Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 12-06-1983AGENDA ` REGULAR HEFTING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Cwcember 6, 1983 - 7.30 P.M. Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Ed Schaffer, Richard Carlson, Don Cochran. 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 7:32 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Special November 22, 1963, Planning Commission Meeting. 7:35 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - K 6 H Auto Repair - Conditional Use Request to Allow Major Auto Repair in a B-4 Zone. 7:50 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - Seitz Our Own Hardware - Conditional Use Request to Allow Outside Liquid Storage in a B-4 Zono. 8:05 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - Murfin Landscaping - Conditional Use Roc,3uest to Allow Outside Storago and Sales in a B-3 Zono. 8:20 P.M. 6. Public Hearing - John Sandberg - Preliminary Plat Review of the Proposed New Development to be Named Par west. 8:50 P.M. 7. Public Hearing - Monticello Country Club - Preliminary Plat Review for tho Propoued Now Subdivision to he Named Country View Terrace. Additional Information Itemn 9105 P.M. 1. Tho next tentative datu for the Monticello Planning Com- miaoion meeting will be on January 10, 1983, 7130 P.M. 9.20 P.M. 2. Adjournment. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION November 22, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Don Cochran, Juyee Dowling, Richard Carlson. Members Absent: Fd Schaffer. Staff Present: Thomas Eidem, Gary Anderson. The meeting was called to order by President Jim Ridgeway at 7:44 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular November 8, 1983, Planning Commission Meeting. A motion was made by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the minutes of the regular November 8, 1983, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Continuance of Public 11carinq - John Sandberq - Rezoninq Request to Rezone from R-1 to R-3. John Sandberg was present to relate to Planning Commission members in regard to the Planning Commission agenda supplement memo. John commented on the special committee meeting stating how the Planning Commission members must vote in regard to the Comprehensive Plan and how it was laid out in the overall outcome of the Plan. This iu definitely rezoning, and the Comprehensive Plan does not allow for R-3 zones within an H-1 zone. Planning Commission member Chairman Jim Ridgeway opened the mooting for public input. Don Pitt auk, -d the Planning Commiuuiun mcmburs if tlwy tied made their deciuiun. Planning Commission Chairman Jim Ridgeway answered that the Planning Commiuuion memberu had not made their decision yet and that they would Ix, making a dcciuion un John'u rezoning request uhortly. MI . Pitt commented that buying a home is a married couple'u larycut investment. If Mr. Sandhety wau granted his rczuning requeut, this could devalue the outimated market value of Mr. Pitt's hume and othor neighhoru' within the arca. Mr. Pitt commented if the variance we!, granted to Mr. Sandbuty, he in turn could do with the property whatever he co chose, and in doing tie, could hu Gull the property to a new developer and the devoloper, upon meeting all the building code re- quirementa and the zoning requirements, build a building cumpletely difforont from what John has presented hero. Chairman Ridgeway eoturtontod on Mr. Pitt's remarks and countered that the estimated market value of the homes would definitely not be devalued due to the presence of a propoued eonduminium unit there. Chairmen Ridgeway Planning Commission Minutes - 11/22/83 at thi s time turned the meeting over to Planning Commission members- for embersfor their comments. Don Cochran questioned Thomas Eidem as to when and how long the new Comprehensive Plan would take. Tom countered with possibly starting as early as January and taking up to six to eight months to complete. Most of the time put into the new Compre- hensive Plan would be spent by Cite City staff, Planning Commission members, and City Council members with outside consulting help from our Consulting Planner, Howard Dahlgren and Associates. Planning Commission memMr Joyce Dowling asked if Planning Commission member Richard Carlson would comment on his committee meeting with City staff. Mr. Carlson commented as to the background of the meeting and commented on a couple points of interest for him, that being court decisions in regard to spot rezoning and the original intent of the 1978 amended Comprehensive Plan not allowing for any R-3 zoning with an R-1 Zone. Chairman Jim Ridgeway commented on his perception of a new community outlook within the new Comprehensive Plan to be adopted and possibilities of a special zoning district set up specifically for this type of housing combined with other types of low to medium density housing. Mrs. Nicolai, neighboring resident to tho proposed rezoning property, questioned as to where the location of the government subsidized units would be and questionud as to why this proposed condominium unit couldn't be located on the west side of River Street. Chairman Jim Ridgeway indicated that the specific areas would be brought out in the new Comprehensive Plan with public hearings to be held as the new proposed districts would be out up in the new Comprehensive Plan. .john Sandberg commented that the property that is available for the proposed condominium unit could instead Ile available for three new homes if the proposed condo- minium unit request is turned down. lie also commented that tho time is now to take a serious look at the need for this type of housing. Planning Commission member Don Cochran commented on John's ideas and indicated that the issue at hand is rezoning, but he does foresee a definite need for this type of housing here in Monticello and stated that this