Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-25-1995 SpecialAGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING - dA
MONTiCSIVAN
K AN�NpING COb3UMGN
Monday, S L I'.:1 L. 25. IM - Rid
Members: Dick Frio, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten
1. Call to order.
2. Public H of a request for a variance to the Brant, side,
and rear setback requirements for a planned unit development in an R-2
zone. Location is Prairie West Subdivision. Applicant, John Komarek.
9. Public Hearing—Consideration of approval of a conditional use permit that
would allow a planned unit development in an R-2 sone. Location is Prairie
West Subdivision. Applicant, John Komarek.
4. Public Hearing—Consideration of preliminary plat approval of a replat of the
Prairie west Subdivision. Location is Prairie west Subdivision. Appplinant,
John Komarek.
5. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance to the Brant yard
setback requirement fbr a PUD in an R-2 zone. Location is Klein Farms,
Outlet A. Applicant, Swift Construction.
S. Continued Public Hearing—Consideration of approval of a conditional use
permit that would allow a PUD in an R-2 zone. Location is Klein Farms,
Outlot A. Applicant, Swift Construction.
7. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of preliminary plat approval of the
Klein Farms Estates Subdivision. Location is Klein Farms, Outlot A
Applicant, Swift Construction.
9. Adjournment.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 9NW5
2, CAMR1910MUG12 of a VRXjw.u+n to tim ffim� aides- and res* aetbaa�
raenl.w.eA. }br a FLnnad fit dove] It -S Cotte.
�tml,�^ inl•n n awolr_
d.
West Bttttdialalon A=UrAn .iOhn n AMIL (,1.0.)
Please am the attached report from the City Planner for a complete site plan
review and staff recommendation. The Planning Commission
recommendation to Council will be established at a special meeting of the
Planning Commission to be held immediately prior to the City Council
meeting.
DECISION 1: Consideration of a variance to the ftmA side, and rear
setback requirements far a planned unit development in an &2 tone.
Motion to approve the variances to the front, side, and rear setback
requirements for a planned unit development in an &2 was.
Motion is based on a finding as outlined in the Planners report.
Motion to deny approval of variances to the front, side, and rear
setback requirements for a planned unit development in an R•2 zone.
Motion based on a finding as outlined in the Planner's report.
DECISION 2: Consideradon of approval of a conditional ase permit
drat would allow development of PUD in an A•9 sone,
Motion to approve a conditional use permit that would allow
development of a PUD in an R.2 zone uddect to conditions as noted by
the City Planner.
2. Motion to deny approval of a conditional use permit.
This alternative abould be selected if the developer is unable to comply
with conditions as required by City Council.
DECISION & Conetderad m of preliminary plat approval of a replat
of the Prairie Weft Subdivision.
Motion to grant preliminary plat approval of a replat of the Prairie
West Subdivision subject to conditions noted under the Planned Unit
Development approval.
This alternative should be selected if the planned unit development is
approved.
2. Motion to deny preliminary plat approval of a replat of the Prairie
West Subdivision.
D_ JHMMRTINa DATA
Preliminary Plat; Planner's report.
p VI/M
612 � occ.cs
S5,22-199S
C' SA ly
/Vo
7s
Ck
cot^,,
A
k
Q��l�^'C .08
SSW
,,q
VtjA
1p 7
Z,e4
Cg.
Al
S64-0
Po
A
k
Q��l�^'C .08
SSW
,,q
VtjA
1p 7
Z,e4
�.;';SEP-22-1995 1129 NFC 612 595 9837 P.02/O8
rNNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
Cj COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORAMUM
TO: Monticello Plamdng Cbsmainiomfleff O'Neill
FROM: Soilbes Orimme
DAIS: September 22, 1993
Ra 1 0 - Bomatdc/Prside west Townhonles
FlU NO: 191.07 - 93.13
Bnekgmand
The devekVms of the pmpmed Prairie west Townhomes project bave atbmitoed a request for
p mIlminary plat appaoval. 'ibis request includes an apptkadon for a Planned Unit DeveboquItemut
as well son vada>mes from the penfmaec lot linea an all sidrs of the project Ibis project has bets
reviewed at acmoept level by the Fkmning Commission toward the objective of ideaBtying dmign
and phy*W elemeoss which would, or mould not, No* the graming of the PUD and var taooea.
