Planning Commission Agenda 12-01-1998
.
.
.
AG NDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTI ELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, Decem er 1,1998 - 7 p.m.
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
1. Call to order
2. Approval of minutes of the regular mee ing held November 2, 1998.
3. Consideration of adding items to the ag nda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of an a endment to the PUD and a variance to the front
yard setback from 30 feet to zero. App icant: Monticello-Big Lake Community Hospital.
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a pr liminary plat for residential subdivision; and
rezoning from agricultural to R-1. Ap licant: G.P. Land Corporation (Rolling Woods).
7. Adjournment.
.
.
,
MIN TES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTIC LLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, Novem er 2, 1998 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Rod Dragst n, Dick Frie, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith.
Also Present:
Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Absent:
None
2. Consideration of a roval of minutes of re ular meetin held October 6 1998 and s ecial
meetinlJ.: held October 12. 1998.
MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD ORA STEN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE
SMITll TO APPROVE TIlE MINUTE OF THE OCTOBER 6, 1998 REGULAR
MEETING. Motion carried unanimo sly.
MOTION WAS MAY BY ROY POPIL K AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINU rES OF THE OCTOBER 12, 1998 SPECIAL
MEETING. Motion carried unanimous y.
3.
Consideration of addin 1 items to the anda.
No additional items were placed on the' genda.
4.
Citizen comments.
There were no citizen comments.
5.
Steve Grittman presented the staff repo t explaining that the applicant is proposing to
combine Lots 8,9, 10 & half of Lot 7 at d then divide the lots into two parcels. The two
parcels would meet the area and width equirements for lots in the R-2 Zoning District.
Chairman Frie opened the public heari g. Rick Fair was present but did not address the
Planning Commission regarding this pr po sa!. There were no residents present who
spoke for or against the proposed subdi ision. Chairman Frie questioned whether any
easements were required for this parcel Steve Orittman indicated that normally 12 foot
easements are required along the front nd back property lines and 6 foot easements are
required along the side property lines. l'he easements would have to be shown on the
survey prior it to being recorded. Cha'rman Frie closed the public hearing.
1
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/98
MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRA STEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE PROP SED SIMPLE SUBDIVISION BASED UPON
THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSE LOTS MEET ALL REQUIRED ZONING
STANDARDS AND SUBJECT TO TH CONDITION THAT THE APPROPRIATE
EASEMENTS ARE IDENTIFIED BY HE CITY ENGINEER. Motion carried
unanimously.
6.
Steve Grittman presented the staffrepo on the proposal submitted by the Townsends.
The original request for the Conditional se Permits was tabled by the Planning
Commission so that the project could be redesigned to more closely conform to the
ordinance requirements. The variances riginally requested by the applicant had been
denied by the Planning Commission. T e redesigned project eliminates the second story
apartments which reduces the requests f< r Conditional Use Permits from 3 to 2.
Conditional Use Pennits are required fo mixed commercial and residential uses in a
PZM District and for the proposed co ercial use as a laundry pickup and salon. A
variance of 8 feet is being requested fro the rear yard setback of 30 feet. In granting a
variance, the test of whether there is a p ysical hardship or some special circumstance
that would prohibit reasonable use of th property must be met. It was the
recommendation of the staff that the pr perty did not meet the hardship requirement.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearin . Susie Townsend spoke regarding the 8 foot
variance request which she stated was t allow for a hallway to her shop as well as access
to the basement. Pat Townsend indicat d that the 8 foot encroachment would not be
readily noticeable and he stated that he idn't feel one person should be making the
decision on how he could use his prop rty. No one else spoke for or against the
proposal. Chairman Frie clo~ed the pu lie hearing.
Richard Carlson addressed the comme t that was made by Mr. Townsend about one
person making a decision on the use of is property. Mr. Carlson stated that it is the
intent of the Planning Commission to e force the provisions of the zoning ordinance in a
reasonable and consistent manner. Ric ard Carlson explained that the rear and side yard
setback requirements protect the privac of the property owner and adjacent residents and
for that reason he was rather adamant a out not granting variances to the rear and side
yard setbacks. Mr. Carlson also point d out that the Planning Commission has handled
2
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/98
many variance requests and that the Plan ing Commission has been consistent in the
procedure they follow in handling varian e requests. There was discussion on the setback
requirements and it was noted that if it w s felt that the requirements were too stringent
then the appropriate action would be to a end the zoning ordinance rather than routinely
grant variances to the ordinance require ent.
Pat Townsend cited an instance where a arage in the setback area was allowed to be
rebuilt in the same location. The Planni g Commission recalled the instance and pointed
out that the garage was required to be m ved 5 feet so that it met the setback requirement.
Chairman Frie reiterated that the Planni g Commission is not arbitrary and capricious in
its action and that deviations from the or inance requirements must be supported by
findings of fact.
