Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-01-1992AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 1, 1992 - 7 p.m.
Members: Dan McConnon, Cindy Lem, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart,
Dick Martie
7:00 pm 1. Call to order.
702 pm 2.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held
August 4, 1992.
7:04 pm 3.
Public Hearing --A variance request to allow
construction of a building within the front yard
setback requirements. Applicant, Northern Natural
Gas Company.
7:24 pm 4.
Public Hearing --A variance request to allow an
apartment building to be constructed in the rear
yard setback requirement. Applicant, David Hornig.
7:44 pm 5.
Public Hearing --A variance request to allow a
building wall to have more than the minimum 501
wall coverage of a metal or fiberglass finish.
Applicant, Brad and Mary Barger.
8:04 pm 6.
Public Hearing --Consideration of a preliminary plat
request for a commercial subdivision plat.
Applicant, Barry Fluth/Monticello Mall.
8:24 pm 7.
Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of approval
of preliminary plat of the Silver Fox subdivision.
Applicant, Ed and Arlys Nelson.
Additional Information Items
9:44 pm 1.
Consideration of amendments to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the definition and
regulation of home occupations. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:46 pm 2.
Consideration of a special home occupation permit
request which would allow persons other than the
resident to conduct a home occupation. The
applicant is a tour operator for high school music
festivals. Applicant, Dave and Joan Thielman.
9:48 pm 3.
A conditional use request to allow (13) or more
dwelling units in two (2) apartment buildings on an
unplatted tract of land. A request to allow a
simple subdivision of an unplatted tract of land.
Applicant, David Hornig. Council actions Approved
as per Planning Commission recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda
9/1/93
Page 3
9:50 pm 4. A request for an ordinance amendment to the PSM
(performance zone mixed) zone to allow as a
conditional use an automotive/light truck oil
change/lube facility. Applicant, Gerald Hoglund.
Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
9:53 pm 5. A conditional use request allowing operation of an
automotive/light truck oil change/lube facility in
a PEM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant,
Gerald Hoglund. Council action: No action
required, as the request did not come before them.
9:54 pm 6. A conditional use request to allow a sign system
for a building to be considered as a shopping
center or a shopping mall. Applicant, Barry Fluth.
Council actions Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
9x56 pm 7. Continued Public Hearing --A preliminary plat
request entitled Silver Fox commercial subdivision
to subdivide an existing 6.69 -acre tract of
unplatted land. Applicant, Ed and Arlys Larson.
Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
9:58 Pm 8. Set the next date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, October 6, 1993,
7 p.m.
10:00 pm 9. Adjournment.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/1/92
3. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow construction of a
building within the front and rear vard setback requirements.
Applicant, Northern Natural Gas Company. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Northern Natural Gas Company own a portion of Lot 1, Block 1,
Oakwood Industrial Park Addition, which is located between
Joyner's Bowling Alley and Monticello Roller Rink adjacent to
Thomas Park Drive. The applicant is proposing to build a
6' % 9' building on the site. The building as proposed on the
site plan falls within the minimum 30 -ft rear yard setback and
the minimum 40 -ft front yard setback requirement. in driving
by the property, you will note that there is an existing
7.5' K 18' regulator/meter building on the site.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of a
building within the front and rear yard setback
requirements.
2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of a
building within the front and rear yard setback
requirements.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
With the proposed building as presented and shown on the site
plan, City staff does not have a problem with the location of
the proposed structure within the front and side yard setback
requirement. Due to the size of this property, Northern
Natural Gas Company is, therefore, limited in its land area
available to place a structure on it and still meet the
minimum setback requirements. The building as shown meets the
minimum setback requirements for locations from existing
pipelines. However, the location as presented does fall
within the building setback line as required by ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of
the site plank Copy of the ordinance regulations under minimum
setback requirements in I-1 zoning.
-14
{dJ%.'ts%•': '''��(, fes; ��f �='f1 ��; i�'�/+�. r .,� ,-
A variance request to allow construction
of a building within the front yard setback t��J ar
requirements.
