Planning Commission Agenda 03-08-1998
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
.
.
AGEN A
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICEL 0 PLANNING COMMISSION
Thursday, March ,1998 -7 pm.
Call to order.
Approval of minutes of the regular meting held February 3, 1998.
Consideration of adding items.
Citizens comments.
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a z ning map amendment establishing
district boundaries for the CCD (Cen ral Community District) and PZM
District. Applicant: City of Monticell Planning Commission.
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a 2 -foot variance to the front yard setback
requirement within the R-2 Zoning istrict. Consideration of a conditional
use permit allowing a church facility in an R-2 zone. Location: 413 East 3rd
Street, Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 14, ower Monticello. Applicant: St. Peter's
Lutheran Church.
7.
Public Hearing -Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit allowing a
residential planned unit developme t in an R-PUD zone and consideration of
a request for a preliminary plat appl cation. Location: Outlot D, Klein
Farms. Applicant: E & K Developent.
8. Public Hearing - Request for a Cond tional Use Permit allowing a commercial
planned unit development. Locatio : Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Mall.
Applicant: Barry Fluth.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reliminary plat and final plat request
for a residential subdivision to be k own as Eastwood Knoll Second Addition.
Consideration of rezoning request t rezone from R-PUD to R-1. Location:
Outlot A, Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3, eadow Oak Estates, and Outlot C,
Eastwood Knoll Addition. Applica t: City of Monticello.
10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the
south and west growth areas adjac nt to the city of Monticello. Applicant:
City of Monticello Planning Commi sion.
11. Consideration of calling for a publi hearing for billboard ordinance.
12. Updates.
A.
Community Center
13. Adjournment.
.
.
.
REGULAR MEETING. MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, Febru 3,1998 - 7 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Liaison Present:
Staff Present:
Dick Frie, Richard Carls n, Rod Dragsten, Robbie Smith
Dick Martie
Clint Herbst
Fred Patch, Steve Gritt an, Wanda Kraemer, Karen Doty
1. Call to order.
The meeting was called to order by C airman Frie and it was noted that
Mayor Fair was in attendance.
2.
RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MO ION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE JANUARY MEETING. SECO DED BY ROBBIE SMITH. Motion
passed unanimously.
3.
There were no added items.
4. Citizens comments.
There were no comments.
5.
Fred Patch, Building Official, repo ed, that Jerry Sonsteby, owner of a
residence located in the R-2 (Single and Two Family Zoning District) at 300
East 3rd Street, is requesting that variance be considered to allow a new
residence to be constructed within he required 30 foot front yard setback
area, and within the 20 foot side ya d setback area. The existing residence
was heavily damaged and all of the trees were lost in the July 1, 1997
windstorm. Patch added the prope Y owner was hoping to save the lilac
bushes on the site. It is proposed t at the existing residence will be torn
down and that a new residence wil be built in the same location.
@
.
lanning Commission Minutes - 2/3/98
Chairman Frie opened the public hea 'ng.
Jerry and Sara Sonsteby, the owners, xplained that the curb-cuts for their
driveway were installed on the neigh or's property as were all of the
driveways on the entire block. Sonste y stated if they built their house
according to the required setbacks it ould be very close to the neighbors.
The Sonstebys added because all of t e trees on the property had been
destroyed in the storm they were tryi g to save the lilac bushes.
The Commissioners discussed if the sibility on the corner would be
obstructed because the house was no setback 20 feet, the alignment of the
houses in the neighborhood, and the tyle of the new house in relation with
the lot.
Chairman Frie closed the public hea
.
After discussion, RICHARD CARLS N MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE
VARIANCE AS THE ORDINANCE ROVIDES SUFFICIENT
OPPORTUNITY TO ERECT A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE UPON
THE PROPERTY IN CONFORMAN E WITH CITY ORDINANCE. Motion
died from lack of second.
ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTIO TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY
ROBBIE SMITH, THE VARIANCE 0 ERECT A RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE WITHIN THE SIDE ARD SETBACK AREA FRONTING ON
PALM STREET CONTINENT UFO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
1. THE NEW RESIDENTIAL S RUCTURE MUST BE SETBACK AT
LEAST 5 FEET FROM THE ROPERTY LINE FRONTING ON PALM
STREET.
