Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-04-1991AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLA PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 4, 1991 - 7:00 p.m.
Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy I.emm,
Richard Carlson
7:00 pm 1. Call to order.
7s02 pm 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held
May 7, 1991.
7:04 pm 3. Public Hearing --A preliminary plat request of
Outlot I, Meadow Oaks subdivision, to be entitled
Briar Oakes Estate. Applicant, Prestige Builders
of St. Cloud.
7:19 pm 4. Public Hearing --A rezoning request to rezone
Outlot I, Meadow Oaks subdivision, from an R -PUD
(residential planned unit development) to R-1
(single family residential) zone. Applicant,
Prestige Builders of St. Cloud.
7:34 pm 5. Continued public hearing on establishment of
regulations governing adult land uses.
7:54 pm 6. Continued public hearing --Consideration of an
ordinance amendment which would allow the City to
withdraw a conditional use permit due to violations
of permit conditions. Applicant, City of
Monticello.
8:14 pm 7. Consideration to approve a resolution finding the
HRA's modified redevelopment plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1, modified TIF plan for TIP District
Nos. 1-1 through 1-11, and TIP plan for TIP
District No. 1-12, all located within Redevelopment
Project No. 1, to be consistent with the
comprehensive plan for the City.
Additional Information Items
6:14 pm 1. Consideration of an ordinance amendment allowing
limited open sales and rummage and garage sale
activity as an accessory use in an R-1 district.
Applicant, City of Monticello. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda
June 4, 1991
Page 2
8:24 pm 2.
Consideration of an ordinance amendment that would
allow the City to withdraw a conditional use permit
due to violations of permit conditions. Applicant,
City of Monticello. Council actions No action
required, as the request did not come before them.
8:26 pm 3.
Continued public hearing on establishment of
regulations governing adult land uses. Council
action: No action required, as the request did not
come before them.
8:28 pm 4.
Review of a sketch plan submitted by Prestige
Builders of St. Cloud. Council action: Approved
sketch plan request per Planning Commission
recommendation.
8:30 pm 5.
Planning Commission Review --Proposed rental housing
ordinance. Council action: No action required, as
the request did not come before them.
6:32 pm 6.
Planning Commission Review --Proposed fence
requirement ordinance amendment. Council action:
No action required, as the request did not come
before them.
8:34 pm 7.
Set the nest tentative date for the Monticello
Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, July 2,
1991, 7:00 p.m.
8:36 pm S. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 7, 1991 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart,
Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan McConnon at
7:01 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held April 2,
1991. Notion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearing --Consideration of an ordinance amendment
allowing limited open sales and rummage and aarage sale
activity as an accessory use in an R-1 district. Applicant.
City of Monticello.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the proposed
ordinance amendment allowing limited open sales and rummage
and garage sale activity as an accessory use in an R-1 (single
family residential) zone.
At this time, Planning Commission member Richard Carlson then
Joined the Planning Commission meeting.
Discussion amongst Planning Commission members included
deleting item 17 under 6-3 (I), Limited Open Sales, which
stated "All such sales shall be conducted between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m." Also discussed was item i2 under 6-3
(H), Limited Rummage/Garage Sales, and included deletion of
the words "and signs" so that •2 shall read, "Sale items shall
not be placed on or in any public right-of-way."
With no further discussion, a motion was made by Cindy Lemm
and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the ordinance
amendment allowing limited open sales and rummage and garage
sale activity as an accessory use in an R-1 district with the
following changes:
1. Item #7 under 6-3 (I) be deleted.
2. Item #2 under 6-3 (H) be altered to read, "Sale
items shall not be placed on or in any public
right-of-way."
Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/7/91
Alter section 3-10-3 (C) to read, "Limited open
sales and limited rummage/garage sales. (See
Permitted Accessory Sales, Chapter 6, Section 3, of
the Zoning Ordinance for regulations governing open
sales and rummage/garage sales.)"
Notion carried unanimously based on the finding that limited
open sales activity and garage sale activity should be
regulated in order to properly protect the character of
residential areas. Consignment sales and other large sales of
a commercial nature serve to detract from the residential
character of the R-1 zone and, therefore, such activities
should be controlled. The proposed amendment will contribute
to the ability of the City to regulate such sales; therefore,
the ordinance amendment should be approved.
4. Public Hearing --Consideration of an ordinance amendment that
would allow the City to withdraw a conditional use permit due
to violations of permit conditions. Applicant, City of
Monticello.
Upon the suggestion of Chairperson Dan McConnon to continue
this item, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by
Cindy Lemm to continue this item until the next regularly
scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Notion carried
unanimously.