Damsdion by the Planning Commission indicated that acme flezibility to dw perimeter se tbxla
might beJustified by the hot that the property is subject to existing improvemma shite tlmit the
use of the rsmaiciog had. 'Ibis rtpmt b handed to outline the issues and provide Analysis of the
applicatim of the Zoning Ordbmm standards to rho projem
Ax*+ts
The proposed project cnd= of twelve dwelling Unica to be developed is ata tesla home
atrnctores. They am to be pmpod around the addin cul -do -mc, 'Broadway Circle', whh a
weirs of drimmys acoealog the Indy al ganages. The driveways are combtaed in const ares,
but not all. The plat abows that eacb individual mit would be platted to bave iV own gloats
property su rotmdhag the Dail, site the mmainft in common oanuft. The plat she shins a
perimeter 12 foot Ad— and aft easennea . a moundim; the prnI. with an adddanal 12 foot
eaaemeat emending ftom the end of the Cul -de -m to the Burlington Northern Railroad.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 355 • St. LoUs Park, UN 55416 - (612) 595.9638'Fax. 595-9837
SEP -22-1995 1130 WRC 612 5% 9837 P.03i08
Planed Unit Development and Variance
Planned Unit Development (PUD) is intended to provide flexibility in the City's zoning standards
toward the goal that by granting the fleLbl7ity, a developer is able to achieve a eaperios pmjux
to that whicti would ban resulted fiom a strict adheratoe to the Zoning Ordiaaow's performance
staodestis. Thus, in order to recommend Me use of PUD, the Planning Commission needs to
make a finding that the altered design achieves this objective, or PUD is ant being used
y,,,••.• .:',.�.:�. PUD is not intended to be used to mealy shortcut the Zoning Ordbm=, or to
avoid the finding of hardship in variance cases.
As a result. ;Punct, :ethicist at typapIly applied to PUD projects, but `interior" setbacta we
not. Pmmxw setbacb would be those which affect the project's eVos ue to public streets or
adjoining private property. Interior setbacks would be those which affect lot Bad witbta the
project botmdarid. Ilse setback tante wM be addressed first since it affects the design issues
under the PUD.
In summary, to recommend a vadam to the saboccs, the Planning Commission mart consider
the following factors
Uniqueness from otbar lands
Avoidance of spacial privilege
In the rue of Prairie wear, these issues are not clear ad. With regard to hardship, the Planning
Commission might fled that due to the coe$gmatioa of the property, and the i,.,, .,,. -,
ahrady in place, Mae would be a true hardship in cautplydog with all sabaeb. PMimlarly along
the east property line, the lot depth is less thin 110 feet. once the moored sabaeiu ate taiton,
there would be lea than SO fast of buildable ansa. On the abler hand, the Planning Commission
could find that the adping ioopnovements and plat design were put in place by the current owners,
thus any hardship was merely eeonnmic to =Um It would not be impossible to design either
single family or two hmlly structarcs which would mea the setback • . ,,,,. • :....,,.. Aerbpa this
would result in a reduction to the unit count of the project. However. this could be merely
another trample of the economic namte of the htadahip.
With regard the u u, this criterion is ams which is handed to Show Mat coy variance
grimed would not impsa other property, or tlmt no nqpbe praoedem would be ser. In this case,
tbo property is abutted by school and railroad lands an two sides. However, Me oween bave also
mocsoed vada uoe Flom the public sweets, including bath Broadway and Broadway Circle, las well
as Mo privately owned property to the weft. While the utdquamss &nor may be present on the
month and east Bad, there would not sppest to be any uniqueness wide respect to the swots or the
wast property Une.
2'4
SEP -22-1995 1130 NRC 612 595 9837 P.04/W
The last factor, lgxc l pavn&W is an application of the uniqueness iasrte to odier lends to the
district Tib b me is ioterded to consfdar whether gimriar pzWmty in dmi]ar situation have been
$matted similar varies (mfcuft that the City would do so again in this situation), or whether
they would be in the tbmee (infemng that the grant of this variance would be applied to other
property if requested). Applying thb standard to the Piaide Weal sinrstlon, the Plarming
C=misdm might find that the Railroad and School psoperty sedmb might be justified, but that
setbacks from stress and other private property would sot be junifiad.
in summary, the sabad vadancrs to the east and south could be defended by their unique
situatimm a&= to larger, cpm, 'istiimtionalndgbboftg popery. However, the sedmim to
the weal and to the public g rests would be more diff, to defend based on the appUation of any
of the facmm which am to be part of the variance analysis.