The Planning Commission asked if ther was any way the plan could be re-configured so
that variance, if one was still needed, would not be so great. Pat Townsend responded
that he worked up a number of designs t this one is the most viable from his standpoint.
Chairman Frie asked Mr. Townsend to r spond to the question of whether he would have
reasonable use of his property if the vari ce was not granted. Mr. Townsend felt from
an aesthetic standpoint the design he su mitted was the best one and he couldn't see how
it could be improved.
.
MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRA STEN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK
TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUES FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF 30
FEET BASED ON THE FINDING TH T REASONABLE USE CAN BE MADE OF
THE PARCEL WITHOUT THE V ARI NCE AS EVIDENCED BY THE
CONFORMING SINGLE F AMIL Y H ME AND A CONFORMING COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT OF 2300 SQUARE EET JUST 10 PERCENT LESS THAN THAT
PROPOSED. Motion carried with Cha rman Frie voting in opposition noting that it was
his understanding that there was some p ssibility in the future of the applicant acquiring
ownership of the adjacent parcel and if at would happen the proposal would meet
ordinance requirements.
MOTION WAS MADE BY PICK FRI AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON
TO RECOMMEND APPROV AI.. OF HE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
COMMERCIAL USE SUBJECT TO A CONDITION THAT AN APPROPRIATE
BUFFERING AND SCREENING PL IS SUBMITTED FOR CITY APPROVAL.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRI AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIA USES IN THE PZM DISTRICT SUBJECT TO
.
3
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/98
A FINDING THAT THE COMMERCI L AND RESIDENTIAL USES MEET THE
INTENT OF THE SEPARATE FLOOR QUIREMENT. Motion carried unanimously.
Steve Grittman pointed out that since the apartment units were withdrawn, there was no
Planning Commission action required on a conditional use permit for more than two
residential units. Fred Patch indicated th t if the applicant came back with a revised plan
that met all ordinance requirements, it w uld not be coming back to the Planning
Commission for review. Pat Townsend equested information on the appeal process and
Jeff O'Neill provided information on the procedure for appealing Planning Commission
action.
7.
Public Hearin - Consideration of a re u st for variances to the setbacks for
drive aisles in the CCD Zonin District.
Steve Grittman presented the staff repo explaining that when the setback requirements
were established for the CCD District b ildings were allowed to be built with a zero lot
line but parking and driveways were not exempted from the setback requirements. The
City is requesting a variance to allow th driveway and parking spaces for the
Community Center to encroach into the lYe foot setback along the Burlington Northern
property and along 6th Street. Mr. Gritt an also noted several other instances in the CCD
District where the City has allowed encr achments into the parking setbacks. In these
cases the City found that the variance a lowed for a better design and better function of
the project.
There was discussion on whether a hard hip must be shown in granting a variance. Steve
Grittman responded that there should b equality of opportunities for various projects
within a district. If other projects withi the district were granted this type of variance
and granting of the variance would imp ove the project quality, the variance should be
considered. Chairman Frie opened the ublic hearing. There were no citizens present to
speak on the proposal. Chairman Frie c osed the public hearing.
In discussion of the variance request, th Planning Commission reviewed those other
projects where variances were granted. It was pointed out that where the green space was
maintained the appearance was aestheti ally pleasing even though there was a reduction
in the setback area. The Planning Co ission also questioned why the variance request
came up so late into the development fthe project. Jeff O'Neill stated that because the
placement of the building on the site co ld not be determined until the location of the
utility pipes were established, it delaye the City having a final site plan until just
recently. The Planning Commission al 0 discussed whether it would make sense to
revise the parking setbacks for the CC District or review each project individually as to
the parking setbacks.
4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/98
MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE S ITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE V ARIA CES BASED ON THE FINDING THAT
REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPER Y AS A COMMUNITY CENTER
REQUIRES MAXIMIZING THE NUM ER OF PARKING SPACES AND
CIRCULATION ROUTES AS SHOWN N THE PROPOSED PLAN. Motion carried
unanimously.
8.
Sketch Review - Rolling Woods
Jeff O'Neill reported that the staff had m t with the developer and that revisions have
been made in the proposal that lessened t e impact on adjacent properties. Chairman Frie
asked if the Parks Commission had an 0 portunity to review the proposal. The staff
responded that the Parks Commission w s looking at developing a neighborhood park as
part of this development. There was so e discussion on the procedures for this proposal
coming before the OAA Board as well a an update on other OAA action.
MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRA STEN AND SECONDED BY DICK FRIE AT
8:30 P.M. TO ADJOURN THE MEETI G. Motion carried unanimously.
Recording Secretary
5
.
.
.
5.