5. Continued public hearinq on establishinq regulations governinq
adult land uses.
Chairperson Dan McConnon asked that this item also be
continued.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. Review sketch plan submitted by Prestige Builders of St.
Cloud.
Ms. Pauline Carlson, Prestige Builders, was present to propose
a sketch plan review of the proposed new residential
subdivision to be known as Briar Oak Estates. No. Carlson
outlined the proposed development for the Planning Commission
members and answered Questions they had.
The Planning Commission generally supported the design of the
sketch plan and did not make major recommendations for change
prior to initiation of the platting process.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/7/91
7. Plannino Commission review--Dr000sed rental housino ordinance.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained the proposed
residential rental housing ordinance. lir. Anderson fielded
questions the Planning Commission members had on the rental
ordinance.
The recommendation from the Planning Commission members was to
send this item on to the City Council for their review and
come back at a future meeting with the actual ordinance
amendment.
S. Planning Commission review--Dr000sed fence ordinance
amendment.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, outlined reasons why
ordinance amendments governing fences would be useful.
It was the recommendation of the Planning Commission to direct
staff to prepare ordinance amendments for further
consideration by the Planning Committee.
Additional Information Items
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, invited Planning Commission
members to a planning meeting with the Monticello School District,
the City's Consulting Planner, City Commission members, and City
staff. Discussions will include a concept plan review of the area
around the new middle and elementary school sites. The meeting is
to be held at 7:00 p.m. on June 3, 1991, at the NSP Training Center
in the conference room.
1. Consideration of adopting a resolution outlining Planning
Commission findings and conclusions resulting from the adult
land uses study, and consideration of regulating the adoption
of an ordinance amendment regulating adult land uses. Council
action: No action required, as the request did not come
before them.
Z. Consideration of a preliminary plat of the Service Drive
addition. Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
3. Review sketch plan of Outlot A, Country Club Manor, proposing
single family residential development. Applicant, Jim
Metcalf/Brad Larson. Council action: Requested the
developers to work with the City staff on alternatives for the
development of this property.
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/7/91
4. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to set
the date for the next Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday,
June 4, 1991, 7:00 p.m.
Motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart
to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 4
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/91
3. Public Nearing --A Preliminary Plat request of Outlot I, Meadow
Oaks subdivision, to be entitled Briar Oakes Estate.
fipPlicant. Prestiae Builders of St. Cloud. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City staff has reviewed the preliminary plat of Briar Oakes
Estate and is recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend to the Council that the preliminary plat be approved
subject to a number of conditions. Following is a review of
the preliminary plat followed by alternatives for Planning
Commission action.
The area proposed for platting is Outlot I of the Meadow Oaks
subdivision. This outlot was originally intended to be
developed under a PUD concept at a much higher density level.
The Briar Oak Estates plat calls for ultimate development of
60 lots. The actual development of the plat will be conducted
In two phases with phase I consisting of 26 lots and phase II
consisting of 34 lots. A relatively low housing density will
result at 1.75 homes per acre. The property possesses a
combination of natural features, including gently rolling open
land, pond areas, and wooded areas. In addition, a pipeline
easement passes through the southeast corner of the property.
The design of the plat appears to take advantage of the
property's natural features.
A comprehensive restrictive covenant is proposed which is
designed to assure development of homes in the ♦110,000 to
$150,000 range.
LOT SIBS
City staff has reviewed the preliminary plat in terms of the
zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance. We have concluded
that the lot and street design layouts meet all requirements
noted by ordinance.
PARKS AND TRAILS
The proposed subdivision does not include a provision for a
park area on site, which is consistent with the original
planned unit development design already approved for Outlot I.
Under the original PUD plan, Outlots A and E (see map) were
Intended to be the central park areas for the entire area.
Similarly, Outlots A and E will also become the park areas
serving residents living in Briar Oakes Estate.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/91
The Briar Oakes Estate preliminary plat includes trailway
easements that will provide pedestrian access to roads and
other trailways as was originally envisioned under the planned
unit development concept. All residential properties within
Briar Oakes Estate will have trail access to the park system
now in place at Meadow Oaks. In addition, trail easements
have been identified along the power line easement which
extends along the northern boundary of Outlot I. This power
line easement ultimately reaches the middle school. At some
point in the future this trail could become a major pathway
for pedestrian traffic between the school and Briar
Oakes/Meadow Oaks residential areas. Development of this
pathway will improve safety by eliminating the need for
pedestrian traffic to use County Road 118.