The PUD analysis anggeau tbat fladbility to other zoning uudards must be juadfied by
L,— .....:,,.s in the overall desip. One of stab's origloal condom with this project is the
amomot of inspervlans adaee created by the layout. The higher timber of uudts r ommium a
dgoi8mat ammo of driveway area, as w;Il as a largo paoeabtge of the cul-de-sac frontage being
coosrmmed by curb ons. Public wads ttafi' has noted In mow plowing in tib project would be
a dgarifiraat puoblam due to the lack of snow amp am Engineering staff has also expressed
ounce= about both graft and utility service in the project.
Ab mugh the sppblcant has stated that the cul-doaac would have to remain public, orate does no
believe that the project, as designed, is cons6mat with the retention of Broadway Circle u a
public sleet. Stasi b unaware of any state or local requitement which would requite an escrow
for flm m suet resihmm— as akmpioed by the developer.
Conchuton
The appllam is hlg appovals ab for dm appllostinns: (1) Variance to the fact standards
on all sides; (2) Planned Unit Drmlopmmt to allow fiex%ghy in the ia>rxiar arrangement of
buildings and driveways; and (3) Prellmioary Plat.
With regard to the variance nquest, the Plamoiog Commission must find that the criteria
mmmssimd above am met in order to recommend approval. The c =Hdoas one this property
make such a flnding dlfiicvh. but posath' an the oat and south property Uses. However,
sebacb to the was and to the public smxu should be adhered to due to coacems ova pteoedat
and clear lack of hardsttp in complying with the mquimnicuss.
Rrgmdiog PUD, Hie Plarmiag CommiWoa should atom wbat ctitalt do in this des4M at whirl
must be added to this dedM to justify the rue of PUD. The appliatn hu no ab®ltted
landscape plan with thin proposal, however, eomamdinary landscape atm is occasionally
uteri as a hector to thea amtyds. As a put d this fiaMM. off moommends that Broadway Circle
be vacated, and an easement be retained over rho public atiLdm.
2 -4
SEP -22-1995 11=30 - - NFC - 612 595 9837 P.05/08 --
Mw Pne>i>a hM Pial may be approved tm the avant that hap m that the project wID Farad
wit m miner abaodm to the layout or dm&y. Mw Phmatmg Cem dsdan should be
cmdolUble with the layout of iba plat, ooaaidedng my chow whWb would have to be made
u a tasuh of onftoae mcbed to the Waval. V tlgoil3= cba"m watts be woo=" to
......... , the Pl miog Comminim'a ooatedemk It may be mode prod= to withhold plat
appmaval until shone tames an m=owed.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 9/28/98
6. MUZOXW of
wllnm a D wwnawi unit d!evelrhnme*�t Ln �n B.S sone- Appl(pgpf, 9w1
CanddmmUm of z=
(J.OJ
Planning Commission and City Council are requested to consider action that
would allow development of nine twinhome structures at Outlot A of the
Xlein Farms. Mein Farms Oudot A is located in a sensitive transition zone
between an industrial area to the north and a single family housing
development to the south. The homes will be owner -occupied and served by
an internal private street. The development represents an improvement over
the original plans for this area (May 94), which originally suggested a higher
density rental townhouse development.
This item was considered by the Planning Commission at the regular
meeting in September and continued to a special meeting which is being held
immediately prior to the Council meeting. At the regular meeting in
September, the Planning Commission identified problems in meeting the
requirements of the buffer yard ordinance and tabled fhrther consideration
until the plan was amended accordingly. The original plan included a berm
for the purpose of obtaining a 80% credit against required landscape
plantings. The plan was rejected because the height of the berm was not 5 ft
above the elevation of the garage floor slab. The revised site plan corrects
this problem but fills a necessary drainage awale along the rear property
line. Also, subsequent to Planning Commission review, City staff has
reviewed the revised site plans in more detail and offer additional
suggestions for improving the site plan.