should be seriously addrenoed during the preparation for a now Comprehensive Plan to take place in the upcoming months. John Sandbciy questioned Planning Commission members as to other spot zoning which hao Laken place wi thin tho City, not particularly in regard to R-3 zoning but rezoning in commercial districts. Jim Ridgeway commented on the fact that, with the, increased growth that has Laken place in the last couple of years in i-.mticcilo and the upcoming projected growth for the City of Monticello, the time is now here for this typo rat housing to Ir- adjusted in the Comprehensive Plan. lie aluo r.tated that the old Comf,rvhuiuive Plan as a whole be taken into consideration and all area -i of tho zoning which han Laken place in the City hr looked at and considered for further study in the now Cumpr,•hannive Plan. At thin limo Chairman Hidgeway called for the queot.ion on Mi. Sandhorg's rezoning request. Motion was, made by Richard Cai l!.un to deny the i, r.oniny reqs v t. The motion died for 1„Ck Planning Commission Minutes - 11/22/83 of a second. Don Cochran questioned City staff on a point of order and asked if this could be tabled and picked up at a later Planning Commission meeting after the new Comprehensive Plan has been adopted. Thomas Eidem commented on Don Cochran's point of order request and stated it would just be passing it on to City Council for their action,as the Planning Commission did not take any type of direction in Mr. Sandberg's rezoning request. A motion was then made by Richard Carlson to deny the rezoning request based on the City Attorney's opinion that this request is spot zoning. Motion was seconded by Don Cochran. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was recessed at 8:17 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:19 P.M. 1. Public Hearing - Gus LaFromboise - Conditional Use Request to Allow More than the Maximum Allowed 12 -unit Apartment Building, and Variance Request on Minimum Lot Size Requirement. Mr. LaFromboise presented his plan to Planning Commission members indicating the reason for his variance request on the minimum amount of lot size required; that is, it would provide a better mixture of bedroom units within the proposed 24 -unit building. What Mr. LaFromboise is propouing in his 24 -unit building would be 18 two-bedroom units and 6 one -bedroom units. The minimum lot size needed for the combination of the above units is 62,500 square feet. The size of Mr. LaFromboiso's lot is 59,941 square feet. Ito, therefore, naods a 2,559 square foot variance. Chairman Jim Ridgeway questioned Mr. LaFromboise and asked if there was another way he could conform without requiring a variance. Mr. LaFromboiso countered with he could have the building designed with 12 two-bedroom units and 12 one -bedroom unite and, therefore, meet the requirements of the minimum square foot lot size. He would have no problem proposing to build a 24 -unit apartment building with that mixture of bedroom unitu. However, Mr. LaPrombeiue could have a better mix of apartment buildings with 18 two-budroum units and 6 one -bedroom units. Motion by Don Cochran to deny Mr. IaPronboise'a variance request of 2,559 square feet, seconded by Joyce Dowling. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Ion Cochran, to grant the Conditional Use request to build an apartmont building of more than 12 unita. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Planninq Commivaion Review - Monticello Country Club - Proposed Country View Terrace Subdivioion. The applicant, Mr. Joan Brouillard, along with Howard Cillham were preoult to diccuas plans with the Planning Commission members in regard to their proposed Country View Terrace Preliminary Subdivision Addition, that Using 10 residential lots for now single family dwellings. C�� Planning Commission Minutes - 11/22/83 Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Richard Carlson, to eat a public hearing date for December 6, 1983, 7:30 P.M. for the preliminary plat review of the proposed Country Vier Terrace Subdivision Addition. Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:14 P.M. Respectfully submitted, !i,'tLW �iCI1,L�17 Gary Arldeison Zoning Administrator - 4 - Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 3. Public Hearinq - K 6 H Auto Repair - Conditional Use Request to Allow Major Auto Repair in a B-4 Zone. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Ken Stolp, owner and operator of K 6 H Auto Repair, is in before you to request a Conditional Use Permit to allow major auto repair in a B-4 Zone. As you may recall, the previous owner of the building, Mr. Jim Teslow, operated a used auto sales out of the current property. Mr. Teslow's used auto business was quite a controversial item, which necessitated legal action and anout-of-court settlement came because of it. Enclosed you will find a copy of the settlement between the two affected property owners, Mr. Jim Teslow and the City of Monticello. The decision came about back in 1976. Also as part of Jim's business, he also did a little minor repair of the autos before and/or after the cars were put on the lot to be sold. This is where Mr. Stolp came into the picture. He did the miscellaneous repairs to the autos, which probably back then was an overnight that should have boon taken care of then with a separate Conditional Use Permit to operate his auto repair business there. We will leave it as an oversight back then and work only from the present. Mr. Stoll, has been more than accommodating to the City to do something to continue to operate his present business there at the pito, oven though lie has been in operation for a little over five years. Mr. Stolp is willing to abide to the conditions that were attached in the out--of-court Battlement reached butwoun Mr. Jim Toolow, and the City of Monticello through their attorneyn. Mr. Stolp seems to operate a very buain000-like business there, being very open to some of the City's roqueoto being asked of him and trying to accommodate a very workable relationship with the City. Mr. Stolp is also aware of the fact that the property he purchased is oleo in the tax increment district and should further future development take place, his Conditional Use Permit could be cuopended at a given point in time, and he would have to relocate his buoinuuu. Mr. Stolp also has some porspectiva plans in mind which he would like to diaeuun at some point in time with the City in regard to Mr. S[olp continuing to operate his business at the same location. I will not explain in depth any further hie perspective future plans, as the item before you in the Conditional Use Request to allow major auto repair in a B-4 Zone. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS, 1. To approve Mr. Stolp'u Conditional Use Request to allow him to do major auto repair work in a B-4 Zone. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83 2. To deny Mr. Stolp's request to allow major auto repair in a B-4 Zone. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the out-of-court settlement between Mr. Jun Teslow through hI s attorney and the City of Monticello through the City Attorney and the agreement that came about back in 1976; Pictures of Mr. Stolp's current business location to be presented at the Tuesday night Planning Commission meeting. - 2 - The above -entitled matter having come on for hearing before the court in the Wright County Courthouse in Buffalo, Minnesota, on the 3rd day of May, 1977, and the parties having dictated a stipulation into the record. Now, therefore, pursuant to said stipulation; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Any temporary restraining orders, injunctions or other pro- hibitions issued restraining the defendant herein from operating his used auto sales business at 349 West Broadway, Monticello, MN, be and the same hereby are discharged, and the defendant is hereby authorized to operate his used auto sales business at said location in conformity herewith as a permitted use in a B-4 district. 2. That the plaintiff herein shall issue to the defendant all licenses, permits, etc. which may be necessary for the defendant to operate his used auto sales business at the above-described location as a permitted use in a B-4 district. 3. That the defendant shall erect a five foot -high screen fence on the rear (east side) of his property. 4. That the defendant shall maintain all lighting on the premises as the same existed on the 3rd day of May, 1977. 5. That the defendant shall erect signs only in conformity with .the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 10-3-9 (E) 2. U 6. That the defendant shall maintain at the oforedescribed loca- tion at least six (6) offstreet parking spaces. 7. That the defendant shall surface al l outdoor area with black- top, concrete, or other surface in conformity with the Monticello City Zoning Ordinance. B. That the defendant herein shall not be required to erect a fence or any other barrier along the north side of his property. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCO. Dated this ay of / 47�L�: , 1977. Judge of District Court E Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83 4. Public Hearinq - Seitz Our Own Hardware - Conditional Use Request to Allow Outside Liquid Storage in a B-4 Zone. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Seitz is currently selling bulk kerosene out of two 265 gallon storage tanks located on the outside of the rear most portion of his building. First of all, outside storage of flammable materials must be allowed within the City Ordinance before any fire code requirements would apply. First he must have the Conditional Use to allow outside storage in a B-4 Zone and then the following fire code violations are noted. The violations are as follows: 1. Two outside 265 gallon storage tanks right next to existing retail business building. 2. Two existing 265 gallon tanks not securely fastened to a permanent stand or platform. 3. No outside area provided for spillage or overflow of existing kerosene contents. 4. Gravity flow of outside storage tank contents directly into the inside of an existing retail business building. Contents shall be pumped from existing outside storage tank into containers to be filled by a manual pump or an electrically activated pump, not by gravity flow. Mr. Seitz iu willing to conform to some of the above fire code violations in order to continue hie bulk kerouene business. Mr. Seitz has in- dicated lie is willing to label the two outside storage tanks, put them on a permanent foundation, provide a barrier for catching an overflow or ovoropill of the contents. However, ho would not like to install the hand pump or the electrically activated pump to gat the contents out of the tanks. lie would, therefore, like to utilize the gravity flow of the tanks and fill the cane from the outside of the building. Therefore, he would shut off the gravity flow of the liquid contonto after cacti business day. One thing to look at is, is this the place where we want outside storage of liquid products. Another thing to look at is Mr. Seitz has been operating for over one year with his outside kcrouene storage value. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. To approve Mr. Seitz' Conditional Uuu Request to be allowed to store liquid products in a B-4 Zone with the above noted fire code violations corrected and applied au conditions to the Conditional Use Permit. 