Trail development will be phased to coincide with street
development and will be constructed as part of the public
improvement process. Paved trail surfaces will be maintained
by the City. Adjacent vegetation will be maintained by
property owners.
STREET SYSTEM
Major street access to the site is off of County Road 119. If
you visit the site, you may note that the entrance to the
subdivision at Briar Oakes Estate boulevard is at a crest of
a hill, which may cause some site -line problems. City staff
Is waiting for input from Dave Montebello of the Wright County
Engineering Department for final approval of placement of the
Briar Oakes Estate boulevard entrance at the location
proposed.
The internal roadway design calls for one through street and
six cul -de -sate. Initially access to the site will be limited
to County Road 1187 however, eventually there will be two
methods to enter and exit the development area. Woodcrest
Drive at the north side of the development area will someday
be extended to streets developed with Outlots C and D of the
Meadow Oak Estates area, which will then ultimately connect to
County Road 75. This circulation pattern is somewhat
different than originally envisioned with the planned unit
development concept. Originally, Outlot I was to be served by
an access point at County Road 118 and by connection to Meadow
Lane directly to the east of the site. This concept was
abandoned by the developer because he felt that a separation
of neighborhoods was necessary given the difference in housing
values between Meadow Oaks and the proposed Briar Oakes
Estate.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/91
STORM MATER MANAGEKENT
At this time, only the outline of the ponding areas have been
established. The actual storm water facilities needed in
conjunction with this development have not been identified.
This will be done as part of the feasibility study. It should
be noted, however, that the ponds proposed will be connected,
and a method for providing an outlet of ponded water will be
designed in conjunction with the feasibility study. The final
plat will not be approved until plans are in place that would
assure home builders that water levels are properly managed.
Of particular concern to the developer and the City is the
status of the existing wetland areae in the plat area. There
is a concern that the new wetland law will somehow affect the
ability of the developer to shape or modify the existing
wetland areas. The proposed preliminary plat does not call
for a reduction in wetland areas; however, some shaping of
that wetland will occur. This shaping could result in lose of
certain types of vegetation; however, the lose of vegetation
will be replaced by areas with open water.
Ultimately, this project will proceed only after given the
blessing by the Army Corps of Engineers. Once wetland
development approvals are obtained, the developer will be
providing the City with the cash necessary to conduct the
feasibility study, which will then provide us with the
information necessary to complete the development agreement
and allow consideration of the final plat.
MATER AND SEWER LIKE ACCESS
The subdivision will be served by water and sewer lines
extending from their present locations at Meadow Lane. The
existing roadway right-of-way at Meadow Lane and a proposed
easement between Outlote 13 and 14 will become the path of the
utility lines. This easement area will also become a future
walkway connecting both Briar Oakes Estate and Meadow Oaks to
a walkway that extends northward to the existing park areae at
Outlot E.
The water system developed in conjunction with this
subdivision will be adequates however, the system will not be
looped immediately, which could result in a slight degradation
of water quality compared to the rest of the community. A
longer term goal will be to link the system developed serving
Briar Oakes Estate to existing or future systems, thereby
creating a looping effect which would result in improved water
quality.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/91
PIPELINE EASEIIBNT
A pipeline extends through the southeast portion of the site.
The lots developed that are encumbered by pipeline easement
may not construct dwellings or garages on the easement. These
lots are not encumbered in any other way by the pipeline
easement. Some of the lots will be slightly hampered by the
presence of the easement. It does not appear that these lots
will be unbuildable; however, the homes placed on these lots
may need to be narrow or may need to be set back farther than
the minimum distance of 30 feet in order to stay out of the
pipeline easement area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: �}
1. Motion to approve the Briar Oake Estate preliminary plat
subject to 1) City Engineer ap rovai of the grading and
drainage plan; 2) Army Corps of Engineers approval of
grading and drainage plant 3) Wright County approval of
location of Brier Oakes Estate boulevard access point to
County Road 118; 4) Preparation of engineering data
showing that the proposed Briar Oakes Estate preliminary
plat is feasible in terms of street, sewer, water, and
storm sewer service; S) The plat currently shows a block
overlapping into two separate phases. Block overlap of
µ.PQ two separate phases should not occur, as the second phase
^ " will be originally platted as an outlot with final plat
�� approval of phase II to come at a later date; 6) A
L° separate document identifying walkway easement areas must
be prepared and recorded against lots that abut walkways.
Motion based on the finding that the preliminary plat is
consistent with the City ordinances and comprehensive
plan.
Staff has thoroughly reviewed the proposed plat and is
very comfortable with the design of the plat in terms of
its overall relationship to the general area and in terms
of the street layout and lot design internal to the site.