For the purpose of the site plan review portion of this report, please refer to
the report provided by Steve Grittmam This report is the same document
that was provided to the Planning Commission for the regular meeting in
September.
Special Planning Commission Agenda . 9/26/95
Decision 1: Consideration of a variance to the font yard setback
requirement for a PUD in an 8.8 sone.
Motion to approve the 10 -ft variance request based on a finding that
the yard is a side yard and not a front yard, therefore, the 30 -ft
setback requirement does not apply.
Essentially, the Planning Commission and City Council need to
determine whether or not to classify the subject yard as a side yard or
a font yard. If the yard is determined to be a side yard, then the site
plan meets the minimum requirements and a variance could be
granted based on the finding that the fi^ont yard setback requirements
do not apply. The applicant notes that the yard designation (float or
side) would be a side yard if the internal street in the PUD was a
public street.
Motion to deny approval of the 10 -ft variance request based on a
finding that the yard is a front yard and a hardship supporting the
request has not been demonstrated.
It could be argued that the yard in question is truly a font yard
because it is in the font of the development area separating the
general PUD area fom the adjoining properties. It is the
interpretation of the City Planner that the yard is more akin to a font
yard than a side yard.
Decision & Consideration of approval of a conditional use permit
that would allow a planned unit development in an 8.9.
Motion to approve a conditional use permit that would allow a
planned unit development in an Rr2 subject to the following
conditions.
The site plan must be consistent with setback requirements as
determined by Planning CommissionCity Coundl.
The drainage Swale along the rear lot line must not be filled, or
the developer must work with the City to install a storm sewer
line at this location.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 9/25M
3. Additional landscaping is required as noted in the attached
report by the City Planner.
4. landscaped plantings or low maintenance ground cover must be
planted in areae where berm grades exceed 3 to 1 slope.
5. Adjustments to the utility plan as required by the City
Engineer.
6. A utility easement must be provided which would allow some
to the internal water and sewer mains sawing the site, and the
development agreement and association bylaws must state that
the association is responsible for paying for repairs to any
structure (sidewalks, streets, web, trees, etc.) that is damaged
in the process of utility maintenance activity.
7. The City must be granted a storm sewer easement in the storm
water ponding area located east of the site. To avoid long-term
maintenance problems for the association and to enhance the
environment, require establishment of a contract between the
developer and a native grasses restoration firm for the purpose
of establishing wetland characteristics in the storm water basin.
(B.') Establishment of an association and bylaws as prescribed by
ordinance.
The developer has indicated a wMingoese to comply with all of the
conditions above with the following exceptions.
1. The developer can comply with the setback requirements as long
as the "bout yard" setback is established at 20 R.
2. The developer has not reviewed the ad'.ditional landscaping
requirements as noted by the City Planner in the attached
report. The level of support is not known.
3. The developer prefers to lower the screening tmnoe, which would
help create an additional 10 R of usable back yard However,
doing so would result in non-compliance with the bufflir yard
ordinance.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 9/25M
Motion to deny approval of a PUD in an ii -2 zone.
This alternative should be based on a Ending that stele fi-om the
discussion. Possible findings could include denial due to inconsistency
with the setback requirements. Denial could also be based on the
tbilure of the developer to agree to providing necessary site
improvements as noted under conditions 1-7.
Decision 8: Consideration of preliminary plat approval of the Fein
Farms Estates Subdivbdom
Motion to approve preliminary plat approval of the IQein Farms
Estates Subdivision subject to the conditions noted under the PUD
approval.
This alternative should be selected if the City approves the PUD under
Decision 2.
Motion to deny preliminary plat approval of the IDsin Farms Estates
Subdivision. This alternative should be selected if Council denies
approval of the PUD under Decision 2.
Q STAFF 12FCOMMENDATION;
With regard to the variance request, City staff can am both sides of the
argument. It is essentially a judgment call by the Planning Commission and
City Council whether or not to call the yard affected a side yard or a front
yard. If the variance is denied, it is likely that the entire development will be
shifted 10 R closer to the industrial area, which may or may not be a better
situation.
