are no easements.
Water and sewer lines are shown.
V
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/14/84
8. Public Hearing - Subdivision of a Residential Lot for Proposed
8 -unit Townhouses - Applicant, Jay Miller. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jay Miller is proposing to build 8 townhouse unite on an R-2
lot, with the building portions of each townhouse unit individually
owned by the tenant and the area surrounding the townhouse units
to be owned by an Incorporated Townhouse Association. In looking
over the site plan, the 8 -unit townhouses do meet the required
setbacks except on the west sideyard setback, that being 8.48
feet away from the lot line where 10 feet is required. In talking
to Mr. Bob Rohlin, Meyer-Rohlin 6 Associates, he was going to
talk with Jay Miller to discuss with him the possibility of
before platting the next lot, which would be lot 8, that before
this one comes before final plat approval that additional footage
could be added to this plat to compensate for the shortage in
the setback area on the west side of the proposed plat. Other
than the sideyard setback, the plat seems to be pretty much
in order.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary subdivision request to subdivide
an existing lot into 8 separate lots for townhouses with
the common area around the 8 townhouses proposed to be owned
jointly by an Incorporated Townhouse Association.
2. Deny the preliminary subdivision request to subdivide an
existing lot into 8 separate lots for 8 townhouses with
the common area around the 8 townhouses proposed to be owned
jointly by an Incorporated Townhouse Association.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the pioliminary uubdlvioion request
as pr000ntod with the condition that no variance be granted
on the wont oidoyard setback, that the oquaro footage needed
for this particular subdividing of Lot 9 plat moot the minimum
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed proliminary plat of Colony by the Groans;
Copy of the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions;
Copy of the proposed site of the prop000d 8 townhouoo units.
0 10 20 40
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
A01n. 10, IQL�
ZONING R-2
FOR
60
J.W. MILLER
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
PREPARED BY
MEYER-ROHLIN,INC
EI11G1NEERS•LANO SURVEYORS
1111 NwY. 25N., 8ullalo, Minn. 53313
Description
I.OT 9, BLOCK 4
PAR WEST
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Note:
Dimensions to foundation of Townhouses
are actual measured distances
Individual lot widths are approximate
as common walls have not been established
Typical garages are 13 feet by 24 feet
Typical decks aro 12 feet by 2.0 feet
Each lot is served by individual
si woi and water services
PLAT DATA
TOTAL AREA 40,280 SO. FT,
LOT 1 2,296 SQ. FT.
LOT 2 1,968 SO. FT.
IAT 3 1,968 SQ. FT.
LOT 4 1,968 SQ. FT.
IAT 5 1,968 SQ. FT.
LOT 6 1,968 SQ. FT.
LOT 7 1,968 SQ. FT.
LOT 6 2,296 SQ. FT.
IAT 9 23,880 SQ. FT.
0
I
I
J
COLONY BY THE GREEN
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
THIS DECLARATS ON, made on the date hereinafter act forth, by J.
M. MILLER and VIVI AN MILLER, husband and wife, hereinafter collectively
referred to as 'Declarants'.
WITNESSETHt
WHEREAS, Declarants are the owners of certain property in the County
of Wright, State o>E Minnesota, which is more particularly described
ae :
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarants hereby declare that all of the properties
described above @hall be hold, sold and conveyed subject to the following
easements, reatric tions, covenants and conditions, which are for the
purpose of protecting the value and desirability of and which shall
run with tho real property and be binding on all parties having any
right, title, or i ntaroat in the described promises or any part thereof,
their heirs, succc osoro and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit
of each ownor thereof.
ARTICLE I.
Definitions
eaction 1. 'Association' shall moon and refer to COLONY BY THE
GREEN HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, It■ successors and assigns.
Section 2. 'Owner* •hall mean and refer to the record owner whether
one or more persons or entities, but not in excess of two (2) nuclear
families or entities or family partnerships containing more than two (2)
Il
families or entities or family partnerships containing more than two
(2) families, of a fee simple title to any lot which is a part of the
properties, including contract sellers, but excluding those having such
interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation.
Section 3. 'Properties' shall mean and refer to that certain real
property hereinabove described, and such additions thereto as hereafter
be brought within the jurisdiction of the Association.