We are concerned that the engineering data has not been
completely refined; however, there do not appear at this
time to be major engineering problems that must be
overcome.
If this alternative is selected, the project schedule
will be maintained which could result in home
construction this season. It preliminary approval le not
granted or delayed pending gathering of additional data,
it is possible that this construction season might be
lost.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/91
T. Notion to deny the Briar Oakes Estate preliminary plat.
The preliminary plat appears to meet all zoning and
subdivision requirements= therefore, unless the
additional engineering data reveals a problem, there is
no reason to deny the approval of the plat. However,
Planning Commission may wish to take the position that an
approval is not merited or should be delayed without all
of the information being available.
C. STAFF RECOM ENDATION:
Staff recommends approval. The plat meets design
requirements. Although important engineering information
regarding the site is not available, this information will not
likely have a bearing on site layout. Approving the plat with
conditions minimizes the risk and provides the developer with
the chance to proceed on a timely basis.
The next step in the schedule Is to obtain preliminary and
final approval of the plat and initiation of the public
improvement process at the Council meeting June 10, 1991.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Preliminary plat; Restrictive covenants; Area map.
�OU6/
i3RIARO ES,_ESTA-LE
PROTECTIVE COVENANTS & RESTRICTIONS
Prestioe Builders of St. Cloud, Inc., A Minnesota
Corporation are the owners of all of that certain tract o4
land described as BRIAR OAKES ESTATES according to the plat
thereof on file and of record in Wright County, MN, recorded
as Document No. , filed in the
office of the County Recorder of Wriaht County. MN.
Prestige Builders of St. Cloud, Inc., are developing the
plat of BRIAR OAKES ESTATE, as a residential area and desire
Lu assure that SH1AR OAKES ESTATE, shall always be maintained
in a manner: providing for visual harmony: avoiding
activities deleterious to the aesthetic or property values of
the development; and promoting the general welfare and
pleasurable enjoyment of the promises by the residents.
Prestige Builderea of St. Cloud, Inc., (hereafter referred
to as the "Developer" in these Covenants) hereby declare that
tho following Protective Covenanto and restrictions aro
imp000d an all that land known as BRIAR OAKES ESTATE.
included in the plat identified above, which covenants and
roetrictione aro to run with the land and shall be binding
upon all parties and all persons owning Toto in BRIAR OAKES
ESTATE, or claiming undor them.
1. LAND L1SE ANQ BUIL.pINQ TYPE
a. Each lot ohol l to uded onclusivaly for residential
purpooea. No building shall be orectod, altorod. placed or
permitted to remain on any lot other than ao permitted In the
applicable proviaiono of the oovornang zoning ordinance.
b. The location of oil ntrueturou within BRIAR OAaFS
£3TATC. shall conform with applicable governmental law i.
toninq roqulationo, and ordinoneoo. Each home w1 It h!Ivo n
front vnrd rot hnr.It of at lrnit 401.
C. No reuidenti of bui Ili nq whorc the mall otruetLtro hao
o 7round flour area (arrluotvo of open peruhoa and gnrages),
of loco than 1 400 cclut-ro tnet, in tre sono of a ono-otory,
utruct'4ro, or• foo,3 than v:rc square t;cot on the fi^at f loon, of
all one and one-half, tma and two and one-half story
atructL-ro, or lonru than 1, 4)n onuare foot in the caao of all
ba-loiol. oplit entre and mal ri-levna otrrccturo. shall bo
err ctod or rlacod rn anj bluldinq Int. 6o': nh t,ho mai n
otru.turo chalI bn nt loom. -�h' 141 width. Al l homan moor hnvn
o noragn w.th .a minimum aquyro font. 74 4441, +11 tlnol pl acre
411.1 UU dL)P :V('4J w vfic) rl,IVotrrcr.
2. TEMPORARY STRUCTURES. No structure of a temporary
nature, such as trailer house, camping true V,, basement house,
tent, shack, garage, barn, outhouse, cr other buildings may
be used on any lot anytime as a residence either temporarily
or permanently, nor shall a structure to be used as a
residence be moved on to any lot. All structures shall be
completed and finished within 12 months after the
commencement of the excavation or construction thereof, and
in any eeent, before the structure shall be used as a
residence. Within the 12 month period, all excess building
materials, fellen timber and debris shall be removed from the
premises and the premises shall be greded and landscaped to
general conformity with the other homes in BRIAR CAKES
ESTATE.