2. THE RESIDENCE MUST BE MADE TO COMPLY WITH ALL
OTHER CITY ORDINANCE , EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE
APPROVED BY CITY COUN IL.
Based on the findings that: l-locati g the residence upon this corner lot
according to City ordinances would nreasonably diminish the opportunity to
build a suitable house upon the lot; -the residential structure will not have
adverse impacts upon adjacent pro erty, traffic, public safety or diminish
.
@
.
.
.
lanning Commission Minutes - 2/3/98
property values. Voting in favor of mot on: Dragsten, Smith, Frie .
Opposed: Carlson. Absent: Martie. otion passed 3 to 1.
6.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reporte at the January 12,1998 meeting the
City Council approve the vacation of art Boulevard past the Hospital
campus site, subject to certain conditi ns, including approval of the final
PUD. The Hospital District is now re uesting final PUD approval for its first
phase. The first phase includes an ex ansion of the hospital building on the
east side toward the clinic building, t gether with a parking lot expansion on
the former Hart Boulevard right-of-w y, and the construction of the new
entrance location for the project. Als proposed as part of Phase I would be
the relocation of the helipad.
The purpose of the final PUD review s to ensure that issues identified
earlier have been addressed and con itions recommended during the initial
concept reviews have been complied 'th. We have summarized the issues
and recommendations as follows:
1. Utilities in Hart Boulevard - t e public works department has noted
that city utilities may require aintenance or reconstruction, which
would likely occur during the ospital's parking lot construction. This
issue should be coordinated b tween the Hospital and the Public
Works Department.
2. Helipad - the helipad has bee relocated from its original proposed
location to the west. The ne location will allow helicopter flight to
occur without traffic interference with the Hospital's main entrance.
Although it is still close to th County Highway, this is an improved
location for the helipad, and' appears to have County Highway
Department support. Moreo er, though hopefully not necessary, the
Sheriff had indicated his ava lability to manage traffic during flight
operations. Finally, the Co ty will have to convey a small triangle of
property to the Hospital to a commodate the new location.
3. Access to CSAH 75 (Broadw y). The County has been reluctant to
@
lanning Commission Minutes - 2/3/98
.
allow continued right-out-egress from the main hospital driveway to
Highway 75 at the west end of t e project. There are currently two
access points to the County Hig way in this location, and the County
is asking that these be closed in exchange for approval of the revised
hospital access drive. The City' position is that keeping one egress
driveway in this location would acilitate circulation on the Hospital
site and encourage traffic to use Broadway rather than River Street in
the future. The Hospital's site Ian assumes that the driveway will be
closed. While the proposed pI should work, the City should continue
to lobby the County to retain th right-out-egress to Broadway. In
either case, the Hospital site p should reflect the continuation of a
3D-foot drive through the proje t. The proposed site plan reduces the
driveway width to 24 feet west fthe main entrance. Due to the
volume of traffic and the poten ial for right-out-egress to Broadway,
the 3D-foot width should be ret ined for the full length.
4.
Coordination with adjoining pr perties - This requirement consists of
access provision to the other P operty owners affected by the vacation
of Hart Boulevard, and coordi ation of the relocated access and
intersection with CSAH 75 bet een the Hospital, the County, and the
School District. The Hospital istrict has indicated that all parties are
in agreement with the plan. he City should include a condition
requiring written approval fro the affected parties. Approval should
be in the form of letters from e School District and County on the
access location, and easement agreements signed by the property
owners sharing the Hospital ccess drive.
.
Chairman Frie opened the public he ring.
Tim Sessions, Hospital's architect, 8 ated he would like to leave the driveway
west of the main entrance at 24 fee until it is known if the County will
approve the right-out-egress to Bro dway. If this is approved the width
would be changed to 30 feet.
Mary Andrews, resident at 1005 E st River Street, stated concerns over
increased traffic on River Street de troying the neighborhood.
Sessions answered that the traffic hould be les8 on River Street. All of the
delivery trucks will be using the m in entrance instead of River Street. The
main reason to keep a route open om the main entrance to River Street is
@
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/3/98
Barb Schwientek, Executive Director or the Hospital District, there are still
a number of details to work out with he County. One of the issues is a
signal light. Schwientek added the h spital district will pay for the light
however, the city will be asked to ma'ntain the light.
more than one route for emergency
chool site across from the hospital was
ent of the main entrance for the
for emergency use; most hospital hav
vehicles. Sessions explained that the
incl uded in the decision for the place
hospital.