Planning Commission Agenda 12/01/98
Consideration of a re uest for an ame dment to a Conditional Use Permit PUD
within the PZM Zonin District and variance to front ard setback from 30 feet
to zero to allow a pun Site Plan rcvisi n. A licant: Monticello-Bi Lake
Community Hospital District. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
The Monticello-Big Lake Community H spital District is requesting approval of an
amendment to their PUD which would a ter the street vacation pattern along the west
portion of Hart Boulevard from the prop sed Hospital entrance to the Dental Clinic
property. To accommodate the change, e Hospital's entrance canopy, already under
construction, would violate front yard se backs and require a variance.
The original Hospital PUD planned for a vacation of Hart Boulevard from the Hospital
campus eastern boundary to Hart Boulev rd's intersection with County Hwy. 75 on the
west. The City granted the Hospital pe its to begin grading and foundation
construction, although the Hospital had ot complied with all of the terms of the PUD
approval, namely the requirement that al parcels affected by the vacation agreed in
writing to accept access easements from he Hospital in lieu of public street frontage.
The Dental Clinic refused to cooperate, e en though it was staffs opinion that there was
little, if any, difference between the ease ent rights and the right of way access. Any
difference would be legalistic, since the hysical street improvements would be identical
under either scenario.
Nonetheless, without the Dental Clinic's pproval, the City required the Hospital to
provide an indemnification to the City in the event the Dental Clinic decided to sue for a
taking. It was the City's position that ev n though the City would likely prevail in such a
suit, the costs of defending itself should e borne by the Hospital, the originator of the
request. This requirement has been unac eptable to the Hospital District, and as a result,
the issue of the right-of-way has been un esolved. In the meantime, the Hospital has been
allowed to continue with its construction roject, in anticipation of compliance with the
original and amended PUD approvals.
To resolve the Dental Clinic access issue the Hospital is now asking for a revision to its
vacation request which leaves the Hart B ulevard right-of-way in place from the new
Hospital entrance drive to the Dental Cli ic. With all other Hart Boulevard rightMof-way
in the Hospital campus area to be vacate , the remaining right-of-way would be an
"island" of public street. The Hospital is subsequently asking for approval of a
dedication of the proposed entrance to C unty 75 as City street as well, providing the
connection to Hart Boulevard.
This resolution, however, creates another issue - that of setback. The entrance canopy
would encroach to the edge ofthe right-o -way, reducing the required 30 foot setback to
zero. The location of the entrance canop was of no concern under the original approval
since the plan for vacation of Hart Boule ard eliminated the front yard issues in this area.
Under the revised proposal, the City is be'ng asked to waive its setback standards to
accommodate the Hospital's unwillingne s to indemnify the City against the Dental
-1-
Planning Commission Agenda 12/01/98
Clinic's taking claim. However, the Cit will still require a maintenance agreement for
this portion of street and an indcmnifica ion against claims which are based in inadequate
design or maintenance, since the remain'ng portion of Hart Boulevard would not be built
to City standards, and the Hospital will ssume responsibilities for maintaining it as if it
were a private driveway. Additional ind mnifleation would be needed since the helipad
would now site on public right-of-way.
.
It should be emphasized that there is no roposed change to the physical design or
operation of the project under the PUD mendment. The change is only to the
arrangement of public street and private roperty in the project, and the procedural
approvals necessary to accommodate th rearrangement.
A final note regarding setback variances The City had approved a front yard setback
variance to the medical clinic adjacent t the Hospital for a similar entrance canopy
concept, although not to zero feet. This pproval would provide some precedent to the
Hospital's request, except that the varia ce was granted in anticipation of thc eventual
vacation of Hart Boulevard, negating th, setback violation issue. There is some question
as to whether the City would have grant d approval for the construction of the canopy at
issue ifno vacation of the street right-of way was to occur. It should also be pointed out
that the entrance canopy does not appea on the site plans presented to the City. It was
not until staff had the opportunity to rev ew the change in the vacation request, and
compare that request to the construction progress that the encroachment problem was
identified.
.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision I:
1. Motion to recommend approval l' the PUD amendment altering the plan for
vacation and street dedication 0 the Hospital Campus, subject to the approval of
a setback variance for the entran e canopy, and subject to a maintenance
agreement and indemnification:fi r design and maintenance of the remaining right-
of-way, based on a finding that t e physical and operational characteristics of the
Hospital PUD do not change un er the revised PUD. This motion would
incorporate previous PUD appro al conditions and would include the option for
the Hospital to continue to seek itten Dental Clinic approval or the
indemnification concept approv d previously.
2. Motion to recommend denial of he PUD amendment, based on a finding that the
previous approvals are still valid and offer the Hospital the opportunity to provide
written approvals of the affected property owners, or an indemnification for
claims made due to the vacation of Hart Boulevard to accommodate the Hospital
project.
.
3.
Motion to table action on the P D amendment, subject to the provision of
additional information.