3. WALLS AND FENCES_ No boundary wall or fence may be
constructed with a height of more than six feet and no
boundary line hedge or shrubbery will be permitted with a
height of more thrr, four feet. The heights and elevation% of
any wall or fence shall be measured from the existing
elevations of the property at or along the applicable points
or line fence.
4. FILLING IN AND REMOVING. The elevation of a lot may
not be changed so as to materially affect the surface
elevation or grade of the surrounding lots. No sod, soil,
sand, gravel or other materials may be gold or removed from
any lot or lots e3:copt for the purpose of preparing the lot
for construction or alteration of any building or for
landacnping. Eneeos soil from oxcavation may not be removed
from the development.
3. VEGETABLE GARDENS,,, No vegetable garden may be
located in the front yard of any lot or closer than 50 foot
to the property lino adjoining any otroet or road.
6. NJJL9AJCCSa, From and after completion of conotruetion
of a dwelling upon a lot. no woods, undorbrueh, or othcsr
unoinhtly growth shall ho permittad to grow or remain upon
tho promicoo. No lot shall be used in whr,le or io part for
the atcrago of rubhioh o: any character whft^oevcr, ncrfor
the otoralo of any property or thing that will eouao the ler
to nppo^.r in on tanelocn or untidy condition or that will he
obno;;iaue to tho oyoae nor shall env cubotan x, thine. or
material bre lapt upon guy lot that will omit fnul cr
ohncnlouc odor,3, or thct. will caucd any noiao that, will or
might diotueb the poieo, quiet, comfort, or aeronity of rho
ccct.pont , of ovrroi,nding pr oporty.
7. 17, fQlr,. No billhoirdo ar ayyortioing ctgnn of nnv
rh3rov for mX ho orertnd, placod, pormittod cr ieintnimva nr
any 'Int or imprn.nngnr o•r.opr. as o'Froeal•r pnr.ni�tod in tht,:
p<arng.•apit. A m,rr:n .and nrtHr000 oigr i i pr'r-att0i. Vo othnr IJ!
=_igo o•F any t --Ind or design will be allowed except a "For
Sale" -sign advertising the fact that the lot is for sale and
designating the party to be czntacted for such sale, is
allowed without prior approval. Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to prevent the Developer, or its
contractors, from erecting, placing, or maintaining signs.
structures and offices which may be deemed necessary by it
for the promotion and development of the subdivision and
neightscring lands ewoed by the Developer.
G. EASEMENTS. Easements for drainage and the
installation and maintenance of publir utility facilities ci.0
for such other purposes incidental to the development of the
property are reserved and to be maintained as designated of
the plat of BRIAR, OAKES ESTATES. No structures, trees or
shrubs are to be placed on drainage easements. No trees or
shrubs are to be planted or maintained on utility easements
except as approved, and then they are installed at the
owner's sole cost and risk.
9. DRXWEWAVS. LANDSCAPING AND SETRACK$, A tar or cement
driveway, at least twelve (12) feet wide, will be required to
be installed from the tarred part of the public street
running in front of all Lotm to the garage apron on the
requirod double car attached garages, within twelve (12)
months from the start of construction. All front yards and
side yards are to be finish graded, sodded, or soedod and
complotod within twelve (12) months dated from start of
construction. Setbacks of all kinds will be adhrz?rod to
according to the erdinancoo and lawn set by the City of
Monti c of l o.
14. PARKING AND COMMEPC1At VEHi0LyE8. The owner of each
lot shall pro•rido adoquato off—street parlang fcr any motor
vohiclo or trailor uond b;• the residents of the lot. No
trucl:o and nn commercial typo vf±hiclos may be sept on the
promi000 o::eopt while panted in a elon.sd garage nor parl:od on
ami rodidor.tial orroot in ER1RR hAi.l'S ESTATE, encupt whilo
ongagod in tranapertiig to or from a r.:?eidonra in thcr
d,�voIr_,innot., Nt) r;rai! r, hruo4 trailer, mobilo hemo, camping
troilar, trticl i, burot, br-c:inoon agwinmont (incltrdlnq tut not
llm trued to c n•:Y mi nrn, pompe, mcrtor bo:!co or lumber), or
incpkir-_ibla nc•ir -?hiclro shall bo •,itcred or kept on the
prestos o•:c _pl. while pnrt(,,d in a cIcoed qar-iqn co as to
bn vancoalod from night.