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83 Deny Mr. Seitz' Conditional Use Request and have him terminate his bulk kerosene storage sales business. D. SUPPORTING DATAo Location of the two existing 265 gallon kerosene storage tanks to the rear of Mr. Seitz' Our Own Hardware Store Business; Pictures of the outside storage tanks to be presented at Tuesday night's Planning Co®ission meeting. -a- _... USE REQUEST L To allow exterior liquid j storage in a B-4 Zone. ,. Seitz our own Hardware 4 40 Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83 Public Hear:Lnq - Murfin Landscaping - Conditional Use Request to Allow Outside Storaqe and Sales in a B-3 Zone. (G. A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Walt Murfin, Murfin's Landscaping, is again before you with another Conditional Use Request to allow outdoor sales and service in a B-3 Zone. He is at another location just cast of the previous requested site with basically about the same type of plans as what was submitted in his previous Conditional Use Request. Mr. Murfin's Conditional Use Request would be located at the property formerly known as Dino's, which is owned by Floyd and Judith Kruse. Mr. Murfin's plan is to lease 2/3 of the property from Mr. Kruse with Mr. Kruse maintaining 1/3 portion for himself for a proposed use to be acted on possibly later. Due to the nature of the proposed site for Mr . Murfin's Conditional Use Request (the area is rather high at the road frontage end of it and it drops off to the back ) , Mr. Murfin would be utilizing the front most portion of his 2/3 leased portion of the lot. Mr. Murfin is proposing to put an 8 -foot chain link cyclone fence around the cast and west boundaries and the front portion abutting County Road 75, with the fence to go back on the cast and want sides back to a point where it drops down below the crabankmont. Mr. Murfin, as you enter the current entrance to the proposod site, would have a gate entering into the property with parking to your immediate right and to your immediate loft upon entering the gate. Over on the northeast portion of the property iu where Mr. Murfin in proposing to put his r-reeo and ohruba. Alno, the area in currently blacktopped and Mr. Murfin is proposing four or five decorative rock and/or dirt and wood chip bino to the northweat part of the property with the proposed sales office in approximately the center of the property. Zn looking over Mr. Mtufin'a plans of his prop000d site, he in utilizing the front mout portion of the lot with keeping much of the ualeable 3tcma to the rear moot portion of the lot right before it dropu down the embankment. Ono thing possibly to consider as a condition to approving rho Conditional Use Request would be the utorage of equipment and/or trucku primarily used in Mr. Murfin'c type of busincuu. Thio should be limited to very few items, if any, that would be le ft there for overnight or for any extended period of time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS, 1. To approve Mr. Murfin'o Conditional Use Requout to allow outdoor oalea and oervice in a B-3 Zona. 2. To deny, Mr. Murfin's requout to allow outdoor salsa and uervico in a B-3 Zone. - 5 - Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83 V C. SUPPORTING DATA: Mr. Murfin's proposed plans will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday night; Map depicting the location of the proposed site; Pictures to be presented at Tuesday night's meeting of the proposed site. - 6 - 3 Iry n CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST To allow outdoor sales and service in a B-3 Zone. Murfin Landscaping I o : � / y � { 1 Y a 1 1 • I ♦ I r Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83 6. Public Hearinq - John Sandberq - Preliminary Plat Review of the Proposed New Development to be Named Par west. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Here is a brief background on the location of the property. It is located on Highway 75 west adjacent the railroad tracks inter- secting with the golf course and Prairie Road. It is about a 28 acre tract. Mr. Sandberg is proposing to develop this parcel into R-1 single family housing and also two R-3 zones, one proposed for townhouse or condominium units and the other for a proposed apartment house. Plans were sent to our consulting planning firm, Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates, Inc., and the following comments were noted: No additional park laud will be needed; the R-3 zoning is inconsistent and should be eliminated or converted to planned unit development; Jerry Lane access off of County Road 75 should be relocated to pre- serve the present pine trees located along the railroad tracks; a grading plan should be presented showing saving of the oak trees in the proposed development. In regard to not taking the park land, the whole subdivision should be moved down with the lots fronting the railroad tracks having a greater depth to them. A copy of the consulting planner's comments is attached with the supplement. Also enclosed you will find comments from Consulting Engineering Firm, Orr -Scl;u leu-Mayeron b Associates, Inc. Here are some brief comments regarding the consulting engineer's comments. In the R-1 zone under Lot 1, Block 1, is 54,500 square foot, which would allow us 11 town- house units at 5,000 per square foot. The current proposal we could have in multi -family for apartment units is 24 one -bedroom or 19 two-bedroom units. Lot 1, Block 4 consists of 100,440 square feet, which would allow us 20 condominium or townhouse units consisting of 5,000 square feet apiece. The legal description on the proposed subdivision needs acme revision. We do currently have an casement of the land under the power lint). Ile has also not shown on the plan what the existing zoning is surrounding the proposed subdivision addition, nor does he note the existing ownership of the land 350 feet from the Plat boundary. Part of the major concern from the City's standpoint is the proposed sower line. Duo to the fairly flat grado of the proposed sower lino, they have proposed putting in a 12" pipe. Putting in a fairly flat level sewor line requires quite