APPLICANT: Northern Natural Gas Company
GIVWAY
ZZ -
0
N
Id
0
AFNIM V4fVJtAL C49 COM NI
ENRON
Co VP.l % I
1
is less than the minimum required, it shall not be
further reduced. No required open space provided around
any building or structure shall be included as a part of
any open space required for another structure.
[Cl All setback distances as listed in the table below shall
be measured from the appropriate lot line and shall be
required minimum distances.
1. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts where adjacent
structures, excluding accessory buildings within
same block, have front yard setbacks different from
those required, the front yard minimum setback
shall be the average of the adjacent structures.
If there is only one (1) adjacent structure, the
front yard minimum setback shall be the average of
the required setback and the setback of the
adjacent structure. In no case shall the minimum
front yard setback exceed thirty (30) feet, except
as provided in subsection [F] below.
2. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts, if lot is a
corner lot, the side yard setback shall be not lees
than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting
the street right-of-way line.
(D) The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requirements:
1. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sill,
pilaster, lintels, ornamental features, cornices,
eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not
project more than two (2) feet Into a yard.
2. Terraces, steps, or similar features, provided they
do not extend above the height of the ground floor
level of the principal structure or to a distance
lees than two (2) feet from any lot line.
KONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/18
0
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
A-0
50
30
50
R-1
30
10
30
R-2
30
10
30
R-3
30
20
30
R-4
30
30
30
PZR
See Chapter
10 for specific regulations.
PZN
See Chapter
10 for specific regulations.
B-1
30
15
20
B-2
30
10
20
B-3
30
10
30
®-4
0
0
430
3�'—"'—'3�
1. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts where adjacent
structures, excluding accessory buildings within
same block, have front yard setbacks different from
those required, the front yard minimum setback
shall be the average of the adjacent structures.
If there is only one (1) adjacent structure, the
front yard minimum setback shall be the average of
the required setback and the setback of the
adjacent structure. In no case shall the minimum
front yard setback exceed thirty (30) feet, except
as provided in subsection [F] below.
2. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts, if lot is a
corner lot, the side yard setback shall be not lees
than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting
the street right-of-way line.
(D) The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requirements:
1. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sill,
pilaster, lintels, ornamental features, cornices,
eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not
project more than two (2) feet Into a yard.
2. Terraces, steps, or similar features, provided they
do not extend above the height of the ground floor
level of the principal structure or to a distance
lees than two (2) feet from any lot line.
KONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/18
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/1/92
4. Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow an apartment
buildina to be constructed in the rear yard setback
requirement. Location is part of MW 1/4 of SM 1/4, Section
11, Unplatted Property in the city of Monticello. Applicant,
David Horniq. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The conditional use permit granted to David Hornig on
August 10, 1992, was contingent upon obtaining a 10 -ft
variance to the rear yard setback requirement for the building
located on the western boundary of the site. The ordinance
requires that the setback at the rear yard be a minimum of 30
feet. The proposed site plan shows a setback of 20 feet.
According to the site plan, the entire structure could be
moved 10 feet to the south, which would eliminate the need for
the variance. The applicant requests the variance because
moving the building to the south will increase the structure's
conflict with the existing hillside. The variance, if
granted, would not result in an increase in the size of a
structure otherwise allowed along this property line. What it
would allow is the placement of the structure in the best
position given the topography of the property. If the
variance is granted, the distance between structures will
amount to 40 feet, which is adequate in terms of building code
and fire code requirements. Also, there will be no windows on
the north wall which faces the adjoining building.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the variance request based on the
finding that a hardship exists due to the unique
topography of the property. Granting of the variance is,
therefore, consistent with the intent of the ordinance.
Planning Commission should select this alternative If it
is satisfied that the situation is sufficiently unique to
warrant issuance of a variance. It could be argued that
a variance is appropriate because granting the variance
would not allow construction of a structure larger than
would otherwise be allowed and that the setback variance
will simply allow the property owner to develop the
structure in better harmony with the lay of the land.