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda 12/01/98
Decision 2. Variance to front yard set ack.
.
1.
Motion to approve the variance t front yard setback requirements from the
required 30 feet to zero feet, subj ct to the City Council's approval of the PUD
amendment, based on a finding t at the variance does not alter the ultimate design
ofthe project, and that there is pr cedent in the Hospital campus area for similar
setback considerations.
2. Motion to deny the variance to fr nt yard setback requirements, based on a
finding that there does not appear to be actual physical hardship in complying
with the requirements, as demons rated by the original and amended Hospital
PUD approvals.
3. Motion to table action on the vari ce, subject to the submission of additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Approval of the proposed PUD amendm nt necessitates approval ofthe setback variance
due to the configuration of the existing i provements. The variance does not appear to
meet the City's test for variance approva as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. The need
for the variance is an economic consider tion - the Hospital does not wish to absorb the
liability of indemnifying the City agains a suit brought by the Dental Clinic under the
full vacation of Hart Boulevard. Moreo er, the change adds the complication of placing
the hclipad within the City's right-of-wa , a potential concern.
Without the traditional variance findings staff is reluctant to recommend approval of the
variance or the PUD amendment which i conditioned on it. However, as is noted in the
report, there will be no physical change t the project under either scenario. The
Planning Commission may wish to appr ve the proposed revisions on the basis that the
changes are a reasonable accommodatio for a project which is of significant impact on
the community.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit B - Master Plan
.
-3-
EXHIBIT A - SITE PLAN
s-\
:::; :>-
. u:l~~~
0<:::::>1-
I--!::Ea...
::z ::EU)
O!;2oo
::EmO:r:
..~
,~
rI~
,.i
III :.1 I" ;,I~I~I~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
[, ~ .
III I
:11 .
f'I:' ~
d i i i I
;~ ~i
,~! il
~,
~;;.~ ~i.
.nz -II
~'::~I I .
~~~ I I
.
''''''~ .
,
~"
i
r
I
r' )
1-'.
.
."..-~'...
--- -
,/ 'I .
~ 7'
'. /
~'.,--.-:
I
.",;.~;i ~
.' ;'
, I
~~ )'
":./
~/
'., I
/~~;,i!
I
I
I.
i
I
.~
,0
.J
~'.........
"
""'-
.......'" (
.",- I
,:,-..1
/
::'1
"
/
/
.' " .
/ !~
.X~
:,~,tii, ' ,
"t?.
. l4tJ
,~,;
UP,
i
,
/
2~
~~
,..
-'/
,..;~~ ..
'"
.............,.....
I
i/
hh
, ,~ I ~
J~ H Ii
('\J
,0
1 ('\J
/
/
/
/ i
hP!
/
/ iill~d
!Ii! H;
I~i ! !It
i iii ~ ~ ~I
I I
I '
CI i i
is
~~[J
=-
!~!;
:J: .1
... -
~
...
'-t g;; ~ ii, ~!Ii III111I11I11I1I111
~iil II It HI
,.~ '0..'1 Ii>
"'.
.t~ !~ 'ii i .II
~~~ I,e ! :z
rI~ '" '" .u :'5
",-,10 -; ...
~'I 'It ~lj~~
,.! ~tfgj j !i M 'j
m~,,? II ~
~a~ j f' i j ] H L J~
- .
II~ -
I-
f,
,F': '
l<'{>'
.a.">','""
//~,,,;::.:.,,: '
/!(f,Jr
e'
.;:~,2;:::
.~
,f.:.
r,'." I~
,::~C;:,
.'
"."..
r:
L.
(
....
r
r'
~
n
~I
l...
,..,-
[r
/
I
I
.,
i
:'
",
I . 0 0 5 a e e a ~ I
!:.~.........
~ J IIIII
~IIIIU
~ISI!.'
'( ..
<'
')'.")-'"
,';/ I'i"
. I ,4~I,.
i/~<>'/
I ./
I /' .}';'
,F /" ,
~~., ....,..
(
f::~;'""
~f
/
'-.,....l"
~;~
.~"~~.._~
"
\
-,,\\
(l>
'. ',.
\.
.
.
.
6.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/01/98
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
G.P. Land Corporation has submitted an pplication for approval of the Rolling Woods
Subdivision Plat and the subsequent rezo ing of the parcel trom A-O: Agricultural-Open
Space to R-l: Single Family Residential. The proposed development of single family
detached is a permitted use within the R-l district. The area comprises 39.19 acres and is
a blend of wooded land near the north an slopes downward to a wetland situated in the
southeast corner of the parcel.