Section 4. 'Common Area' shall mean all real property owned by
the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the owners. The
Common Area to be owned by the Association at the time of the conveyance
of the first lot is described as follows:
Section 5. 'Lot' shall moan and refer to any plat of land shown
upon any recorded subdivision map of the properties with the ox.eption
of the common area.
Section 6. 'Declarant' shall mean and rotor to J. W. MILLRA and
VIVIAN MILLER, husband and wife, their successors and assigns.
ARTICLE II.
Property Rights
Section 1. Owners' Easements of Enjoyment. Every owner shall
have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area which
shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every lot,
subject to the following provisionoi
a. The right of the Association to suspend the voting rights and
right to use of the recreational facilities by an owner for
any period of time during which any aooeoomont against his
Lot remains unpaid; and for a period not to exceed sixty (60)
days for any infraction of its published rules and regulations;
PACE -2-
b. The right of the Association to dedicate or transfer all or
any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority
or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions
as may be agreed to by the members. No such dedication or
transfer shall be effective unless an instrument signed by
two-thirds of the members agreeing to such dedication or transfer
has been recorded.
C. The right of individual owners to the exclusive use of parking
spaces as provided in this Article.
Section 2. Delegation of Use. Any owner may delegate in accordance
with the By -Laws, his right of enjoyment to the Common Area and facilities
to the members of his family, his tenants, his guests or contract purchasers
who reside on the property.
Section 3. Parking Rights. Ownership of each lot shall entitle
the owner or owners thereof to the use of not more than two (2) automobile
parking spaces, which shall be as near and convenient to said Lot as
reasonably possible, together with the right of ingross and egress in
and upon said parking area. The Association may provide for additional
vehicle parking.
Section C. Homo Owners Annociation's Basement on Lots, ownership
of each lot shall be subject to the Home owner Association's right to
maintain and replace overhead and underground utilities ouch as telephone,
gas, eloctric, waterlines, sower linos, roads, parking and walkways,
which may become necessary in the establishment of utilities and easements
for the successful operation of COLONY BY THE GREEN.
ARTICLE II1.
Membership and Voting Rights.
Section 1. Every owner of a lot which is subject to assessment
PAGE -3-
a
shall be a member of the Association. Membership shall be appurtenant
and may not be separated from wernship of any lot which is subject
to assessment.
Section 2. The owner of each lot shall be entitled to one vote
for each lot owned. When more than one person holds an interest in
a Lot, all such persons shall be members. The vote for such Lot shall
be exercised as they among themselves determine, but in no event shall
more than one (1) vote he cast with respect to any Lot.
ARTICLE Iv.
Covenant for Maintenance Assessments
Section 1. Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation of Assessments.
The Doclarant, for each Lot owned within the Properties, hereby covenants
and each Owner of any Lot by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether
or not it shall be no expressed in such deed, is deemed to covenant
and agree to pay to the Association: (1) annual assessments or charges,
and (2)) special assessments for captial improvement. Such assessments
to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. The annual
and special fees shall be a charge on the land, and shall be a continuing
lion upon the property against which each such assessment is made. Each
such assessment, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys'
foes, shell also be the personal obligation of the person who was the
Owner of such property at the time the assessment fell due.
Section 2. Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by
the Association shall be used exclusively to promote the recreation,
health, safety and welfare of the residents in the properties and for
the Improvements and maintenance of the Common Area and of the homes
situated upon the properties.
PACE -4-
Section 3. Minimum Annual Assessment.
The minimum annual assessment shall be $ per Lot.
From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the
conveyance of the first Lot to an owner, the minimum annual assessment
may only be increased after a vote of two-thirds of the members at a
meeting duly called for that purpose.
Section 4. Special Assessments for Capital Improvements. In addition
to the annual assessments authorised above, the Association may levy,
in any assessment year, a special assessment applicable to the year
only for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of
any construction, reconstruction, repair or replacement of a capital
improvement upon the Common Area, including f i :tures and personal property
related thereto, provided that any such assessment shall have the assent
of a majority of the votes of members present at a meeting duly called
for this purpose.
Section 5. Notice and Quorum for any Action Authorized Under Section
3 and 4. written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of taking
any action authorized under Section 3 or 4 shall be sent to all members
not Icon than 30 days nor mora than 60 days in advance of the meeting.