With regard to the PUD and preliminary plat approval, staff supporta
approval subject to the conditions noted and other conditions required by
Council. This is the first test case of the buffer yard ordinance, and we feel
strongly that the ordinance needs to be met to the letter.
n_ tPP[f13TINd DAT
Planning Commission Agenda data fiom the regular meeting in September,
Landscaping suggestions by City Planner, Copy of Boat elevation of homes
proposed; Landamping Nan; Preliminary plat and grading plan; Utility plan.
JrN
SEP 1353 NAC blL 7»jail r.0c11 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET NEStAACH
l
PLANMNG R4e uaa
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Dan Sjerdal / Stephen Orinman
DAM 1 September 1995
RE: Mello - Mein Fasma BZmstea PUD - Cancepmal Site and
ME NO: 191.07 - 95.12
Bill Romain of Swift Caosn wd m b mquestfo8 Cm=m-I Stage, Flamed Unkt Dwdoymem
(BUD) appmvd of Zile and bnildiog phm for ammuctlOD of Mdn Fasma E=ML 7%; cq g p F I
Lavin home . „ ..,,,,,,,,.,., it to be located =6 of Staleddge Ddve and west of FaUm Avenm and
is doaibed as Ou dat A, Mein Farms. The ptgmty is named PUD.
AMtdwd for refertaoe:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - UtUby Plan
bcldbit C - Oraft Pim
Exhibit D - I.oadaampe no
k_ Y 1:O v!':,
Sedoc as. The from and aide yard tssorhxlaas at the peripbay of a planDed unit &,d*om site
at a miafmmm shall be the — as hnpmW in ft tespeaive dhtt I The mmxpecdro dLaiic most
similar to rhe pnopoaed Wd um is the R-2 Dismim Tho msquited minimum aettmd dismt m an
as follows:
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Perk, MN 55416 - (612) 595.9838'Fax- 595-9837
SEP -01-1495 1353 NAC bll b yb�r r.0L10
R-2 n]ivmrt
From Yard 30 fees
Side Yard 10 feet
Rear Yard 30 feet
Because the Klein Farm Estates utilimt a private driveway, all of the units that tun along
Stoneridge Drive ate to have a 30 foot setback Proposed Units 1 and 14 encroach upon this
setback.
PUD zoned areas allow for imernal variances that are acceptable to the City Council and City
staff, however, it would not be appropriate to allow external variances for periphery setbacks.
The side yard scftcla do not roast the tequitt.ments of an R-2 Distrij-, which requite a tem toot
s;ft* Som a side lot lice. Plans have not been submitted in order to address the height and size
of the units to determine the supply of light and air requirements and to derermiat wbetber a
variation from the standards would be advisable. BWUM separation is shown as varying from
15 to 17 feet on the northerly units.
Buffer Yard R.,, Buffer yard ..,, '.,.,, am requited to reduce the negative
itmpaeta that ms& when inoesnpadh uses abut one another. In the cast of a residential use area
abutting an industrial use area, the intensity of conflict is considered severe or type D.
Minimum Minimum No. Plast Units
Iatendq Building Landscape Required - 100 Feet
of cortilus Two Sawa V„A of Pynpestirr=ns
Severe D 50 feet 40 feet 160 feet
the proposed Mein Farms Estates saddles the property line setback and the minimum landscape
yard -
'Ile proposal includes 35 evergreen trees ad 26 deciduous trees for a total of 785 planting units.
The total units is 50 peoemt less than requited because it saxpts a red== for a five foot beim.
lois reduction Is not applicable because the proposed berm that is shown on the grading plan is
only three feet in height as viewed from the industrial park side. In sddhlon, it is rarely any
higher in elevation ftem the main Mor elevation of the units themselves.
GmdWS Phm. 'Ile wdsttng berm located on the north portion of the site has been lowered and
reduced in width (as shown cm BxWt Q. A 'chaomd* has been produced in order to cre=
sufficient fall for the walk out Unita 5-10. As mooed In the buffer yard requirements, the proposed
S�7
SEM-la1-1995 13:5.1 NFT(: ole »> x' r.ow aro
berm to remain is approx mately three feet high (facing south from the industrial park) and does
out qualify as a credit toward buffer yard acreeaing. However, the City Engineer has noted that
the site grading will work from a drainage sondpoiat.
ftm Um Oudot A has been shown to be developable for &= towobome units as requested
by the City. The townhome units would be a compatible use and would rot have any buffer yard
requirements. These has been discussion that this ourlot may be developed as a day care facility.