abnormal maintenance on behalf of the City. This would be an ongoing mainten- ance, which would require at least once a year going in and cleaning the oxisting sewer line pipe, whereas our current schedule on cleaning of sewer Lines within the City runs on a 4-5 year schedule with periodic cleaning of different coctiono of sewer line in different parte of the City. The sower lines in the development are proposed to run out to hook up to the existing sower line servicing the properties off of Prairie Road, which are in the Anders Wilhelm and Meadows Addition. - 7 - Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83 In looking at the proposed layout of the sewer with the low lots in Block 3 starting from Lot 6 all the way to Lot 15, we would look at the possibility of servicing those particular lots through a sewer pipe to kne extended out across County Road 75 to hook up with an existing sewer line by Oakview Circle. The water main to supply the proposed development will also be serviced off of Prairie Road and is dead ended at the railroad tracks. OSM recommends that the existing water main line not be dead ended at the railroad tracks. We also see four proposed problems in the storm sewer water drainage of the proposed plat. He indicated no erosion control measures on the plan, nor does he indicate any vegetation protection plan on the plan submitted. Due to the abnormal lenqth of Blocks 1 and 3, we should consider some type of walkway which would extend to the existing park located underneath the power line. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the proposed preliminary plat subdivision addition to the City of Monticello as presented. 2. Deny the proposed preliminary plat subdivision addition. C. STAFF RECOHMr;NDATIOtt: The City staff strongly recommends denial of the proposed plan as presented with the following additions noted to support the above statement of the City staff. 1. We do not want park dedication. We ouggoot that the whole plat be moved oouthwootward allowing longer depth of the lots adjacent to the railroad tracks. 2. We do not want multiple zones in a single zone inconsistent with our current Comprehensive Plan. 3. Sewer maintenance problems built in as presented in the plane. 4. The water lino dead ended at the railroad tracks. S. Four drainage problems of storm sewer orator definitely should be looked at. 6. foto 7 and 8, Block 3, have not Wen clarified. 7. No erosion control areaottroo have been eatabliched. B. No vegetation or tree saving plans prc ocnted. 9. We, the City staff, based on OSM'o roceaamendation, would like to see walkwayo presented from Block 3 to the park and the poonibiltty of an access between Lot 1 through Block 2 to Lot 3 and adjacent over to the park arca and that there propoued walkways be hard surfaced. - 8 - Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83 10. Research alternative access points to save the existing pine trees along the proposed access adjacent to the railroad tracks across from Oakview Circle. 11. The property owners within a 350 foot radius of the property have not been identified and the zoning for the surrounding area of the proposed subdivision plat has not been noted on the proposed plan. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed Par West Subdivision Plat Addition to the City of Monticello; Copy of the report from the consulting planner, Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates and the consulting engineering firm, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates; Map depicting the location of the proposed subdivision addition; some pictures will be presented at Tuesday night's Planning Commission meeting. - 9 - ORR•SCHEIEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors December 1, 1983 Mr. Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: Par West Preliminary Plat Dear Gary: The Preliminary Plat of the Par West Addition along with the Grading and Drainage Plan, Preliminary Water and Sanitary Sower Plan, and the Grading Plan under cover letter of November 16, 1983, has been reviewed by my staff and we offer the following comments based on the zoning and subdivision ordinances of the City. I. COMMENTS RELATING TO TITLE 10, ZONING ORDINANCE: A. As shown on the preliminary plat the existing zoning of area is R-1 and the majority of the proposed lots in the plat are designated as R-1. Two small areas (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 4) will have to be rezoned R-3. All R-1 lots exceed the minimum RO ft, width and 12,000 sq. ft. area. The two R-3 lots exceed the 80 ft . width and the 8,000 sq, ft. area. Based on Section 10-3-4 (D)of the ordinance the maximum number of units allowed on the two R-3 lots would be: (1) Lot 1, Block 1 e 54,500 sq. ft. a) Townhouses @ 5,000 sq. ft./unit - 11 units b) Multiple Family - 24 one bedroom or 14 two bedroom units (2) Lent 1, Block 4 - 100,440 sq. ft. @ 5,000 sq. ft./unit o 20 units II. COMMENTS AS TO TITLE 11, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE: A. Section 11-3-1: Thin office han not reviewed a sketch plan for thin plat an indicated in the or+iinanco. B. Section I1-4-1 (A)2: The legal description in nomewhat ambiquous in the erect of tho exception and nouns ruviainn. Wo have noted in rcd as wo would understand it. (t) Doen John Sandberg own the Fee Title to thono exceptions? (2) If hu duos, they should be included in the plat and shown nubj�ct to the poworline saoomont. /^ 2071 Cost Mennppup Avenuo • Suite 23R , Mifmpapohs, Minnesota 55413 • G12/331 Rf;60 Page Two Mr. Gary Anderson December 1, 1983 C. Section 11-4-1 (B)2: The existing zoning classification for land within and abutting the subdivision is not shown as R-1. D. Section 11-4-1 (B)5: Existing ownership of land 350 ft. away from the plat boundary should be shown. This information may have been included in the abstract certificate