At the first ouch mooting called, the presence of members or of proxies
conotituting fifty (50%) per cent of all the votes of the membership
shall constitute a Quorum. If the required Quorum is not present, another
PACE -5-
meeting may be called subject to the same notice requirement, and the
required quorum at the subsequent meeting shall be one-half of the required
quorum at the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be
held more than sixty (60) days following the preceding meeting.
Section 6. Uniform Rate of Assessment. Both annual and special
assessments must be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots and may be
collected on a monthly basis.
Section 7. Date of Commencement of Annual Assessments - Due Date.
The monthly assessments provided for heroin shall commence as to all
Lots on the Pirot (lot! day of the month following the conveyance of
the Common Area. The first monthly assessments shall be adjusted according
to the number of months remaining in the calendar year. The Board of
Directors shall fix the amount of the monthly assessment against each
i
Lot at least thirty (10) days in advance of each monthly assessment
period. written notice of the monthly assessment shall be sent to every
owner subject thereto. The duo dates shall be established by the Board
of Directors. The Association shall, upon demand, and for a reasonable
charge, furnish a certificate signed by an officer of the association
setting forth whether the assessments on a specified Lot have been paid.
i
Section B. Effect of Non -Payment of Assessments - Remedios of
the Association. Any Assessment not paid within thirty (10) days after
the duo date shall bear interact from the due data at the roto of twelve
t12%) per cont par annum. The Association may bring an action at low
against the owner personally obligated, to pay the same or foreclose
the lion against the property and interest, coats and reasonable attorneys'
' face of any such action shall be added to the amount of assoasa`ento.
go owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for the assessments
PAGE -6-
provided for herein by non-use of the Common Area or abandonment of
his Lot.
Section 9. Subordination of the Lien of Mortgages. The lien of
Assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of
any Pirst Mortgage. Sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the
assessment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant
to Mortgage Poreclosure or any proceeding in lieu thereof, shall extinguish
the lien of such assessments as to payments which became due prior to
such sale transfer. No sale or transfer shall relieve such Lot iron
liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien
thereof.
ARTICLE V.
Architectural Control
Section 1. No building, fence, wall, tank or other accessory structure
above or underground shall be commenced, orectod or maintained upon
the properties, nor shall any exterior addition to or change or alteration
therein be made until the plane and specifications showing architecture,
kind, shape, height, materials and location of the same shall have boon
submitted to and approved in writing as to harmony of external design
and location in relation to surrouding structures and topography by
the Board of Diractora of the Association who shall constitute an architectural
committee. In the event that said Board fails to approve or disapprove
such design and location within sixty 1601 days after said plane and
opacifications have boon submitted to it, approval will not be required
and this Article will be doomed to have been duly complied with. Provided,
however, that the location and construction complies with applicable
City and State law.
PACE -7-
ARTICLE VI.
Use Restrictions
Section 1. Land Use and Building Type. No Lot shall be used except
for recreational and residential purposes. No building shall be erected.
altered, placed or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere
with the in and maintenance of utilities, or whish may change
the direction or flow of drainage channels in the easements or which
may obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage channels in
the easements. The easement area of each Lot and all improvements in
same shall be maintained continuously by the owner of the Lot, except
for those improvements for which a public authority, utility company
or Home owners' Association is responsible.
Section 4. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall
be carried on upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which
may be or may become an annoyance, nuisance or eyonore to the neighborhood.
Section 5. Temporary Structures. No temporary otructureo, excnvation,
basement, car bodies, trailers, campers, tonto or self-contained unite
shall be permitted in the subdivision except as may be stored in a garage
or shall be specifically authorized in writing by the Board of Directoro.
There shall never be camping, campers or tenting allowed at any time.
Section 6. Signa. No sign of any kind shall be dioplayed to
the public view on any Lot except one name identification sign of not
more than one square foot, and one sign of not more than live 15! square
foot advertising the property for sale or signs uoed by a builder or
realtor to advertise the property during the saloo period.
Section 7. Landocaping. All surface arose disturbed by conotruction
shall be returned promptly to their natural condition and replanted
PACE -8-
in native grasses; but the Board of Directors may approve construction
of gardens and lawns. Living trees naturally existing, except to the
extent necessary for construction purposes, shall not be cut or removed
from the properties, except that the Board of Directors may approve
some thinning or trimming of mature tress.