2. Motion to deny the variance request based on the finding
that a hardship or unique circumstance has not been
sufficiently demonstrated.
Planning Commission could take the position that the
circumstances are not sufficiently unique to grant a
variance and that granting of the variance in this case
could set a precedent. It could be argued that if the
developer does not wish to have the building built into
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/1/92
the hillside, then the size of the structure should
simply be reduced by 10 feet so that the rear
yard
setback can be met.
Planning Commission could also take the view that the
presence of the hillside and associated hardship is not
sufficient to justify the variance. It could be argued
that the structure, with additional excavating, could be
placed in a position to meet the minimum requirements of
the ordinance; therefore, the hardship created by the
hillside is not sufficient.
STAFF RECONMENDATION:
As noted in the discussion regarding the conditional use
permit, the proposed development meets the minimums in terms
of site density; therefore, there is not a strong motivation
to push the developer into reducing the size of the structure
in order to meet the setback requirement. It would appear to
make sense to grant the variance because it will result in a
larger front yard and less of an impact on the natural
topography. Therefore, it is our view that, due to the
topography and unique circumstances and due to the fact that
sufficient setback exists between the proposed structure and
the structure to the north, Planning Commission should grant
the variance request based on the finding that a hardship has
been sufficiently demonstrated.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan.
t
l6e
G%A 16 V2': A It OIL rL
,qui 4. � !
# b, r-. I i
�scct CL'(
Yll
n'T
TOT i
-77 -
S,U*.L-Wec I�IOUL 604- 4'7t -^ffF'v4'#'
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/1/92
Public Hearin --Consideration of a variance request to allow
a building wall to have more than the minimum 50% wall
coverage of a metal or fiberglass finish. Location is
Block 1. Lot 1, Barger Addition in the city of Monticello.
Applicant. Brad and Mary earaer. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The structure proposed by Brad Barger in conjunction with the
Suburban Machine i Manufacturing development calls for
development of an 11,000 sq ft structure. The site plan
proposed meets all the requirements of the city ordinance
except that the side of the structure facing the freeway
(freeway wall) is proposed to be constructed completely of
metal. According to the business campus zoning district
regulations, at least one-half of this wall needs to be
constructed or faced with some material other than metal.
Please see the excerpt from the business campus zoning
district regulations for more information.
The need for the variance stems from Barger's desire to
develop the current structure in a manner so that it can be
easily expanded toward the freeway at some point in the
future. Expansion will be much easier and less costly if in
the initial phase the freeway wall is constructed completely
out of metal. At some point in the future when expansion
occurs, the freeway wall will be properly sided.
Planning Commission and City Council have a history of
allowing developers to forestall certain improvements on site
pending completion of future phases. On numerous occasions,
the City has granted variances to the curb requirement in
anticipation of future expansion of parking areas. Planning
Commission and Council need to determine if it is appropriate
to apply previous precedent to this situation.
The added cost associated with meeting the requirements of the
ordinance would amount to approximately $2,700. This amount
would be lost if the freeway wall ie expanded at some point in
the future.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSt
Notion to grant the variance request allowing development
of the completely steel freeway wall based on the finding
that future development of the site calls for completion
of the building in compliance with the zoning ordinance,
and the variance as proposed le, therefore, consistent
with the intent of the ordinance. The variance would be
contingent on Barger agreeing to install brick facing
within five years.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission le
comfortable with the presence of a completely steel -sided
wall on the freeway side of the building. The three
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/1/92
remaining sides of the structure will be constructed in
compliance with the ordinance and will, therefore, meet
the spirit of the ordinance, which is to develop
facilities in the business campus zone with a slightly
up -scale quality. An agreement would be prepared that
would commit Barger to installing a brick facade within
a fixed time period.