Land Use
The proposed development is consistent ith the Comprehensive Plan, calling for low-
density housing. The subject parcel is at th southern boundary of the Orderly Annexation
Area. The land to the east and west are also art of the City's Orderly Annexation Area, and
would be appropriate to follow the subject p eel in the City's growth. The land south of the
subject parcel is outside the City's growth pI s and would not be considered for annexation
any time soon. To the north is the rec ntly platted and annexed Wildwood Ridge
subdivision. The proposed R-I Zoning Di trict designation is consistent with the City's
long-range land use plan, surrounding devel pment, and the proposed land use plan being
discussed by the Orderly Annexation Area oard.
Subdivision
The property includes a wooded area in th northern third, then open land which slopes
downward toward the southeast to a wetlan (Outlot A). The applicant has proposed 80
single family lots ranging from 12,000 squa e feet to 27,536 square feet. The minimum
requirement for the R-l District is 12,000 s uare feet. Lot width minimum is eighty (80)
feet. All lots, except those in Fox Circle and Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block I, indicate that they
meet the minimum requirement for lot wi tho The cul-de-sac lots appear to meet the
minimum width, and the applicant should ver fy the width of the cul-de-sac lots at the front
yard setback on the preliminary plat drawing.
Setbacks in the R-I District are thirty (30) fe t front and rear yard, ten (10) side yard, and
twenty (20) feet on corner lots abutting a p blic right-of-way. The proposed setbacks
indicated in the plans appear to be in complia ce with the R- I District.
According to the Monticello Subdivision Ordi ance, block length shall normally not exceed
thirteen hundred twenty (1,320) feet, except were topography or other conditions justify a
departure from the maximum. The longest bl ck length in Rolling Woods is one thousand
seventy-five (1075) feet. Therefore, the subdivision satisfies this minimum requirement.
Block width shall normally be sufficient to all w two (2) tiers of lots of appropriate depth.
Rolling Woods complies with the established tandard.
-4-
Planning Commission Agenda - 12101/98
Currently, entrance to the proposed dev lopment would only be from the north (Troy
Marquette Drive) through Wildwood Rid e. Reserved access to the east and west would
become available when development conti ues in these directions. Temporary turn-arounds
would need to be constructed at the ends of the streets along the southern property line,
because development beyond this point w uld not be encouraged, at least during the period
of the annexation agreement.
.
Outlot A, located in the southeast quarte of the parcel, is intended to be a stormwater
retention pond to slow the drainage during rainfall. Most of the time, the pond will be dry.
The preferred design for a retention pond is one that will not demand maintenance by the
City, such as mowing. To achieve this, er ative grading and planting that would allow for
the natural succession of plant materials s encouraged. A combination of native grass
mixture and sufIicient ponding area would help achieve the preferred design.
The northern half of the subject parcel is ooded. The City intends to preserve as much of
the trees in the area as possible. The ap licant has provided a plan working with City
planning staff that has been designed to anage the amount of tree loss in the plat by
locating streets and houses in areas of mor open space, and focuses on preserving mature
oaks. Nonetheless, the grading plan will n cessitate the removal of a significant number of
trees. One possible option would be to en "Deer Street" in a cui-dc-sac near Lot 7, Block
1. This would avoid some tree loss by cre ting rear yard spaces in an arca of wooded land,
although it would create an awkward stree design for "Bear A venue" where it turns to the
west.
.
The Grading and Drainage Plan, which indicates proposed ponding and wetland mitigation,
shall be subject to review and approval of he City Engineer, as well as the City's wetland
mitigation process.
The plat design indicates a 1.5 acre park t the center of the project. This location was
requested by the Park Commission to serve as a neighborhood park for the residents of this
plat, and other nearby development. Com ined with the ponding area of more than 6 acres
in the southeast corner, the plat has an a ractive mnount of open space which is well
exposed to the street system. This arrange ent will significantly improve the visual impact
of the subdivision.
Pedestrian access is provided in the plat via a planned sidewalk which adjoins the north side
of "Lynx Street" from the southwest corne of the project to the street extension to the east.
Additional sidewalk wi II connect to the nort along Troy Marquette Drive into the Wildwood
Ridge subdivision. A pathway easement h s been preserved in the northwest corner of the
plat which will provide the opportunity to onnect to the upland parks and pathways of the
Monte Club Hill. This pathway may exten through Wildwood Ridge or eventually to the
west, depending on options available as W'ldwood Ridge is constructed.
.
-5-
.
.
.
B. At TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1. Preliminary Plat
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/01198
1. Motion to recommend approval of the RolIing Woods Preliminary Plat as submitted.
This motion should be supporte by a finding that the subdivision is consistent with
the direction of the Comprehe sive Plan and complies with the provisions of the
Monticello Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The motion includes a condition
that the City Engineer's review d approval is required for engineering, grading, and
related issues.
2. Motion to recommend approval of the Rolling Woods Preliminary Plat, subject to
alterations in the plat design wh ch increase tree preservation. This motion should
be supported by a finding that he unique asset of the Monte Club Hill justifies
additional measures for tree pre ervation, and is conditioned on the approval of the
City Engineer for engineering, g ading, and related issues.