Section 8. Livestock and Poultry. No animals, livestock or poultry,
of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any Lot except that doge,
tate er other household pate may be kept provided that they are kept
inside and are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purposes.
Also provided that they are not allowed to annoy by odor or actions,
unnecessarily, the neighbors. All household pets shall always be under
control of their owners by leash. The Board of Directors may restrict
this provision to the extent of forbidding all animals if at a future
time it shall become necessary.
Section 9. Garbage and Refuse Disposal. No garbage, trash or
aches or other refuse shall be thrown or dumpod on any land within the
aubdi vision. Each property owner shall use the present receptacle for
the temporary storage and collection of refuse and all such receptacles
aro to, be provided and maintained by the Annociation.
Section 10. Hight Preservation. No fence, wall, hedge, tree or
shrub which obstructs eight linos will he allowed except when expressly
waived or altorod by the Board of Directors.
Section 11. Common Are&e. All restrictions in this article shall
govern common areas except as followas (1) Buildings located within
coasaon areas may not be used an dwelling units. (2) No commercial activities
shall he allowed. Lot owners shall have the right to use the casmon
aroan in conformance with these covenants and according to the rules
PAGE -9-
�T
and regulations sat forth from time to time by the Board of Directors.
Section 12. Outside Storage. There shall be no outside storage
by any Lot owner, and outside storage shall be prohibited in general,
except where designated specifically by the Board of Directors.
Section 13. Clotheslines. There shall be no permanent clotheslines
erected within the subdivision.
Section 14. Utilities. All electrical, sewer and water shall
be on private, individual meter basis and paid for individually by the
Lot owner.
Section 15. Plowing. The Association shall not be responsible
for any plowing expenses in the wintertime, and if any member of the
Association wishes access to his Townhouse, he shall have to make hie
own arrangements for plowing and be responsible for the expense.
Section 16. Firearms. There shall be no discharging or carrying
of firearms within the common area, including BB guns, archery equipment
or slingshots.
Section 17. Rental. Rental of any Lot by an owner will be subject
to prior approval by the Board of Directors who shall be responsible
for setting any torma, policies or conditions to be imposed.
ARTICLE VII.
Exterior Maintenance
The Common Areas shall be maintained by the Association and the
coat of such exterior maintenance shall be added to and become a part
of an aaaeoomont to which the Lot may be subject. In the event an owner
of any Lot in the Properties shall fail to maintain the promises and
the improvements situated thereon In a manner satisfactory to the Board
of Directors, the Association, after approval of majority vote of the
PACE -10-
Board of Directors, shall have the right, through its agents and employees,
to enter upon said parcel and to repair, maintain and rester the Lot
and the exterior of the buildings and any other improvements erected
thereon. The cost of such exterior maintenance shall be added to and
become pert of an assessment to which such Lot may be subject.
Section 1. Enforcement. The Association, or any Owner, shall
have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all
restrictions, conditions and covenants, reservations, liens and charges
now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. Failure
by the Association or by any Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction
herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to
do so thereafter.
Section 2. Real Estate Taxes. All real estate taxes attributed 1
to the Common Areas shall be paid by and be the responsibility of the
Association. Amounts paid for reel estate taxes by the Association
shall be passed on to the owners through their asoeanments.
Section 1. Saverability. Invalidation of any one of those covenants
or rontrictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any
other provisions which •hall remain in full forco and effect.
Section 4. Amendment. Any covenant■ and restrictions of this
Declaration shall run with and bind the land, for a term of twenty (20)
years from the data this Doclaration is recorded, after which time the
same shall be automatically extended for successive period of ten (10 1
years.
Thin Declaration may bo amended during the first twenty (20) year
porlod by an inctrumont signed by not leen than fifty-one (511) per
Cont of the Lot owners and thareaftor by an instrument cignod by not
PACE -11-
less than fifty-one (51%) per cent of the Lot owners. Any Amendment
must be recorded.
IN wITHESS MHER=r, the undersigned, being the Declarants herein,
have hereunto set their hands and seal this _day of
19—.
J. N. MILLER, Declarant
VIVIAN MILLER, Declarant
PACE -17
-------------------
_ A sand v
M ie o>h iequo.s 3�eivida�
o:bi; `lot into 9 aope t� lilts for
tornli999uaeo with tho common e[ �Oround•�
�� •' �� tho o}ght tornhouaoe proposed to \ \orne
)oint y by en tncospozoto9' TOVttti o\\Aaoo lotion.