As a condition of the variance, Planning Commission could
require that additional tree plantings be installed along
the freeway aide of the property to break up the monotony
of the steel wall.
2. Notion to deny the variance request based on the finding
that a unique hardship has not been sufficiently
demonstrated and granting of the variance will impair the
intent of the ordinance.
Planning Commission could take the view that enforcing
the agreement will be difficult, and there is no sure-
fire way to guarantee that the expansion of the building
will occur. Even if expansion occurs, it could be many
years before the project is completed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
alternative il. It is our view that it is reasonable to grant
this variance in anticipation of expansion of the structure as
hoped for by Suburban Machine 6 Manufacturing. we do believe,
however, that the variance should include a contingency that
requires installation of a brick facade to be installed if
expansion does not occur within a certain time period.
It is also recommended that the City require a few additional
tree plantings on the freeway wall side of the structure in
exchange for the variance. Additional tree plantings have a
nominal cost while at the same time beautify the area, thereby
supporting the intent of the ordinance, which is to create and
maintain a business campus environment.
D. SUPPORTING DATAt
Reduced copy of Barger's site plana Excerpt of business campus
district regulations.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
(B] Industrial planned unit development as regulated by
Chapter 20 of this ordinance.
[C] Indoor limited retail sales accessory to office/
manufacturing uses provided that:
1. Location:
(a) All sales are conducted in a clearly defined
area of the principal building reserved
exclusively for retail sales. Said sales area
must be physically segregated from other
principal activities in the building.
(b) The retail sales area must be located on the
ground floor of the principal building.
2. Sales Area. The retail sales activity shall not
occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the gross
floor area of the building.
3. Access. The building where such use is located is
one having direct access to a collector or arterial
level street without the necessity of using
residential streets.
4. Hours. Hours of operation are limited to 5:00 a.m.
to 9:00 p.m. The provisions of this section are
considered and satisfactorily met.
15A-5: "BC" DESIGN AND SITE PLAN STANDARDS: The following minimum
requirements shall be observed in the "BC" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set
forth in this chapter:
[A) Lot Coverage. Not less than thirty (30) percent of the
lot, parcel, or tract of land shall remain as a grass
plot including shrubbery, plantings, or fencing and
shall be landscaped.
(B] Building Typo and Construction and Roof Slope
1. Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all
buildings shall be limited to no more than fifty
(50) percent of any one wall if it is coordinated
Into the architectural design. Any metal finish
utilized in the building shall be aluminum of
twenty-six (26) gauge steel, the roof slope shall
be limited to a maximum of one (1) in twelve (12)
slope.
05-
MONTICELLO
ZONING ORDINANCE 15A/3
2. In the "BC" District, all buildings constructed of
curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum, or
�- fiberglass shall be required to be faced with
brick, wood, stone, architectural concrete case in
place or pre -case panels on all wall surfaces.
(C) Parking. Detailed parking plane in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 4, shall be submitted for City review
and approved before a building permit may be obtained.
(DJ Loading. A detailed off-street loading plan, including
berths, area, and access shall be submitted to the City
in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 3, Section
6, for review and approval prior to issuance of a
building permit.
(E) Landscaping. A detailed landscaping plan in conformance
with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G], shall be submitted to the
Council and approved before a building permit may be
obtained.
In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2
(GJ, all parcels developed along the boundary between
the BC zone and a residential zone shall include
planting of evergreens as a screen between BC and R-1
uses. The evergreens planted shall be planted every 15
feet along the property boundary.
Y (P) Usable Open Space. Every effort shall be made to
preserve natural ponding areas and features of the land
to create passive open space.
(G) Signage. A comprehensive sign plan must be submitted in
conformance with Chapter 3, Section 9.
Lot Requirements: Lot Area - 30,000 eq ft
Lot width - 100 feet
Setbacks: Front Yard - 50 feet
Side Yard - 30 feet
Rear Yard - 40 fent
(02/24/92, 0221)
KONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/1/92
5. Public Hearin --Consideration of a Dreliminary Dlat request
for a commercial subdivision Dist. Location is Dari of
Block 1 and east 1/2 of vacated Locust Street, west 1/2
vacated Walnut Streets and north 1/2 vacated 8th Street.