The Commissioners expressed a conc rn that the school had not been at a
meeting to present their views regar ing the need for the signal light and
opinions on the driveway access.
.
DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO PROVE, SECONDED BY ROBBIE
SMITH, THE CONDITIONAL USE ERMIT FOR A FINAL STAGE PUD
FOR THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS, C NTINGENT ON THE CONDITIONS
LISTED AS FOLLOWS:
Chairman Frie closed the public hea 'ng.
1. COORDINATE HART BOUL VARD DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION
WITH PUBLIC WORKS DEP RTMENT.
3. REVISE SITE PLAN, IF NE ESSARY, BASED UPON
NEGOTIATION WITH COU TY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ON
RIGHT-OUT EGRESS TO B OADWAY.
2. DOCUMENT CONVEYANC OF PROPERTY FROM COUNTY TO
ACCOMMODATE HELIPAD.
4. REVISIT THE SITE PLAN Pi. THE TIME OF THE RAMP
CONSTRUCTION TO ILLU TRATE A 3D-FOOT DRIVEWAY FOR
FULL LENGTH OF THE PR JECT (FROM HART BOULEVARD ON
THE EAST TO THE END 0 THE PARKING RAMP ON THE
WEST).
5. REVISE THE PHASING PL TO INCLUDE DRIVEWAY
CONSTRUCTION IN FRON OF THE FUTURE PARKING RAMP AS
PHASE I CONSTRUCTION.
.
@
.
.
.
lanning Commission Minutes - 2/3/98
PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF ACCESS AND PARKING
EASEMENT AGREEMENTS W TH ALL ADJOINING PROPERTY
OWNERS NORTH OF CSAH 7 AFFECTED BY HART BOULEVARD
ACTION.
6.
7.
PROVIDE WRITTEN DOCUM NTATION OF COUNTY APPROVAL
OF NEW ACCESS DRIVEWA LOCATION FOR CSAH 75.
8.
PROVIDE WRITTEN DOCUM NTATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
AGREEMENT WITH NEW AC ESS DRIVEWAY LOCATION AS
COORDINATED WITH THE OSPITAL AND THE COUNTY.
9.
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ILL BE REQUIRED TO
DEMONSTRATE ACCESS D EGRESS TO THE PARKING RAMP
AT THE TOP LEVEL ONLY.
10.
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CI Y COUNCIL CONDITIONS FOR THE
VACATION OF HART BOUL V ARD.
Based on the findings that the proje meets the Monticello Comprehensive
Plan goals and provides for a design hich better meets the City's zoning
objectives that strict enforcement of hose regulation would allow. Motion
passed unanimously.
7.
1
and Mac Architectsr Inc.
Fred Patch, Building Official, repor ed on May 6, 1997 the Planning
Commission considered and recom ended approval of a Conditional Use
Permit request to allow the Resurr ction Lutheran Church facility in the PS
(Public/Semi-Public) Zoning Distric. On May 12, 1997 the City Council
affirmed the recommendation of th Planning Commission and approved the
Conditional Use Permit for Resurr ction Lutheran Church. It is anticipated
that construction will begin aroun April 15,1998; however, to insure that
land use considerations of the City do not interfere, this extension will
prevent expiration and the need to reconsider this item in its entirety.
Chairman Frie opened the public earing. There were no comments,
Chairman Frie closed the public h aring.
@
.
8.
.
.
lanning Commission Minutes - 2/3/98
RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTI N THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHURCH FA ILITY IN THE PS (PUBLIC/SEMI-
PUBLIC) ZONING DISTRICT FOR R SURRECTION LUTHERAN
CHURCH BE EXTENDED FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AFPROV AL OF THI EXTENSION. SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN. Motion passed unanim usly.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, report d a few months ago St Henry's Church
required that the Fallon Avenue brid e be removed from the transportation
portion of the comprehensive plan du to the interference of the view of the
church from the freeway. The item as tabled pending additional analysis of
the location and height of the bridge y the City Engineer and the Church
ArchitectlEngineer. It now appears t at there may be a design that is
acceptable to the Church, therefore, e Church would withdrawn its request.