Jay M liar.
ON
I�t'�jtiilt j_' :M,. T �� \, � `,.� G$ ��ii•i`�: "�"�+ i-�.;.� .`.1 � ��
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/14/84
9. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a 15 -foot Sideyard
Setback instead of the Required 30 -foot Sideyard Setback - Applicant,
Key Tool 6 Plastic, Inc. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Key Tool 6 Plastic, Inc., is proposing to relocate a portion
of its company over here to Monticello and build on the East
of Lot 10 and all of Lot 11, Block 2, Lauring Hillside Addition.
Due to the configuration of the lots, having more depth to them
than they have frontage, the buildings have to run in a north
south direction. In doing so, Key Tool S Plastic, Inc., is
proposing to build their building in phases. In upcoming years
they will be adding additions to their building as they continue
to grow. In doing so, to start out with they would like to
obtain a variance on the sideyard setback. They are requesting
a 15 -foot eideyard variance instead of the required 30 -foot
eideyard setback. This would allow them to have their driveway
entrance along the other aide of the building and also their
parking lot along with an unloading dock along aide of the building
to the rear of the building. To accommodate the expansion of
future additions, it ie more practical to put the unloading
dock to the side of the building at the roar end of the proposed
building. Therefore, to allow enough room for an unloading
area on the side of the building, they would need the variance
to move the building 15 foot within the side property lot line.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a 15 -foot Sideyard
setback instead of a taquirad 30 -foot oideyard setback.
2. Deny the variance requoot to allow a 15 -foot aidoyard ootback
instead of a required 30 -Coot aidoyard ootback.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommondo approval of the variance requost to allow a
15 -foot aidoyard Sotback inotoad of a required 30 -foot aidoyard
ootback, with any future consideration of the development of the lots
in between the prop000d Key Tool 6 Plaotic building and the to-bo-
conotructod FSI (Fulfillment Systoma) building that there be
maintained the proper aidoyard Setbacks of any prospective building
in the vacant lot between those two proponod buildings.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the prop000d location of the now Key Tool G Plaotic
building.
- 8 -
v
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/14/84
10. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow Outdoor Storage
in an I-1 Zone - Applicant. Rainbow Industries. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Rainbow Industries most recently purchased the former Heskln
Electric building. Rainbow Industries is a metal parts manufacturing
firm and is requesting a conditional use to allow them outdoor
storage of miscellaneous small aluminum and metal pieces and
also metal and aluminum filings from the machines. The storage
would take place to the rear of the property and would have
a screening fence around the containers which hold the above
mentioned materials.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow outdoor storage
in an I-1 Zone.
Z. Deny the conditional use request to allow outdoor storage
in an I-1 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommondo approval of the conditional use to allow outdoor
storage for Rainbow Induatrioc with the condition that the outside
storage containers have an area enclosed around them with a
screened fence.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the outdoor storage oite.
- 9 -
'� ~�I�
� SI �'�!I`
.l,�tlt �, I � ....
;f tt �t��t�,p�J jl��i� f - ��.
�tt�tp�r� /l ;rriiy�!� .r'rj�tltr�frr '�
�t '� ��Ij�; rOrrf 'rr�/�• .rtry4 Att�tr
!�j'��tit� �jj����rirrr, �rriii�� �ii�. ���' ��.
�� ' d �r1� y ��� � � �-�.
�� .� rp ��
�� � �jj fi�
��p� ��`�
....�
�� '�
4t l �
� �.
,,
':�
• �.
,�
a
,�
v
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/14/84
11. Public Hearing - Residential Unplatted Land Lot Subdivision
by Registered Land Survey - Applicant, Marvin Kramer. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Marvin Kramer is proposing to subdivide his currently unplatted
property consisting of approximately 3.00 acres, zoned R-3,
and to separate his current residence from a proposed 4-plex
multiple family unit. In a map which will be presented to you
at Tuesday night's Planning commission meeting it will indicate
a proposed re -alignment of 7th Street to intersect with the
Monticello Mall area with the Country Club Manor Road, with
Mr. Kramer's property lying just to the south of the proposed
road alignment. The proposed road alignment would take the
southerly 80 feet of Mr. Kramer's property as proposed on the
map. In doing so, at the time of the subdivision request, the
City would be looking to obtain right-of-way for a proposed
80 -foot street through the south 80 feet of Mr. Kramer's property.