If this fitmr+e use is proposed, the Zoning Ordinance requires that buffer yard requucmmts would
be imposed between the Klein Farms Estates and the development of Outlot A. Although this
does not affect the proposed oowWw= development, the layout may affect future davelopmert.
Density. Subtracting the area of Oudot A, the holding ponding area, and the area of the private
drive, there is a buildable area of approrabaately 126,127 square feet. The proposed 18 units
would cmm a density within this area of 6.2 umn per acre, and would create an average tot that
is appratmately 7,000 agnate feet.
This meas the minimum area and building sim, and lot arra per umt requimn= of the at -2
Distrix.
Landscaping. The preliminary landscape Plan (>btl" D) indicates the amoum type and
lamtkm of the proposed planlogs As pmvim* noted, credit will not be given to the developer
for the berm so addidanal planings will be requited. If a higher berm or fence Is Installed, the
mrmber of piamiogi is adiicie t. The final planting Plan will be subject to review and approval
by City staff and City Como]
Roqufred Informadon. Mm developer has not provided the needed infamudon m order to
review the building details, floor plan elevations. These pians are to be provided before concept
PUD approval is granw.
Paved Surfaces.
Private Drive: The minimum width of a private driveway in a PUD development is 20
fat. The proposed devolopmeat has drives that aro 24 feta wide.
DrivewaM Foch wit has a proposed 22 foot long drive that bas sufficient mom for two
additional paddog spaces per unit.
Addltfoual Pnsidop No visitor stats have been included within the derrobopmem. The
Proposed development meets and attends all applicable off -m- paddog arpply and
dirnenslon requirements.
s-7
Sc? -01-1955 13:54 WAC blit Z'55 e.aziie
Snow Stomile. One item of concern which relatea to the proposed private street is that of mow
storage. As a condition of PUD approval, the developer should identify snow storage areas upon
the submitted site plan or agree that all snow will be hauled to an off-sttea location.
D . 4 ...... 6., Agtaemmt. As a oondition of final plat approval, the applicant should be requited
to eater into a development agreement with the City.
Homeowner Rules and Bylaws. As a condition of final plat approval, the appli= should
submit a copy of all rules and bylaws to be uu7imd by the development's homeowners association
for City review. The rales and bylaws should add= suds iasras as maintenance of common
open space, snow removal, etc.
UtiTtbm A Utility Plan has beat submitted dot add== the proposed water, sanitary sewer and
storm sewer. This plan Is to be reviewed ad approved by the City Pngizu .
Signage. It has not been Indicated whetiar a dnvelopmenc identification sign is to be provided
on site. N such a &W*) is to be provided, plass should be snbmimed in accordance with the City
Sign Ordinance. The pIzW) should We* the locationtype and dimensions of as dgotge.
RdusL The loodon of tefiuse containers must be indicated on submitted plans. The containers
must be fully sereenod if they ate not going to be located wltltin the individual unit.
RECONMENDATION
The City may wish to table ggwval of this project to allow the developer to revise the drawings
in regards to this mportas well as specific comments from the City of Monticello PL=nft
Commisaioa. If the Plaaaiag Commisaiou wishes to approve this prvjnct, it sham do so only
with the following conditions:
1. The building local= ate revised to codarm to the requited 30 foot setback fYom
Stoneridge Drive.
2. no building bcadoas should be revised to conform to the udde yard setback off an A•2
District or a variance be applied for.
3. Additional plans are provided that identify oho twildiogs' floor plans, details, and
elevatloos.
4. Platt quunftles for the butt: yard mgalmm mts shall be Increased or a bene or fence that
extends to an elevation five feet higher than the FPS of the affected units may be added
to lesm the required plant qty requitments by 50 peaeeat.
T-1
I
S. The Preli CiD8ly Grading Plan is subject to the review/approval of the City Engin
6. The Prelimiouq Utility Play is subject to the review/approval of the City Fagineer.
7. The Preliminary I -dscme Plan It subject to the review of City staff and approval by the
city Coundl
B. Proper drainage and utility easements are provided between all beadings as required by
Ordinance.
9. The applica>a submit a copy of all rules and bylaws to be unfired by the development's
homeowners associsdon !br City review. Mm ndes/bylaws should address arch lames as
mainteaaooe of summon open space, snow removal, etc.