A&Dlicant. Barry Fluth/Monticello Nall. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In conjunction with the purchase of the Monticello Mall
property, Barry Fluth wishes to split off the Country Kitchen
site from the original mall site. According to the city
ordinance, when a property is subdivided in increments less
than 5 acres, then it must be platted. This ordinance
requirement applies in this situation.
City staff has reviewed the ordinance requirements relating to
the design of preliminary plate and found that the proposed
plat meets city ordinances. There are, however, a few unique
circumstances that relate to this plat. When the mall site
was originally developed, the Monticello Mall and the Country
Kitchen shared a water and sewer service line that extended
from the City right-of-way into the mall site. Under current
ordinance, this would not be allowed, as each business
establishment would be required to connect their private
utility lines to city utility lines. Due to the fact that
this situation already exists, it would be very expensive to
physically change the system at this time. In lieu of
requiring actual construction of Individual sewer and water
lines, it is suggested that the City require preparation of a
document which identifies the joint ownership of the utility
lines and make the properties using the line responsible for
its long-term maintenance. In addition, storm water
discharged from the Country Kitchen site must pass over the
mall site before it reaches a public storm water system. The
document should identify this situation as well.
It is also proposed that a document be prepared which allows
cross-over parking to occur. Under our current ordinance,
this type of development would require a physical separation
of parking areas or, at a minimum, would require a joint
agreement which allows mall patrons to park on the Country
Kitchen site and vice versa. In addition, the document should
outline joint responsibilities for parking maintenance and
snow removal.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of
the Monticello Mall contingent upon preparation of
documents governing joint use and maintenance of
utilities and parking areas.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/1/92
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is
satisfied that the plat meets the minimum requirements of
the ordinance. Aspects of the development such as joint
use of sewer and water and parking facilities that pre-
date the existing ordinance will be allowed to be
grandfathered in with the stipulation that agreements are
in place that properly identify and provide for joint use
and ownership of utilities and parking areae.
Under this alternative, the preliminary and final plat
will be presented to City Council at the September 14
meeting.
2. Notion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat.
Planning Commission should select this alternative if it
is found that the preliminary plat does not meet the
requirements of the ordinance, or this alternative could
be selected if Planning Commission is not comfortable
with the proposed method identifying joint ownership and
use of utilities and parking.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative I1. Staff recommends approval of
the preliminary plat, as it meets most requirements of the
city ordinance. Those aspects of the ordinance that it does
not meet relating to joint use of parking and utility systems
can be mitigated with the development of a document
Identifying joint ownership and maintenance of such
facilities.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the preliminary plat.
7
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/1/92
Continued Public Hearing --Cone ideration of apvroval of
Dreliminary plat of the Silver Fox Subdivision. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Ed and Arlys Nelson recently purchased the triangular property
on which the Silver Fox motel is located. They desire to
split the parcel into three commercial sites. Following is a
review of the proposed subdivision in terms of the city
ordinance.
Lot 1
Lot #1, located on the north side of the property, is 65,265
sq ft. The lot meets the minimum frontage and side yard
requirements in a B-3 district. Located on Lot it would be
the pylon sign advertising the Silver Fox motel, which is
located on Lot 12. This situation would make the pylon sign
a non -conforming sign, as signs must be located on the same
site as the facility that it's advertising. In this
situation, it would be very difficult to draw the lot line
around the sign so as to include it on the Silver Fox site
without rendering the remaining land with Lot it unbuildable
due to a small size. It is recommended by City staff that
approval of the final plat be contingent upon preparation of
a sign easement that would allow the sign to continue to be
located on Lot I1 when it is advertising a business on Lot •2.
An individual sewer and water service will need to be
Installed when this lot Is developed.