1 i . f -VM of _ Iil ATlpfj C:ll� D DwCARF F[r+t �!gR E,rcopt
no ntnted i:i t;iio paragraph, the operation of ticnnood
davcar ,) cr ni.-r'•vrV cchoolc shrill Ge nI lcwoo:
ci. Ono, pro,tdoci than onfficiont ofl etroot.. porl.tng
I i !ir r.viduJ and C� by thu dovolr-por•a and C3)
Orl � tri. tiid th'Y tho ba�e� Mrd io frnCr>-i In �) ,-nnrinn,
-z -
approved by the developer; and
c. Only provided that the facility is operated out of a
single family residence occupied. by the operatcr of
the facility; and
d. The facility meets a1'1 state and lc_al licensing
requirements of daycare or nursery schools and does
not serve more than 12 persons at one time.
12. SUBDIVISION OF LOTS. None of the lots shall at any
time be subdivided into as many as two building sites and no
building site shall be less in area than the area of the
smallest lot platted on the blocs; of which the building site
is a part. A single lot together with contiguous portion or
portions of one or more lots in the same block may be used
for one building site but only upon compliance with all
applicable governmental subdivision regulations.
13. REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS The lot owners, or any of
them severally, shallhave the right to proceed at law or in
equity to compel the compliance with the terms of these
Covenants or to prevent the violation, or breach of any of
them. The failure to promptly enForge any of the Protective
Covenants shall not bar their subsequent enforcement. If any
party employs counsel to enforce any of these Covenants, by
reason of breach of their provisions# all costs incurred in
such enfcreement■ including reasonable attorney's fees, shall
be paid to the prevailing party by the party at fault.
14. MORTOAGEB. Nothing contained in these Protective
Covenants shall impair or defeat the lion of any mortgage or
deed of trust made in good faith and for value, but title to
any propertiev subject to these Covenants obtained through
sale and satisfaction of any such mortgage or dead of trust
or otherwise shall at all times be hold subject to all of
these Protactive Covonanto.
15. nUURA IQta All of thn foregoing Covenants,
conditiono, roaervationn, and roetrictiona shall continuo and
remain in full fnrco and oteoct at oll timo❑ as against the
owner nr,d all parties having any intnrost in any lot in BRIAR
RAKES ESTATE, rogardloaa of how title wan acquired until
cnmmencmmnnt of the calondor year —OIB, on which data th000
Protective Covemanto shalt torminatne providod, howevor, that
there Protectivo Cnvonanta ehall be autonatically entonded
for a poriod of 10 vuori, and thcrooftor in ouccooeive tO
year periods, unlasa on or buforo tho and of the bags period
or one of th.7 e-tlunettun Vvviodil, tljtf uwnnro of 7: pefrUunt u+
the lata in BRIAR OAWE13 EbTATC. ohall by writton instrument
duly recorded dacloru a tnrminaticn of the asmo.
15. fifivFR��ILS,Ty, If airy r_no fir morn of t.the prnvtsiono
of tho feregoin.I Protoet.vo Covoronto shall to doe-lored rrj bo
G
null and void far anv rouonn .V a 1'Ottrt of cnrapotor.t
-4 -
jurisdiction, the adjudication or declaration shall not in
any manner whatsoever affect, modify, change, abragate, or
nullify any of the Protective Covenants or portions thereof
not so declared to be void: all of the remaininq Covenants,
conditions, reservation= and restrictions not so expressly
held to be void shall continue unimpaired and in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. Kevin R. Schmi t--. President of
PRESTIGE BUILDERS of St. Cloud, Inc. , has caused this
instrument to be executed on , 1991.
Kevin Schmitz„ President
PRESTIGE BUILDERS of St. Claud, Inc.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF
ON THI9 __ day of _ __. 1991, before me. a Notary
Public within and for sai...........
County, permonally appeared Kevin
Schmitz, to me personally known who being by no duly sworn
did say that by in the Proeidont of PRESTIGE BUILDERS of
St. Cloud', Inc. , namad in the foregoing instrument, and that
said instrument wao signed on behal f of said corporation and
said rovin Schmitz acknowledged said instrument to be the
froo ect and deed of the cornoratiorn.
G
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/91
4. Public Hearinq--A resonino request to rezone Outlot I, Meadow
Oaks subdivision, from an R -PUD (residential Planned unit
develoPmentl to R-1 (single family residential) zone.
AApolicant. Prestige Builders of St. Cloud. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing and
consider rezoning Outlot I from the PUD zoning designation to
the R-1 designation. If the Planning Commission is
comfortable with the design of Briar Oakes Estate in terms of
integration with the original PUD, then the zoning map should
be amended as proposed.