3. Motion to recommend denial of he Rolling Woods Subdivision Plat and rezoning
from A -0 District to R -1 District. This motion should be supported by a finding that
the property is not ripe for devel pment until the OAA adopts a Land Use Plan and
other property development incr ases access to the site.
4.
Motion to table action on the Rolling Woods Subdivision Plat and rezoning, subject
to the submission of additional i formation.
Decision 2. Rezoning from A-O to R- , Single Family Residential.
1. Motion to recommend approval 0 the rezoning, subject to annexation and final plat,
based on a finding that the propos d land use meets the City's Comprehensive Plan
and the draft Orderly Annexation rea Land Use Plan.
2. Motion to recommend denial of th rezoning, based on a finding that the area is not
ripe for development.
3. Motion to recommend tabling of a tion on the rezoning, subject to the submission
of additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Rolling Woods Preliminary Plat and rezoning from the
A-O District to the R-I District. The area i within the Orderly Annexation Area and meets
the intent of the OAA Agreement regardin land use and contiguity. The plat design has
been revised based upon staff discussions w' th the developer and his engineer to increase tree
preservation is the north portion of the proj ct. The only additional suggestion would be to
investigate the option of terminating Deer treet in a cul-de-sac to increase rear yard tree
-6-
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/01198
.
preservation. This suggestion is subje t to comment from the City Engineer regarding the
street pattern and an analysis of actual ree loss if the concept were implemented.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C - Preliminary Utility Plan
Exhibit D - Grading and Drainage Plan
.
.
-7-
PZ-M
R1
~
~~
II~II~"""""
'f IlffD '!J[l~.........
'!!!iJilI /lii$ J. :;stl R'> ""
. ~~[(Sl~':--''Y~,^ ~
tlllib 'j ~~j ~~. ")..
;!!lJJj 'q W ~. . "-
. I ' J:: ~ ~ ",. "'~.. ""
I';) ""<. .~ ..
. I :'<l .... .
. . '\..." ~~ 'I
, ~;::~~'~~ ~
-J.~ I--- ............. .... .,~
~~ PS
- -...
~r ,
IFn/
;. I. :"1/
rr:1 I \ - Q.
I 1
;,.;.
"
L-o;.
...
j:\.');: . . h-
~ +
'*"TI: .
SCHOOL
R1
~
~S::\ ':--\d,\;\ I....n... -i: . , .,
? ~ .. .. "'"1., . .loJ'
~ ~" .'r., .. Yo. .,.
<,;' "' .. '. .... .,
.. ...-
'ir: .-- ,.)010.., .
~'12J ~ . .
~... ~ .,... .:~~' . .
-+ ' ."
--' ~ , "m: .1.\.' il
TS
. ' .
... .u ."1\.-
. .
.' I.
. .
., 'II
,~
\,\
-
.[>r....
~<:;,
~RS
c
.. r:[S"nr'-~
o~ t,...1"'" ITS
.
'"
...
Dan,: SeptBmbef 1998
..
. .
"' .. 11
11'
\0--\
EXHIBIT A .. SITE LOCATION
NIV1I'JJ~d
1 'lld nJV aN'll d8 1 ~
NOll 'l~OS~~~)M 8N1110~ ~
'Ol13)11N0V1
I
i I It
I I
. ,
, I I ~ !
I I . "I \:'1 5. 1 flIt
i II JlI J , I ,( tltl
. Jl': "Ii · II f ",
,
111111 . II J ;
I 1111,1 I
I I ~I? - I I I I I
.....-<Go- 0 i
\ I !i
~
_1 -- L
' ,
J / .
- ,
lVd
B"p'
II ^ON paM
\ (aJd\B~SPS\ :0
0' IclB6 , B
1 V1d-13Ud\6e X H IBI T
\0;' ':J-
.. PLAT
e
>----
~I
~' h
NV1J All 1111\ AIJ"'.IH~llJlJd ::\
NOllV~O&lO::J CNVl d8 j
'Oll]Jll NOr! SeOOM 8N~T10_8 I'" _--'
r':'."~
0._
C,;)
c..J
I...&.J
--I
-
I.d...
. c~II~Fl-. '--
P---Ail""'W1
"''fIII!':'~'1i,"~
.._....~
_ .:"....':'..1 ;'.i.. ,,-=..,":'_':"~
-;Jdr.!I(G
.OM -WilL YI~'.Y . .
"O'Y~II'I~ .l.YYlIO,
'Nr!