Lot 2
Lot i2 will contain the existing Silver Fox motel structure
and associated parking and garage areas. This lot also meets
the minimum front and side yard requirements in a B-3
district. Although the lot shape will be irregular, it meets
City requirements and, therefore, should not create any
problems.
There is an issue relating to storm water management that
needs to be addressed at this time. Currently, the storm
water that discharges from the parking lot along the south
edge of Lot i2 discharges directly onto an adjacent property
owned by Stuart Hoglund. In addition, the driveway that
exists along this property line extends right up to the
Hoglund property line and, therefore, violates the 5 -ft
setback requirement. Storm water coming off the parking lot
discharges directly onto Stuart Hoglund's property to the
south. I am not aware of the circumstances surrounding the
creation of this problem] however, at this time, it appears
that the drainage problem can be remedied simply by requiring
that the water now being discharged onto Hoglund's property be
rerouted by the development of a Swale so that it does not
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/1/92
pass onto the Hoglund property. The preliminary plat shows a
15 -ft easement between Lot i2 and Lot 03 which can be utilized
to move the storm water to the north and away from the Hoglund
property. It is proposed that the developer provide the City
with a letter of credit in the amount equal to construct this
Swale prior to City signing of the plat. This strategy should
solve the drainage problem in the area. It is not proposed
that the owner of the Silver Fox be required to remove the
portion of the parking lot that encroaches into the setback
area.
Lot 3
Lot t3 also meets all of the requirements of the zoning
ordinance in terms of proper lot width, depth, area, etc.
Individual sewer and water services will need to be
constructed to serve this lot. Driveway access will be
provided directly across from the driveway serving the
property to the north.
The major problem associated with this site is determining a
method for discharging storm water created at this site. As
you can see if you visit the site, it's relatively low and not
suitable for construction without bringing in a considerable
amount of fill to elevate the structure on the site. In the
process of raising the site to accommodate a structure, storm
water now naturally passing over the site from the south will
be obstructed. This problem is proposed to be overcome as
follows.
The property owner to the south (Stuart Hoglund) has agreed to
allow the water now draining off his site onto the adjoining
parcel to be obstructed with the condition that when he
develops his property and raises its elevation, then he will
be allowed to discharge drainage from his site onto Lot 03.
A document will need to be recorded which identifies this
situation and puts the owner of Lot 13 on notice that he will
be responsible for conveying storm water from the adjacent
property to the nearest public system. Depending on the final
design of both sites, it could occur that the Stuart Hoglund
property will not need to discharge any water onto the
adjoining private property, and he may be able to utilize the
proposed easement along the boundary of both properties.
I'm in the process of checking with the county engineer
regarding the driveway alignments. I will relay the county
engineer's response to you at the meeting on Tuesday.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSt
1. Notion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of
the Silver Fox subdivision and recommend that final plat
approval be subject to preparation of a development
agreement requiring construction of a drainage swale that
blocks water from Lot 12 from entering the property to
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/1/92
the south and development of a document identifying the
plan for development of a cooperative strategy for storm
water run-off relating to Lot 13 of the Silver Fox plat
and the parcel to the south. This document is to 1
signed by all parties affected. - �<<o.d._O .,,t�,� 1 ✓ r.,�'
5� ro:
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is
comfortable with the preliminary plat as proposed based
on the finding that the plat meets the minimum
requirements of the ordinance and the plat and associated
drainage plan contributes toward solving stone water
management problems affecting the area.
2. Notion to deny approval of the Silver Fox preliminary
plat.
This alternative should be selected in the event the
Planning Commission is not comfortable with the layout or
is not comfortable with the plan for mitigating storm
water problems. This alternative should also be selected
If for some reason the property owner is not willing to
enter into an agreement as outlined under alternative 01.