Mr. Kramer has indicated willingness to negotiate with the City
on the proposed 80 -foot roadway right-of-way in exchange for
proposed future special assessments on his property. The basic
intent at this meeting for the subdivision request is for Planning
Commission members to look at the concept notion of Mr. Kramer'a
project and also to look at having Mr. Kramer petition to the
City Council for water and sower and curb and gutter and street
extension up to hie property to service his proposed 4-plex
apartment building.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve subdivision request to subdivide the existing unplatted
land by registered land survey.
2. Deny the subdivision request to subdivide the existing unplatted
land by registered land survey.
3. Approve the concept notion of Mr. Kramer's subdivision request
and recommend to City Council that Mr. Kramer petition for
water and sower, curb and gutter, and street oxtanaion up
to his property.
4. Deny Mr. Kramor'o subdivision concept notion and to deny
Mr. Kramer petitioning to City Council for water and newer,
curb and gutter, and street extension to his property.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommando approval of Mr. Kramor'a concept notion that
this prop000d project would provide an excellent opportunity
for the City to obtain additional Dtroat right-of-way needed
- 10 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/14/84
for 7th Street extension proposed sometime in the future. Staff
also recommends Planning Commission members' approval of Mr.
Kramer petitioning to the City Council for water, sever, street,
curb and gutter extension to his property.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed site for lir. Kramer's subdivision request;
Copy of Mr. Kramer's proposed subdivision request proposed site
plan; Copy of the proposed 7th Street extension plan to be presented
at Muesday night's Planning Commission meeting.
f
f I 0
I
I _
I -
1 _
t I '
I PROPOSED I
9
so'
STRE6f I
I
� I
• I
- o.�' 9Y I
MI NNESOM ,S'fR6f r
a
�l)
�I
Consulting Engineers
Lend Surveyors
ORR'SCHEIEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mr. Thomas Eidem, Administrator
City of Monticello
250 EastBroadway
Monticello. MN 55 362
Re: Kramer Property Development
Dear Tom:
August 13, 1983
I have reviewed the Kramer property plan you sent me relative to the proposed
frontage road north of 1-94. Based on our latest alignment for the roadway, the
southerly 80' of the Kramer property will be needed for the roadway. This latest
alignment, Alternative 2A (see attached plans), was proposed to accommodate the
land split proposed by the Rosewood Corporation a couple of years ago..
In my conversation with Gary Anderson on Friday, it was suggested that possibly
40' be taken from the Kramer parcel and 40' from the parcel of land directly
south of and ajoining the Kramer property. This can be done, but then the
right-of-way line would have to be shifted further south of the Rosewood parcel
adding a triangular portion of land to that parcel. To accommodate Rosewood's
boundary line and taking only 40' of the Kramer property is not practical in that
a double reverse curve would be created over the Christianson property and a very
bad feature for a collector street.
To try to work out a compromise between the several parcels involved, 1 have
shown two more alternatives on Rep 2. 24-1 and 2A-2. Alternate 2A-2 takes the
southerly 40' of the Kramer property. but leaves a long, triangular sliver of
land south of the Rosewood parcel. Alternate 2A-1 takes approximately 60' of the
Kramer property, but leaves only a small triangular piece south of the Rosewood
property. Taking 50' off of the Kremer property may be the solution.
As you can see, one parcel of land cannot be considered individually without
considering several other properties.
If you have any Questions. please give me a call.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCNEIEN-MAYERON
ASSOC ATES, INC.
John P. Badalich, P.E.
City Engineer
JPB:nib
Enclosures
2021 East Hennepin Avenue s Suite 238 -
Minneapolis, Minnesote 55413 - 6121321- 8660
'i
Y
l �
N
0
?Y • 11
701
1 1
O
� per. w,N 1 r���
•a 1i` ��.
{�
. J �" �'.."+.wl;
� ! , `r .•, {
p,.
� tom'-'
{'
,
- R;
,,.:. .. ,,.. • •'.:., _ -
it ��,,,,,.��
op