Grittman advised the Planning Co ission that even though St. Henry
withdrew their request by telephone t is best to formally deny the original
request to meet legal requirements.
Chairman Frie opened the public he ring and hearing no comments, closed
the public hearing
ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTIO TO DENY, SECONDED BY ROBBIE
SMITH, THE REQUEST FOR THE FALLON AVE BRIDGE TO BE
ELIMINATED OR MOVED FROM HE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Motion
passed unanimously.
9.
Monticello.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, state the City has adopted the text ofa new
zoning district intended to impleme t the objectives of the downtown
revitalization plan. At this time, st iris requesting that the Planning
Commission consider rezoning a po tion of the greater downtown area to the
new district, called the CCD, Centr Community District.
@
.
10.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/3/98
ROBBIE SMITH MADE A MOTION 0 CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
FOR REZONING THE DOWNTOWN AREA, SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON. Motion passed unanimo sly.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, report d that the newly adopted Central
Community District (CCD) includes provision for design review of projects
proposed within the greater downtow area. Staff and MCP representative
have been discussing the process for' tegrating the design review into the
development review process of the Ci y staff and the Planning Commission.
This is a new process for all involved, it was believed that the Planning
Commission should be made aware 0 the appointments to the Design
Advisory Team (DA T) and the proces likely to come out of these discussions.
The individuals were appoint to the AT by Council on January 26,1998.
The Commissioners inquired who wa appointed to the Design Advisory
Team.
Grittman read the list: Pam Campbe 1, Gail Cole, Ronald Hoglund, Rita
illrich, and Susie Wojchouski. Gritt an added that each of the members is
well versed in the design guidelines 'ncorporated in the Downtown and
Riverfront Revitalization Plan and h s participated in training on design
considerations and building rehabili ation for downtown Monticello.
11.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, state that the City's Comprehensive plan
includes land use planning for area south and west of the current city
boundaries. As you recall, a signific nt concept of the comprehensive plan is
to direct future growth to the south nd west of the city by investing in
infrastructure improvements which would serve growth in that direction
rather than to the east. Over the p st several months, staff has conducted a
more detailed study of the issues w ich would affect land use patterns in
that area, including transportation, utility corridors, physical lay of the land,
existing land uses, and goals and p licies from the current plan. A concept
land use plan was developed with t ese issues in mind, and which has been
@
.
..
,
anning Commission Minutes - 2/3/98
discussed at stafflevel, with other city rganizations, and at a public open
house.
ROBBIE SMITH MADE A MOTION T CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO T E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS
PROPOSED IN THE "SOUTHWEST REA PLAN". SECONDED BY
RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously.
12. JJpdates.
A. Community Center - Mayor Fai stated that a small group
subcommittee of two council me bers (Bruce Thielen and Brian
Stumpf) and two HRA member (Brad Barger and Steve Andrews) had
been formed to review the reco mendation of the task force. The City
Council will make a decision 0 the next step from the
recommendation of the small oup committee at on of the February
meetings.
B.
Highway 25 Project _ Mayor F 'r reported the project will be started in
the spring of 1998 and the ra ping will be in 1999.
13. Adjournment.
ROBBIE SMITH MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN.
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Technician
P ge9
(i)
.
.
.
5.
Monticello. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission Agenda ,3/05/98
The City has adopted the text of a new zoning istrict intended to implement the objectives
of the downtown revitalization plan. At this time, staff is requesting that the Planning
Commission consider rezoning a portion of the greater downtown area to the new district,
called the "CCD", Central Community Distri . Recently, an open house was held for
property owners in and near the downtown t review proposed district lines and provide
comment to the City regarding the impacts 0 the district on the area.
The most commonly heard comment was i, regard to the residential portions of the
proposed district near the transition line betwe n CCD and (typically) R-2 neighborhoods.
The concern reflected in these comments w s the CCD district's language which places
commercial uses above residential uses in t rms of ease of administration.