In talking to Paul Wellen, the surveyor representing the
applicant, he believes that the developer will find the
requirements associated with the construction of the
Swale affecting Lot #2 to be acceptable. He doesn't
believe that there will be any problem in working
cooperatively with the property owner to the south in
developing a plan for a cooperative approach to handling
common storm water problems relating to Lot #3.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the preliminary plat be approved as
proposed with the contingencies outlined under alternative •1.
It Is our view that the preliminary plat and associated
conditions will result in an improvement to the development
potential of the area due to creation of additional building
Iota and due to the resulting plan for managing storm water in
the area.
D. SUPPORTING DATA;
Copy of the preliminary plat; Comments on the drainage issues
submitted by the City Engineer.
10
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147 May 22, 1992
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
Nr. Paul Wellen
Paul Wellen 6 Associates, Inc.
18 North 23rd Avenue
St. Cloud, HN 56303
Dear Pauls
Following are staff comments on the Silver Fox preliminary plat. Please
review these comments and update your plat accordingly. It is hoped that
you will be able to provide the necessary updates by Wednesday of next
i week, which will allow the updated plat to be reviewed and placed in the
Planning Commission information packet by Friday, May 29. If you will
be unable to deliver the updated preliminary plat to me by this date,
please let me know.
1. Zoning classification. Place the zoning classification on the plat.
The Silver Fox plat is currently zoned B-3 (highway business) -
2. Driveway locations. Show the location of driveways connected to the
two major roads that serve the property. This includes showing the
driveways that are located on the opposite side of the roadways that
serve the site.
3. Show the boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land
that adjoin the plat or adjoin roads that border the plat. Indicate
ownership of each property identified.
4. Show sewer and water service ties and locate them to individual
properties.
S. A plan for the provision of surface water disposal and drainage must
be prepared. I have asked the City Engineer to outline the
information requirements with regard to surface water management.
The plan prepared should identify all easements necessary in
conjunction with the storm water plan. I understand that storm
water currently flows onto the adjoining property to the south from
the parking lot located behind the Silver Fox hotel. The grading
and drainage plan prepared should show how this water will be
redirected so that it stays on site until it eventually finds a
public easement for conveyance to the city storm water system. -7
Orr
sdldm
OAS& = Inc.
August 4, 1992
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Silver Fox Commercial Plat Review
OSM Project No. 1748.97
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
2021 Fast Hennepin Avenue
Minneapflis, MU 55413
612-331.8b6O
FAX 331-38%
Engineers
Architects
Planners
Surveyors
We have received and reviewed the revised preliminary plat submittal prepared by Paul
Wellen 8t Associates, dated June 24, 1992. Some of the items outlined in my May 26,
1992 letter have been addressed, however, several concerns still remain. The items that
should be further addressed are as follows:
The principal concern with approval of the preliminary plat and grading
plan is the proposed stormwater runoff patterns. Runoff calculations for
the future condition were requested and not provided with the recent
submittal. These, however, could be provided with future submittals once
development is proposed for each of the two available lots. This should be
noted on the preliminary and final plat so that there is no question about
the future submittals. For the present submittal, a meeting should be
scheduled between the developer, the developer's engineer, the City, the
property owner to the south, the owner of the Silver Fox Motel, and myself
to discuss runoff issues along the south side of the property. The property
to the south is situated such that much of the runoff along the south half of
the Silver Fox and Lot Three discharges in that direction. Any discharge in
excess of the original runoff, prior to construction of the Silver Fox Motel,
must be contained on site and not discharge to the south. It appears that
currently, a portion of the Silver Fox parking lot is discharging to the south,
as will a portion of lot three should it be developed as proposed.
Further, the proposed pad elevations are well below the existing road
elevations, which adds to the drainage problem. The City of Monticello
has a minimum standard of a 1% slope across bituminous surfaces, which
could not be satisfied with the proposed grading plan.