~
~
I
: I I I I
Hlldll
JJJJffff
H'.otlt
I elF
. ..... ~ /
_n:=:~ ______nJ4__,
ifi
0.11\1
"11--'.'1
--hl
eo .
r r-~~~=-' 1
._,r,1.'_'__ ! :.. : i
__ .. t__~=-:=..~=..:Ll
r--r--~;:;" ~ 9-1
I I"" I:
: J I I
~__l:-_~~==-=:!_J
/' f r~~::-, 1
. : I'-J ,........, I I
: I . I:
, '~_Ln_~n_4.'
r~T ~--'---f'
: I ........ I
.: I ~ I I
L~'=-_~_~~=';Ll
~ r-U~ I 1
": I I I
I Lt'.-_==~.!
. l~ I"" ----9~1
"-........,...: I "ll I I
: I I I
"I '- --.J I
" I r==F~=~~n
.: I' I I
J ~_~~_~_1
x/
19
...............
./. \
;" ,
~"
, "
~
. JI
~. ./ ,'. /1
~ ".
',~ ~._.->-..-.--,l-,
.....~/ --
...
" .,
.... j ./"
~ .'" ~-.~ ~.,""
~..~~~~..;n~
f':':-.:;: r':':-'=-'=-,l r':-'=-'=-~l ~il p:::.::.:::~--:
:,1 11 l' Ii )1 I: '/ : L _ _ _."'.JI :
,I I'll 'I II 11./ I,.~_~ _ ~_~
iL..-i!-~! !L-i"-.Jl iL-t:;-.Jj.r J \ t-r----~--:
"____n'J 'n___n_' "n_nn" 11 l L _ _ _ j j
.. ~""~--
\ ITr-~~~~~1
!if ;. I ~ I :
.l : I I :
t~~==.=::_~_-:L_J
r-r---~ --, 1
: I t...1 f
: I I :
~~b-:_-;:-~- ~ J
r~~~~~~1
I I"':
I ~ I :
~_"7:t.~_--1 J
r~1 ~ -~--;n1
l I 'r,1:
: I I :
~_~ - - -~-JnJ
r r~"""'-...,
r I ...1
1 I I
~ l.-;: ~~",::___--1
i~r~ --,
: I ~I:
1 I I :
~_~_-=:.::~",,;:;d__~
i-r'~-""-~~-~1
: I I :
: I ~ I :
~_~ -""-;,~-= --1_ J
r-F~ ~ -=~--1
: I I I
: , "',:
~_ku -J ~J
~
t
4:
r I
I
If
fl
I ...... ,......
,
-----
"
I ,
.~
I
./
! 1
; I
I
I
,
.
!
.",'"
~I
'.'
\o/~
lVd 8661 LO :OG :9\ II ^ON paM B"P'11!n-13~d\6"p\O'leI86\(oJd\a~sps\:0
EXHIBIT C - UTILITY PL
......
- -"",'ll'.l..&-'=.:III
.- -~...' ~A
':)HI'n.L~"UV
IIQ IIJCI34 J.IIYVO.
NVld lmHNOJ NOISO~3 \~I
'I' 8NIOV<J8 HJVWIl13<Jd
NOIl'I<IOdlJOJ ON'11 d8 iN
"NI"l 'Ol13JI1NOl"l seOOM 8NIllO~ i
---
lI'1nu-""""1IN ",
~",.f)IWI
~:.14~
.......-.. -
"",-=M ~
lI.'OIII)I,j~~w
=
=....
d d
II
d d
\ ~ I I!
: ":I, II 1'II,lllh!1
~I~,~l~:~ i~lll'ilid
I 1\12 w-, ~-l llill
..A I.., ~'"
"" · h I- ===-.J m
1~ ~ ~8 'If;ii; ::: --V /
H ~.I ::L ~:iil ~~
:lc/)~y!~\:: [) !)//\
. .LQdnm 'h. ~L._.-?~ ~~
~~--) -- , :~~[f=.:-~'N:--n 11~;-~~ ~17/':;::>' ".,~'~ )},
~ r " ~ "i:r/", ...i:I~~':1 .. ,:I~I I :' l'~'. ~
I ... II ~I 'I--=<..ii 'I ,I , , , '. /~::---- .
! , I " 1 ~,'..... I, f.r:cl!!;~ 'I:~' L_L --<' J '[ fl' " "1'/'(' '<:'" '__ ~; ,
-~ \'L:I ' OMS I ~.~ili~~ ,\MS I:~ dl..,,Ilj r~~l-~ " "'. (.-'Z--.-, ..::'~_
- I ~rj "';.. ': , , , , : ,1-.;-1 01' 1':. ' " ~./ '9
~'~~~~rtj::~>~;~~.~.~l~;~~~~:~~~~~~' I:. .; ~ 9.~;),-''-.
Y:'ij, ',' .(I:i:';}\l::i: 'l~i:~:!I'..":'J'j~0~~k\> '. ,~:~~~ L,!J !'J.