required under Section 11-3-2(A). E. Section 11-4-1 (B)8: As to the preliminary layout for sewer and water main, I offer the following comments. The size of the sanitary sewer is larger than required in size to meet a certain minimum grade and to provide a street sewer depth of 7 ft. from invert to surface at the highest point of the sewer opposite Lot 17, Block 1 on Jerry Lane. Theoretically with the 0.22% grade and a 12 inch pipe, a velocity of 2 ft. per second (fps) will be achieved if the pipe flows at least 1/2 full. This will not be the case as only 5-10% of this volume will be available at full development at the south end of the plat. An 8 inch pipe, which is all that is necessary, would raise the sewer to within 4 ft. of the surface at the upstream end requiring insulation and shallow depth basements. Even an 8 inch pipe with the minimal flow that will be generated will only provide 10% of the required volume to achieve a 2 fps velocity. In other words periodic flushing would be required whether an 8 inch, 10 inch or 12 inch pipe is used. The 12 inch pipe would probably be desirable in that insulation would not he required and near normal basements could be constructed but a flushing program will be required. As to the watermain, I would recommend that the proposed watermain not: be doad-onded at the railroad tracks and Jorry Lane, but he extendud northerly and cut into the existing 12 inch main on the north sid,a of County Road 75. A 6 inch watermain is probably sufficient within the plat although this will be verified at. the time of actual design. P. Section 11-4-1 (B)11: The grading plan indicates no grading at this time on the R-3 lots. This grading will have to be reviewed on the site for each lot at the time a building permit is requested no an to ensure positive drainage throughout the plat. The remainder of the grading plan appears adequate with soma modification of the rear yard drainage on Lot 2, Block I and Loto 4 and 5, Block 3, as noted on the plan. (1) From the grading plan, the majority drainage is to the south, thence to Otter Crook via the adjoining golf course and primarily to the low area at the southwest corner of the plat. A drainage owalo or positive drainage should he provided along the west edge of Block 3 to the southwest Page Three Mr. Gary Anderson December 1, 1983 corner along the east side of the proposed Park area. The drainage carried northward from Lots 1 and 2 and part of 3, Block 3, and from the south side of Kevin Drive is landlocked at the southwest corner of Prairie Road and Kevin Drive. Either a culvert should be placed across Kevin Drive to carry drainage from west to east under Kevin Drive , and thence to the railroad ditchl thence southeasterly to Otter Creek, or a Swale be constructed along the westerly edge of the Park dedication from Prairie Road South Half way and across the park to meet with the previously described Swale. The drainage plan shows a minimal amount of storm sewer with street drainage carried for a distance of 1,200 ft, as indicated on Kevin Drive from Station 5 to the inters._ction of Jerry tone. This coupled with a low point at Kevin Drive and Jerry Lane (southwest corner) to be carried by a valley gutter across the intersection to flow southeast is not a good practice and may lead to a drainage problem. Referring to the profile of Kevin Drive, I would suggest that the high point or break In grade on Kevin Drive be shifted from Sta- tion 5 + 50 to Station 7 + 04 the centerline of Jerry Lane thereby splitting the flow northerly and southerly, which will eliminate the low southwest corner problem. The other alternative is storm sower and this can be looked at in more detail at the time of final design. G. Section 11-4-1 (C)6 i 7: The purpose and disposition of Outlot A should be defined. H. Section 11-4-1 ID)5: Lots 7 and B, Block 3 aro over 30,000 srl. ft. and should show the placement of the buildings at the outer ex- tremitios. The existing topography will not allow further subdivision without substantial filling of a low land area. I. Section 11-4-1 (D)7: No erosion control measures aro indicated on the plan. J. Section 11-4-1 (D)8: No vegetation protectinn plan has been subm ittod . K. Section 11-5-1(A} : Duo to the lnngth of Blocka 1 and 3, come walkways could be roquired. Boceuso Block 1 borders the railroad, I would advise against an internal walkway. A walkway however, should be provided through Block 3 from Jerry Lane to the proposed park. C() Page Four Mr. Gary Anderson December 1, 1983 L. According to the City's floodway boundary plan the 100 year flood in Otter Creek in the vicinity of this plat is at elevation 915. The 500 year flood elevation is at elevation 918. No problem should he en- countered because of any flooding. M. One final comment relates to the location of the park. This park is located under a power line and within an easement and to me would probably serve no useful purpose. This concludes our comments regarding the Par West Preliminary Plat and accompanying plans. A copy of the plans are being returned along with some of our comments noted in red. If you have any questions in this regard, please call. Yours very truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYF.RON ASS IATES, INC. ohn P. Badalich, P.E. City Engineer JPBtmin enclosures cca Mr. Tom Eidom, Administrator Mr. Bob Rohlin - Moyer-Rohlin, Inc. Consutbrin Planners One Groveland Terrace (6121377-3536 Mmneapois Minnesota 55403 Hftwd DddWen Am ck tes / Incorporated PLANNING REPORT DATE: 1 December 1983 T0: Monticello Planning Commission and city Staff FROM: C. John Uban RE: Review of Par West Preliminary Plat The property is triangular in shape and is bordered on the south by the Monticello Golf Course, on the west by the NSP 230 KV, 115 KV, and UPA 69 KV transmission lines, and the Burlington Northern Railroad on the northeast edge. A portion of the transmission line corridor has already been dedicated as park for trail purpo nes by the Anders Wilhelm Lotates Subdivision. With the Montissippi Park to the north, additional park land is not needed from the proposed development. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as being single family and is presently zoned R-1. The two proposed R-3 lots are inconsistent with the total development. Perhaps a PUD Plan with more detail could better integrate the two uses co that the total density does not exceed the R-1 density of three units per acre. The access onto Prairie Road in the only rea nonable northern entrance available. The southern access of Jerry Lane onto County Highway 75 would remove a largo stand of pines in the right-of-way. An alternate access point should be souq h t . The grading plan shown that a groat amount of lite wooded area will be graded thus removing many of the trees. Althouqh I believe the devoloper'n intentions are to save the woods, a grading plan should be submitted showing what oaks will remain after development. All the lots appear to mont the minimum requirement of 12,000 squaro foot with 80 foot widths at the notlwck line. Int It. of Block 2 may be alightly undei- sizod because of its unconventional shape. By Incorporation the proposed park land lack into the adjeininq luta, the devololim,mt could be rearranged giving the lots abutting Lite railroad right-ofway more depth. The movement of hazardous wantoo on the tracks should he considered. As a point of clarification the ownerohip of the property west of the proposed plat and oast of the pork land (37.5 foot trail) should be identified and incorporated into the Preliminary Plot. (0 -LI ti ---------------------- ------- ---------- -------------- G Q al Request for Preliminary Plan Stage. PIC at to Subdivide and Razono . Now Addition Co be known as Par Most Subdivicion Addition-_- .John Gandboy;g I Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83 7. Public Heating - Monticello Country Club - Preliminary Plat Review for the Proposed New Subdivision to be Named Country View Terrace. (G. A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The proposed Country View Terrace is located just north of the existing entrance into the Monticello Country Club Golf Course. Monticello Country Club is proposing to develop the land adjacent to the Golf Course Road, County Road 43, to develop into 10 residential single family lots. Consulting Planner, Howard Dahlgren and Associates, had the following comments on the over- lapping of the right of way of the City street and the County road. The street right of way should not overlap onto a County right of way. Any further development or land expansion of the golf course should also be planned in advance so that any access situations do not occur here in the future. Consulting Engineering Firm, OSM, had the following comments. The impact of this new development hasn't been indicated on the plans. The 10 -foot side - yard setback is not shown on the plat, nor is the 20—foot corner lots sideyard setback. The plan also does not indicate an existing 20 -foot easement shown adjacent to the cast line of tho plat for the 42 inch in place storm sewer. The plan also does not indicate the existing permanent structures within a 350 foot radius of the proposed plat. No cross section showing existing or proposed ground elevations were submitted. Preliminary plat drainage arrows indicate a swale along the rear lot line directing water to a proposed storm sewer. This uwale doea not appear on the Cross sections of the plane. Plano do not indicate construction of Club View Drive without a Curb on the south or County Road 39 aide. The cross section plan should indicate either a slight drainage Swale in between County Road 39 and the proposed Club View Drive or a gentle eloping of the ditch area in between County Road 39 to the proposed Club View Drive. No erosion control plana were submitted. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSi 1. Approve the proposed preliminary plat aubdivinion addition as prceonted . 2. Deny the proposed preliminary plat uubdivislon addition as prooented. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City staff rocommnndo denial of the proposed eubdivioion addition with regard to the ro-slignmont of the prop000d Club View Drive and requiring redrawing of the plans with the following conditions as listed below not indicated on the proposed plane. - 10 - Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83 1. The 10 -foot sideyard setback is not indicated on the drawings, nor are the 20 -foot corner lot sideyard setbacks shown. 2. There is no 20 -foot casement shown on the drawing of the 42 inch storm sewer which goes through the property. 3. No structures or owners within a 350 foot radius of the proposed subdivision addition indicated on the plans. 4. Surface water drainage needs to be addressed. 5. Storm sewer and curbing of the south side access road also need to be addressed. 6. No erosion control indicated on the plans. 7. Storm sewer water sent into the 42 inch storm sower line instead of into the drainage ditch. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map depicting the location of the proposed subdivision addition: Map indicating the proposed subdivision plan: Pictures to be presented at Tuesday night's Planning Coamission Mecting: Consulting engineering firm, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron a Associates, comments are enclosed: Consulting Planning Firm, Howard Dahlgren and Associates, comments are also enclosed. ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON bASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors December 1, 1983 Mr. Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Res Club View Terrace Preliminary Plat Dear Gary: The preliminary plat of the proposed Club View Terrace Addition, along with the Proposed Street and Grading plan, Storm Sewer Plan and cross sections sent under your cover letter of November 16, 1983, have been reviewed by my staff. We offer the following comments based on the zoning and subdivision ordinances of the City. I. TITLE 10 ZONING ORDINANCE A. The zoning map indicates the existing zoning is R -l. The proposed usage or proposed zoning change, if any, for the plat is not stated. The review has, therefore, been based on the existing zoning. B. According to Section 10-3-4 for an R-1 Zone, the fol lowing setbacks will apply. 1. The 30' front yard setback is shown on the plan in accordance with the ordinance. 2. The 10' aide yard requirement is not shown on the plat. 3. The 20' aide yard on the corner lot is not shown on the plat. C. Section 10-3-1 indicates the area and size requirements for R-1 zoned lots. 1. All lots exceed the 12,000 Sq. Pt. minimum area. 2. All lots exceed the 80' minimum width. II. TITLE 11 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. Ii A. There should be an existing 20' easement shown adjacent to the east lino of the plat for the 42' in-place storm sewer she required 2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suito 238 , Minneopobs. Minnesota 55413 - 612 / 331.8660 Page Two Mr. Gary Anderson December 1, 1983 under Section 11-4-1(B)4. This easement area should be dedicated on the final plat as a 20' drainage and utility easement. All existing permanent structures within 350' of the proposed plat should also be shown. B. Ownership of land within 350' of the boundary of the plat should be shown as required under Section 11-4-1(B)5. This may have been included with the Abstractor's Certificate (not submitted to this office) as required under Section 11-3-2(A). C. Cross Sections showing existing and proposed ground elevations were submitted in lieu of the contour grading plan as required under Section 11-4-1(8)11. D. A statement should be submitted regarding the proposed use of the residential lots as per Section 11-4-1(D)1. E. Section 11-4-1(D)2 asks that provision for surface water disposal be indicated. The preliminary plat drainage arrows indicate a swale along the rear lot line directing water to a proposed storm sewer. This swale does not appear on the cross sections. As an alternative to the beehive catch basin and storm sewer along the rear of Lots 8, 9, and 10, these lots could be graded so that the rear yard drainage could run overland to the now ditch going north through the country club property. This way, the rear yard beehive could be eliminated, thereby also eliminating the portion of the storm sewer running between Lots 7 and 8 from Club View Drive to the rear of these lots. P. The catch basins shown at 3 + 40 loft should be further out from the centerline (placed at ditch bottom) with beehive grate if Club View Drive is to be constructed without curb on the south or County Road 39 side as shown on a typical section. The typical cross section should show the ditch between County Road 39 and Club view Drive. The cross section as shown on the plan would indicate that the runoff from County Road 39 would enter in on Club View Drive, and this should not be permitted. If Club View Road is to be constructed as shown on the cross section, with no ditch on the south side, then curb gutter should be placed on the south side of Club View Drive. I would recommend that Club View Drive be constructed with curb and gutter on both sides of the street. G. Section I1-4-1(D)T7 refers to an orosion control plan. Hay bales or other erosion control devices should be used within all of the swales so as to pick up any silt from the disturbed area of that plat. (.`V 6�i Page Three Mr. Gary Anderson December 1, 1983 This concludes our comments regarding the Club View Terrace prelimi- nary plat and accompanying plans. A copy of the plans with some of our comments noted in red are being returned. If you have any questions in this regard, please call me. Yours very truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON ASS TES, INC. John P. Badelich, P.E. City Engineer JPB:nlb Enclosures cc: Thomas Eidem, City Administrator Robert Rohlin, Moyer-Rohlin, Inc. �J U ConsWM Planners One Groveland Terrace- (612)377-3536_ MinneaDolis Minnesota 55403 F4oirard D*dWen Asaoolatee / Irxorporated PLANNING REPORT DATE: 1 December 1987 TO: Monticello Planning Commission and City Staff FROM: C. John Uban RE: Review of Club View Terrace Preliminary Plat The ten (10) single family lots north of County Highway 39 are planned so that no driveways directly access the county road, rather they use a frontage road called Club View Drive. Club View Drive is proposed with a 50 foot right-of-way although most residential roads are 60 feet in width. The low amount of traffic expected on this road does not need a 60 foot right-of-way. However, the 100 foot right-of-way for County Highway 39 should be dedicated in full without overlapping the frontage road right-of-way. This type of access solution is not good, a perpendicular street is preferable for gaining access to county highways. A short cul-de-sac should be explored if soil conditions and golf course plans permit this arrangement. Country Club Road to the north should line up with Country Club Road to the south. The existing 100 foot center lino offset is not good dcuign. The lot sizes meat the ordinance standard. The proposed use in not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Public/Quasi-Public. The land, however, in zoned R-1. Further development and land expansion of the golf courne should he planner] in advance so that odd accenu situations do not occur in the future. \ Request for Preliminary Plan of Proposed New Subdivision •�, rr I S to be known as Country View Terrace Subdivibion Addition A \ Monticello Country Club it db � r r• Op 4 _ !