As a result, the boundaries reflected in th original discussions of CCD have been
tightened somewhat, with PZM District areas dded as transitional zones near the edges
of the downtown. The PZM District permits -1 and R-2 uses by permitted use, and R-3
and B-2 uses by Conditional Use. With the un erlying Revitalization Plan as the controlling
Comprehensive Plan for the area, an effective ransition which protects the neighborhoods
from inappropriate encroachments should b possible.
Overall, the revised zoning pattern in the dow town area should reflect a more traditional
downtown pattern than the current 8-4 domi ated zoning. The 8-4 district is essentially
a suburban commercial zoning district with lit Ie accommodation for the mix uses, shared
parking and pedestrian orientation of the owntown Revitalization Plan. The CCD,
combined with appropriately place PZM area ,should better implement the objectives of
the Plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve the rezonings to CCD and PZM as proposed on the map
attached as Exhibit B.
2. Motion to table action on the rezonings subject to additional information and public
review.
.
.
.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission Agenda ~3/05/98
Staff recommends approval of the rezonings a submitted. As noted, we believe that they
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, a amended by the Downtown Revitalization
Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Current Zoning
Exhibit B - Revised Zoning
2
612 595 9837
P.12I4/12l5
..
i~--~~ ._,___ ~.
-' -'''''', , .
.m. I \ '.
._t.: "" t!. ,\.
-.. .. '-':. \ ,
- "0- !n.. I "'00; __ "
~"'''.'.n. J:.=.(:.~~~: ',-
. ..n.i'~_Cl.
,,"'-'r <t
---...}. 0
'''-0 _L.-a:.
.....- ~a:\'" ~.
''''un:
lU
.....~
.~
e ..Ul.
~
~
--
,--:---"
. ,
'<.'(>. .. ,"
.', .,,~~
.. , ". ""'" .~o<>
,
':(
L&..
.......---r I
1 .
.......011
,),.... .'
;it-;' '.
.:t'. ...
Cu'" . I I.it
1-.:,. / ~
~ ~
J..:... c"
CI)
~
<" on
,
i i
. I
.' ...L_~,
- _n '_n,_' _,_n.' :~:: :'~':':'_:_h'
,_.'.- RDAir' I
I
'1
i
!' .
I
Existing Zoning
Exhibit A - 5 ~ I
cz:: ..-
-
U
'i
. ..,
i .
I
I
..
.
612 595 9837
1-'.11:::>/10:)
lY
---..'.------..
.......:.."c~_
.. ~~... ;''\
I, .
I \
..: '~'..y.,
':'; '. ""~
I , ; '. 'PI
.,t., :'::~ "".:...:. . '..\_
'1"'_/~Il;' " i
'J-,., : i i
~'-.~~L~L__J
. ._-.-'
.. ...
Proposed Zoning
~...~ TOTf>- P.05
.
.
.
6.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Variance
Planning Commission Agenda ,3/05/98
(NAC)
St. Peter's Lutheran Church has requested a v riance to allow an expansion of its church
facility at 413 E. 3rd Street. The current buildin is not handicapped accessible, and it has
become difficult to accommodate the entran e and exit from the current building. The
building expansion would extend to within 2.7 et of the public right of way. The request
for the variance raised the issue of the lack of onditional Use Perm it for the church use -
a requirement in an R.2 District. As an existing use, the church would be "grandfathered"
in to the zoning district in its current conditi ns. The CUP is necessary to allow the
expansion of the facility.
Variances are considered where a property n not be put to reasonable use under the
existing zoning standards. Staff views a modification to meet ADA handicapped
accessibility rules as being reasonable use. The issue would relate to other potential
options for the modification which would avoid the need for, or lessen the amount of, the
variance. The architect for the building has ncluded a statement which describes the
design process which was used to establish t e proposed plan.
Additions to either side of the existing church were considered and rejected for various
reasons. An addition to the east was technical y possible, but interfered with the ability to
provide off-street parking, planned for a fut re project. An addition to the west was
considered but had technical problems in acc mmodating the interior use of the existing
building. Coupled with these problems were architectural concerns which would have
severely compromised the aesthetic value of t e building - an important consideration for
a church in a residential neighborhood.