It is my feeling that to property develop lot three and the property to the
south, a significant amount of fill should be imported and located in the
low areas on both parcels. Ibis would allow the finished floor elevations
to be brought up and provide overland drainage Into the County Road 117
and the Cedar Street ditches. The preliminary grading plan should include
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
August 4, 1992
Page 2
additional topo 100 feet south of the southern property line. In addition,
prior to meeting at the site, it would be helpful if several spot elevations
were marked on lathe to identify the existing drainage patterns.
2. Additional spot elevations in the ditch line should be provided for the
Cedar Street ditch to identify the drainage pattern for runoff within that
area No culverts have been identified under the two driveways along
Cedar Street. If these culverts do not exist, regrading should be proposed
in the ditch and installation of 13 inch CMP culverts should be provided.
Lot one, at the comer of County Road 117 and Cedar Street, should
receive driveway access from Cedar Street instead of County Road 117.
contacted Dave Montebello from Wright County to verify their
recommendation, which is as stated.
As I previously stated. this area is difficult to develop due to being situated significantly
lower then the surrounding roads. Lot Three and the property to the south should be
filled to achieve positive drainage and to develop the properties in a reasonable manner.
1 would recommend that before any additional submittals are provided and this item
considered on the planning commission agenda, all concerned parties meet at the site to
discuss potential development opportunities.
Please give me a call at 378-7440 if you have any question concerning this letter,
otherwise, I will look forward to hearing from you with regard to a site meeting.
SIncerely,
ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
S4A [L -
Bret A. Weiss, P.E.
City Engineer
dad
W. John Simola, City of Monticello
0
POJG 27 '92 1133 CIS$I hPLS. 111
P.1
ort
A51odabmInr.
2021 Fast Hennepin Avenue
August 14, 1992 sGmxapotis, MN 55413
612.331.8660
FAX 331-3906
Er4oweMr. Jeff O'Neill Arms
City of Monticello _ _ 118nnen
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362 P°'"n" brand tax transmittal me= M J em "0"'
Re: Silver Fox Final Plat Review
OSM Project 1748.97 o"t `hq 0 3;51- o
Dear Mr. O'Neill: I, --:;? VOV ` ,
Ibis letter is a follow up to our on site meeting held on August 13, 1992, with the
following persons in attendance:
Jeff O'Neill
Stuart Hoglund
Bret Weiss
The following outlines some of the items discussed during our meeting:
1. The low area located commonly on Lot 3 and the Stuart Hoglund property,
south of Lot 3, should be filled to properly develop both properties and
achieve positive storm drainage. It was discussed that the final plat should
include provisions for allowing Stuart Hoglund to discharge his drainage
through the parking lot or across Lot 3 of the Silver Fox plat. This is the
only direction that the stormwater discharge could travel other than
constructing a pipe to the existing low area west of Highway 25. This may
be an option for the Dundas Road drainage system. Therefore, for this
submittal, it should be noted that the low area will be filled upon
development to a 960 or 961 elevation to allow positive drainage from the
south property line to the County Road 117 ditch. Positive drainage is
considered as a 1% slope across bituminous surfaces and a 03% slope
across curb or concrete surfaces. It should be noted that Stuart Hoglund
has given permission for slope filling on his property to properly develop
Lot 3.
2. The parking lot of the Silver Fox is currently located right on the property
line next to the Stuart Hoglund property. This should be evaluated for
possible removal to the City standard of five feet from the properly line.
In addition, stormwater discharge is currently being directed onto the
Stuart Hoglund property. A swole should be constructed from the end of
the parking lot to the County Road 117 ditch, which would carry the
stormwater away from the Stuart Hoglund property.
IN
AUG V '92 11:34 OSM 1•PLS. 111 P.2
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
August 14, 1992
Page 2
All of the other Items referenced in my previous letter should be addressed as stated.
Please give me a call if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter at
378-7440. I have enclosed a preliminary sketch of the swale required to complete Item 2
above.
Sinmrely,
ORRSCFM .EN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATE$ INC.
Bret A. Weiss. P.E.
city Engineer
dad
ce Paul Wellen, Wellen land Surveyors
John Simola, City of Monticello
C7)