The original concept plan for development of Outlot I under
the PUD concept called for development of 156 housing units
achieved via construction of 43 quad -home structures and 14
duplexes. Under the PUD concept, the utilities plan for
Outlet I, including parks, walkways, streets, etc., was
Integrated with utilities planning for the balance of the
Meadow Oaks development area. Briar Oakes Estate proposes
ultimate development of 60 housing units which will result in
less than 1/2 the original density.
Although some changes have been made to the original plan for
street circulation, the Briar Oakes Estate preliminary plat
appears to be designed to fit well into the adjoining PUD
area. The major change to the original plan is the
elimination of street access to Meadow oaks via Meadow Lane.
This change was requested to improve the ability of the
developer to market the Briar Oakes Estate to second- and
third -time home buyers. Offsetting this change is the
proposal to develop a roadway connecting to future development
at Outlots C and D, thereby providing two ways in and out of
the development. As noted in the previous agenda item, all
other aspects of the Briar Oakes plat are consistent with the
original PUD concept, including trail development, storm water
management, and sewer/water system development.
The City of Monticello has a very short supply of lots
available for people interested in building their second or
third home. Rezoning of this area to R-1 will allow
development of lots for "move -up" housing. This factor
further justifies the rezoning request.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/91
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Notion to approve rezoning of Outlot I from PUD to R-1
zoning designation.
Motion is based on the finding that the rezoning is
justified for the following reasons: The Briar Oakes
subdivision is designed to sufficiently integrate with
the adjoining PUD areas; the rezoning is consistent with
the comprehensive plan, geography and the character of
the area; the rezoning will allow development of "move -
up" single family building lots which are in short supply
at this time. Rezoning is contingent on approval of the
final plat of the Briar Oakes Estate.
If the Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat
and if the Planning Commission agrees with the finding
above, then this alternative should be selected.
Z.
Motion to deny rezoning of Outlot I from PUD to R-1
zoning designation.
If the Planning Commission did not approve the
preliminary plat and if the Planning Commission does not
agree with the finding under alternative 11 above, then
this alternative should be selected.
C.
STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Staff
recommends alternative 01.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposed rezoning map.
7
1 B3 12 T
r�
------------
Ao AO
-L-.i !P RO VVED 1 •` ' I-
REZONNG
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/91
Continued public hearing on establishment of regulations
aovernino adult land uses. (J.0.)
Staff asks the Planning Commission to again continue this
Public Hearing to an upcoming meeting.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/6/91
6. Continued Public Rearing --Consideration of an ordinance
amendment that would allow the City to withdraw a conditional
use permit due to violations of permit conditions. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Recently the City Council discussed taking legal action
against Fair's Garden Center for violation of the parking
requirements associated with the conditional use permit issued
in 1989. Council reviewed the matter and determined that no
action would be taken until after May 1, 1991, and after it is
demonstrated that the violations of the conditional use permit
create parking problems evidenced by parking in the street and
by Fair's Garden Center customers parking in neighboring
business lots. In addition, Council requested that City staff
inventory compliance levels with other conditional use
permits.
As part of the discussion, Council reviewed the penalties for
violation of a conditional use permit. At this time, the only
penalties associated with violation of the conditional use
permit include fines or fail time. There currently is no
provision for withdrawing a conditional use permit in the
event that a permit holder continually disregards the
conditions associated with the permit. It was the view of the
City Attorney and the consensus of the City Council that the
city ordinance should be updated so as to provide for a
mechanism for withdrawal of the conditional use permit when
violations of the permit warrant such action. The City
Attorney, Paul Neingarden, has completed such an amendment,
and it is enclosed for your review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Notion to approve amendment to the zoning ordinance which
would allow the City to withdraw a conditional use permit
due to violations of conditions associated with the
permit.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission would
recognize that enforcement of the terms of conditional
use permits is improved by the ability to withdraw a
conditional use permit if violations persist and that the
use of fines and penalties is not always the best method
to achieve compliance with the permit.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/1/91
2. Notion to deny adoption of proposed amendment.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission would make
the finding that the present method for enforcing the
terms of conditional use permits is sufficient and that
no additional sanctions are necessary to assure
compliance.
C. STAFF RECOMMMATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select
alternative tl. It is our view that the ability of the City
to withhold or withdraw a conditional use permit under proper
circumstances is necessary. This ability will enable the City
to take action that would likely result in compliance of
conditional use permits. In addition, this is a common
provision used by other cities to gain compliance with
conditional use permits.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment.
10
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN THAT
CHAPTER 22, SECTION 3, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING:
21-3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
(E) Revocation of Conditional Use Permits. If a person to whom a
conditional use permit causes, allows, or fails to correct material
or repeated violations of the conditions of the conditional use
permit, whether through action or inaction, then the City Council
may revoke, suspend, or amend the conditional use permit in
accordance with the procedures set forth in this section.