Conditional Use Permit
As noted above, churches require Condition I Use Permits in R-2 zoning districts. The
primary issue related to the approval of a CUP for this facility would be the issue of off-
street parking. Currently, the church relies enti ely on street parking for its needs. A site
plan which illustrates a plan for off-street pa king of over 30 spaces is attached. The
church has requested a deferral from the req irement for immediate construction of the
parking area. Due to limited funds, and the ne d to construct the ADA.compliant access,
the Church is not in a position to undertake the arking lot at this time. Staff has discussed
a deferral of this project with them, and is su gesting a four-year deferral, or at a time
when the Church undertakes additional site i provement and/or construction projects.
3
.
.
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Planning Commission Agenda -3/05/98
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for a Chu ch in an R-2 Zone.
1. Motion to approve the CUP, subject to a ndition which would require construction
of off-street parking in an arrangement imilar or superior to the drawing attached
as Exhibit A, with a deferral of the parki g requirement for four years.
2. Motion to deny the CUP, based on the i ability to strictly comply with setback and
parking regulations as provided for in t e zoning ordinance.
3. Motion to table action on the CUP, subj ct to additional information.
Decision 2: Variance from the front yard set ack requirement of 30 feet.
1. Motion to approve the variance for a set ack of 2.7 feet, based on a finding that the
expansion is necessary to comply with DA and make reasonable use of the site.
2. Motion to deny the variance for a setba k of 2.7 feet, based on a finding that there
should be alternative solutions which ould require no variance, or less variance.
3.
Motion to table action on the variance, pending additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of both the CU and the setback variance. The CUP has
become an issue for the Church due to its attempt to comply with handicapped
accessibility regulations. The deferral of the p rking should not impact the neighborhood,
since the Church has no off-street parking a this time, and will be working toward this
project at a later date.
With regard to the variance, staff believes at the design as presented is positive in
maintaining the "urban" character of the traditio al Monticello neighborhoods. While it may
be technically possible to construct an additi n which avoids the need for a variance, it
would compromise both the interior utility of the existing building and the exterior
architectural aesthetics.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B - Building Elevation
Exhibit C - Floor Plan
4
il.iO-9td-u. 'UJ ~O-9~~ZII .q4i
~fM t4IP ".;:; ~.a;:;
'Oa,'~
_,_""""l"f
.
"
~
N
N
li--1
w--1
- <(
-.;t I-
NIfl
--1
--1
""
C')
~
\0
C\J --1
~
-<J
~
::::J
V) ~~
<:l:
~ --1
-14
.-/
--1,
.J
-1
,-
<:l:
a:
,S ,<3 ,91
-1
---
--l
~~
-~
~~
~
\
-1
(()
"otfJ.mi1NNIW'011.::1?LLNOY-l
H~"~~+-t.LI"n
1'tr'?1':iI~A; 'i.1II~ '!ow
-
If ,LC ,!.po,a s
[[99 { aJdnStlJH 00 'f;9 (
ltl7d
+I
N
(")
::t:
~
~
t..l
..
~
'"
!! .n
, 'II
<~\
__I.
-<C"
i.
z
-, ~~~
I a.,.
I <10
y-_./
- I --
I
I
-I-
1.1)
"It
l
"
t:
.,
-.-
DtlJ 0D)1
It<
:!
... ~
t5 ~
~
(5
...
~
Ii
I
". \
\'-__-..J
_f
\._J.-.......
Ii
- -'
~
II
{y '99 { = (J](JnS'I]H 00 '~9 I = ltl7d
] .02,0 [ .L2 N
l]J~lS N01NJ~ StI (JJ11t17d
lJJCJ1S
/13N
-~
<.
, . ' '
II'i ." .;
.
\'- ~~-.~~:; H jl,1~-;:;;;;
n
.. ; ~I ..
.. ..
'"
8 ',.,
f--
LJ
LJ
.-: Ct:
<D~~\--
~\i),~V)
~~~
oj
.
.,
t=
N
~ h:::)
~:.. Cl(
-<t 0J
W'
::;:\0
(")
\0
1.1)
""~
",,\0
-.i<'::
\()
l'\J
'-
-<t
~
)I-wlfN' JJ~:JNrJ' 'U'
,L9'~
fr1
~
~~
~~
i
~
i
"
...
, 'It
..
!!
.. , .It
lilT .JIli3 'JJ l.
..