10. The appincaut We db arras to be used for mow storage or spa to bawl snow os-arse.
11. If . .,, ... ids soap is to be provided at die, a sign plan in eeoordsooe
with 0ndioanoe ,, . ,'!w ,.,, „ is subt4fined.
12. A lighting plank submitted for review by the City.
13. The applicant a= into a developrum agreement with the City.
1
14. Comments !from other Qty staff.
3
5.7
CL
1
u
City of Monticel
A
Extatio$ Zoning
AO • Vln•... • Aa • rf-
■1 • ol.p.r�y pdde•J
pl • pnp. a 7 trip p...►.ul
p 1 .►y/f•• WYI •a.0.•IJ
pl-�W411u.. fn
• W1 • M.4r. W.1 Muu1 W d
Mn••r.d
f[ N. nNw•wr [w ..L..d
d
u�
of •perwlp.•Iwr
11 •1./nlrMNriJ {"�
�aurd>.Iww.•a•1
i
JA N•.
GG
�✓ `�' KLEIN FARMS ESTATES
UnLm amm
n:xaxe
rasp ror
�
r
�
rwr .M am
KLEIN FARMS ESTATES
FFAINIUM FIAT
ap¢Wa11M1Y GRN" KPA
j-
srn canracraw
=..N u
PAW
Y T
« .sPow
11 • �••• i �- j 1 , 1
� I•- %:.; J]'.
_1
_ ..' I .-�- •rte=.. I I
I
•
W.1.0.1 I.AM)SCAPE PIAN....
KLEIN FARMc- ESTATES
e. 1
/:•1•l V
MF n
Yi,, •`�.Y;��r�,t, R;� aeA, ■1�"i{aY�i•��j.Y1R i�a°
►�' ®fi LANDSCAPH PLAN r... I I I ( I
Y I YII Ye..r..1 .Iam.aro..
I.wq.erY.11.Y c.Yv..rr,
Au16n�6Aefid�
I.M..�../er1.x..J..1. w.Y•
-
51
n.l � ._ _
�•F.Yrli.
L•Ylri�insSpYlfuYpan —�— �..—
G
rrSEP-22-1995 11 NR
31 C 612 5% 9837 P-07/2B
JINNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C COMMUNITY PLANNINO • OE SIGN . MARKET RESEARCH
N13 MORANXI M
TO: Monticello Planing f'ommitsiotJeff O'Neill
FROM: swphen O>imman
DATEL September 22, 1995
RE: Mootice' - Klein Fa®s Twinhimm
FILE NO: 191.07 -95-12
Thla memorandum is intended to provide oommeot regarding the laodicap8ng of the Klein Fa>ms
twin horns Project proposed by Swift Ca MmdmL A part of the Flung Commiasim's ,
onoddmamon of any PUD projaa is whether the use of PUD results is a pmjed which is superior
in design to a proje t developed under the shit tetras of the Zoning Otdinam standards. The
Blow Farms proposal has barn designed in such a way as to 'squeeze a high number of units
along a private strum Ibis concept petmm the fmats of the structures to be jest 68 feet from
those across the private area due to the loan of sneer n&-cf--way ad normal setback, as well
as a narrower than standard weer width. Nannal building separations would be as much as 120
feet if developed under the standard public solea arrangement.
Applying the above PUD test to this layout, the Planning Commission needs to base a positive
recommendation on a finding that this significant lesuniog of building separation is more than
offset by some other }rant. We would suggest tint btdldioga in a tight mmogment ea proposnd
could create an urban village ........ it ...,,.,�, „ ,.l by site Improvements which enhance
that concept. These might ioehtde the elimination of lain anU. replacing the propow green
areas with intemely Planed landscaping and patios. Met treatmeata wMch would add to this
concept would be ahmative paving maoerlals In the street, driveways, or bath, and soros form
of coordinated fenclog in the front. Without dm dfor , the project would not appear to be
malting tho beat used the PUD concept if a more wdcss is desired, the project
would have to show fewer traits. We have ioehded a sketch which attempts to Womwre these
comments.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 - St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595.9636•Fax. 585.9837
6-
y/o9 ti
4� �,t3zl
2Z Cp
DR IV ENO
F19W