1. The City staff shall set a date for a public hearing and shall
give notice of the hearing in the same manner as giving notice
of public hearing on application for a conditional use permit.
The notice shall state the reason for the hearing and shall,
with specificity, describe the violations that will be subject
of the hearing.
The hearing shall be before the Planning Commission and may be
continued from time to time to take evidence. The person who
is the subject of the proceeding shall be entitled to the
assistance of counsel. The Planning Commission shall make
findings of fact and make recommendations it believes
necessary to carry out the intent of the City's ordinance and
the conditional use permit. Such findings of fact and
recommendations shall be in writing and accompanied by any
reports and recommendations of the City staff.
3. Upon receiving the report and recommendations of the Planning
Commission and the City staff, the City Council shall place
the report and recommendations on the agenda for the next
regular Council meeting. The reports and recommendations
shall be made part of the permanent written record of the City
Council meeting. The City Council, in its discretion, may
hear such other persons as wish to be heard after giving
notice in accordance with paragraph (E)1 above. The City
Council may (a) revoke the conditional use permit, (b) suspend
the conditional use permit, (c) amend the conditional use
permit, (d) dismiss the proceeding, or (e) hold additional
public hearings after which it shall take one of the actions
set forth above. The City Council actions and the findings
upon which the actions are based shall be recorded. The
decision of the Council shall be based upon the preponderance
of the evidence.
Adopted this day of , 1991.
Mayor
City Administrator
v
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/91
7. Consideration to approve a resolution finding the Housina and
Redevelopment Authority's modified Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Protect No. 1, modified Tax Increment Financinq
Plans for Tax Increment Districts No. 1-1 through 1-11. and
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Finance
District No. 1-22, all located within Redevelopment Protect
No. 1, to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the
City. (O.K. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On May 1, 1991, the HRA adopted a resolution modifying the
redevelopment plans for Redevelopment Project No. 1, modifying
the TIF plans relating to TIF Districts 1-1 through 1-11, and
approving the establishment of TIF District No. 1-12.
TIF District No. 12 is being created as an Economic District
(10 -year district) for Aroplax Corporation, a 41 -year-old
family-owned business. The company is a plastic injection
molding company now located in Minneapolis. They have a
purchase option on the west 408 feet of Lot 3, Block 2,
Oakwood Industrial Park. They propose to construct a
22,400 sq ft concrete office, tool, and production facility on
Chelsea Road to the east of the Minnesota Highway Department
lot. Projected employment to 20-25 jobs.
At this point, the HRA requests that the Planning Commission
review the project plans for consistency with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Council public hearing and
consideration to approve the TIF District for Aroplax is
scheduled for Monday, June 10, 1991.
Mr. Jerry Schoen, Paul Schoen, or Steve Schoen of Aroplax may
be present at the Planning Commission meeting an June 4 to
present their project plans. More project Information will be
provided at the meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the resolution stating the Aroplax project plan
is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed development site is properly zoned for the
proposed manufacturing activity and Is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan of the City; thorefora, it appears
appropriate to approve the resolution.
2. Deny adoption of the resolution.
This alternative does not appear to be viable as the
proposed land use is consistent with the zoning ordinance
and Comprehensive Plan.
3. Table adoption of the resolution.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/91
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends tht the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution based on the fining that the proposed land is
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Project plans, project map, and the resolution will be
presented at the meeting.
12
1
Ir5 jip I ,fin
min
t1��aa1I UN= v 0771 0)
min tIe tiCYCt 7t1DY01R K :m !)Ottlt�lD
Co. �+ tavtts
Ittsmt R -•-+^
LII nAlr
1 YC3 \ \, ❑
Ct=
...o T . tzms'
cavtm
= 8.112 .c:o
tncma ,� .rn 07 1.1
Its �' R'Q Iacoml. 1tVY 1`►tll 4t naullro
P
cm'n
1►tm
' SAS)• q 1 1.11 veru I •�
U
TIM t1t 111 t7QiWln GAXWW aAam 10 --
HInfIH B-Yf�at ��CC'^
1
,1 �` f.S •m• 1.1 urn
•
1 DUNDAS
ItmN a mmaro�ae \\tct:t to M=m2,o Stl n • t
6rurt{ to.! tRDOlilut m Va.l IMP:= n
PAM" tut.,t
g :.N� t.1.sd1 1•Surj' � `' � i
l I \•