' : 8JJfl~'~;f07~;~ . I: (Sj:I:r J/ : ~~~'~\ , /' /~i\
___m _ ~ _ j: :"" t\ \1q. 7'ir ~ :~i_.JJ lL ___: " \J. ~ ~ ~ ",.t:~ '__ ' _ / / i'-
. ,21, _\S C m;m - ~ -~ t ' .....~~ ..~~~, ,___ "
.L.__ -~:~:--I-",~~.::::.~~iM~ ;t , ~,,--_~~~ .''''".~:''~"/>>~
." ,)-l ! ~.\\ ,';,;<:ft1:r;"~ :1rn~1 ' ~:~::::"t _"':~'Q~' 'fo (l~7i\I-
""S',,, '--' <f""1J ill'""M~ ,I" '""", !: ~i' ~;;-~ll' '! ~ \. ~ ~I \
~ .L-, -iJ"" - / Jfic'7 ) "----p"Jf1>,m:;.r! - ~ . , 01 '::1 ':: 01: \ ~ _ _ I _
+z:>-- ",,-,~,,-: ,9 ,,~/:~ l5"'<cc ~~=t.J -.. ""-=---1:'~' J:~: _~::J! ~ 7rrH~~- 11)
I ~',,-,:.:::..,-.y / .~, ,,~!J,~ .. :L_y...,_'''''''_''- :: ~ ! 1.1. ~ 0 ji,:
---------- ~~ / if.. .. '~H),' L :'oo."oo -= rr i -' .
~i~n I ~.,~<~~ ,~; ~\:AIv1r{iif--!; 1\'~<?~\~~1~: ~\__::_~
.':- ~ .~ tl.'/ ~~~~!;~! ,.'?<;, iL{ /~"::-~t~~t .~ Ir~tJJ), (
\ul ,~~! ' ~-;l "'f.i1Vf-r i1 4 1P:1'i"" tp'.' ( ~. ': 31,11' I
1=:~\3::[i\EGiII~ ~ '~~:!f~~' ~~ il'~;~:\"13'-~~'-'~~~:;~ . ~~:~~~;i~:
"-:-' 1 E' -N ~ ~ r?1l~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~1,~ ~ l ~ ,-<~ ~~~ <; ,":"" 1:1 8, :: :Hi f ' _-:~Ol=_~OOi
n, ~<-,~ ~ i~j/yj~~~K~\ :<<~'~~-jtSEJi i ~:~nJ)./
" Il\Bi I 1m~7i"t'J~~~~~'\\~~~, < ~. ..~~ ~ 'rr.l"J! ,
~~r--l~~f\ ~bij.UJ,i!'\'!},' ~~:'\'~I"'~ ~~j.,,,~! I, ,,~ ~ 'I~ ' :1+t _~1+
~..! l'llfJ '~' rO--~J:'~4-~11~:' 8Jlii~i'~~J~~,~\"\S\,,t.;r~~,~~N~~~il~li~J~lt~~~ '.dtr~;GC"l
,-- ---- -", ~ . , , ~: ' ,'/"" '>.. - f_. ' : , l:==;r;, \ -t...' , t ... ,I I
li[\\[\~"-~\\ !\" u- ~~ -.i:,.11~' -."' ~~.;. ,-' )~~.t-= ~ --~ - P-' "'"-~t li~ ~t C
. i 06'\j_~ ~ ~~,,\..;'"-n. ~"'-i,.,i---...j~-r::..?,,:_ _ 'ff!~~:'~' "~ ,~t,y. '''r-Ii."';'m,,,4~-... Y- 'Ii ,I <D ~ I:
}~~i~~~L\ I~I~ r~_--'{:~"" 4:~~'~-lii~-: HI,~,~;:~~~~,r~'::ri~:'h~'?' I~) I~ I/~T--,tJk\-
-'.I\~l~ ~l; \ j<W8; !~~~1:P~]!lb~~Jjl1 j {~'\111f:rrl!~~~'J : 1: ~~fgl{,;8' '~i~::.J! ~; I) .~ ~ 7YiK\1
~~!~~ : I ~,"~:Jf:'~_---j\lt- '\J:, 'I)}, \ \i'lI" ":1c- ~t~~'- ..J, :L"r : , III ~.L.._ _ __ ~A
~t~' .1I:\~tt~,L~jK=~~ T J':;. \.~ I: ~;I
.
,- ~
Ifill
II I I, I I I
~ Il!l I III iii
~ Hi: 0t'90tl?
I II!.
I I'; I'
U,lih hI
i dlli!i~I~;JI
in!IMI!hj
.."'.. "..,.:...~E!:I
/
L '
lo~
6f'01~13~d\6MP\O' 1~186\!DOJd\18N~sPsGu PLAN
1 d 8661 2g H~j(HI~1 u _ GRA
1
_I