'"'
II l:.'
~
'"'
,.. ~
C>
~
~
II
'"
'"
~
Ie
'MI.ilr1l iJ.M:..In 'J.J,.
l
'/
fp--/
W LiiI W _ iIIi ''''''-'''''-''' "I ",HI"''' I'
I., . ~"" .....~;;~;J=
I. . ''''''~
. awa",{lII' , 'Ofttqt 'ltM'lnl'af
.
.
.
=
i~
tI\\l
:L
K:1
"2 .
.-~," -
:1~jJ
\i;A K'(
'"
~
<i
t\..
!
~
"
l~
\i
~
?'.
IU
~;t:.
/ ',~tt
.( r~ ~~.
'......... l) \1..L"::t.
, .>t
~I:-
V~
-'\\: \i\
.- ~-
,
1/
V
VJ./X':lNN1H '01l.?I.1H\?H
H~N'(lII~(li
1V"11iiJ~v^. ~'tItiil1~d 'lG
NV'.J bIOO1.l1~ld
,~
--~ar-- --
\5. G
.. ~
'2
~
l~~ ~.
oj) "..
~~
-- - .-- ~ -~i'
,c;'
-", -!i
.,.J~
<ll _
8'lr
l:L4~
- ~\ll
~ \:l;i
-ltob~ -
~ ~ U'
~
l
7'
.?
~.
. .~-
I, . I~
-~'";-\....--j ,hl-
1 ,,~.
~
I-
I
I
I
I
':
I'
II
.--
~]
-~
fu-.:,
',<ri
~\'>
/~I - '~~- - ~ --
D ~~
~
\-
'2
~
I'
'-..
a"
....B
~dGi
~~~
, I
____.._.~~~,.~r._.._'_,_,. ....
.... - .~ ~- ~ ~ - -- ~
. +~-----,-",
~ ~-
'~--,-:c.,l
J
.-.--l
7""
r-
-*-
1
\)
\ - I
2 II
4"'1';)
:if
~
r
()
~
(p.,~
'~._,. 1lUO-1llf-1II '''j ""'-".-111''''' .
JiI nt'VO '1mI '111I'~'Ia'flII
J. oa '1"" - 'PIt' ....... """
.. . -,;:,~~
~Ol.l.."A;I":I~rlldl.)o('jJ
.
{:
- ~ -", ~
t_lf .
~J;!
r..:r.
.
[
~i
':J.
iIf
~~~
.
10-3
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~3/05/98
p
7.
(NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
E&K Development has submitted plans for th proposed development of Klein Farms
Estates 3rd Addition. This project is locate between Farmstead Drive and School
Boulevard, adjacent to Edmonson Avenue (Co. d. 117). The single family development
of Klein Farms 2nd Addition abuts the east bo ndary of the project area. The proposal
consists of 34 twin home and quad units - 8 in home buildings and 5 quad buildings.
The project is zoned appropriately for this use, ut requires the approval of a PUD due to
its design utilizing a private street and townho e lots without direct street frontage.
.
The gross density of the project is listed at 3. units per acre. However, a significant
portion of the project site is encumbered by th power line easement adjacent to School
Boulevard. That area would also include a large ponding and drainage control area. If the
drainage area on the south side of the project is xcluded, the net density is approximately
4.92 units per acre. This calculation is impo ant in that the Klein Farms Estates 2nd
Addition project (which did not get approval) wa evaluated for density excluding a similar
drainage area. That project was proposed in t e neighborhood of 7 units per acre. The
City's Comprehensive Plan considers projects nder 5 units per acre to be low or low/mid
density.
The plans propose a single cul-de-sac privat street to provide access to the buildings,
with the exception of the northernmost qua building. For that structure, two of the
buildings are shown to access Farmstead Driv . Since one of the concepts of PUD is to
provide for designs which create superior, cohesive neighborhoods, we would not
recommend this proposal. Moreover, this desi n results in a driveway for two of the units
which is less than eighty feet from the prima street access for the rest of the project.
Although the density is reasonable for proj cts of this type, the project should be
redesigned to accommodate all unit drivewa s on the primary street, or these end two
units should be dropped from the project.
The plan illustrates buildings setbacks which m et the perimeter setback requirements on
all sides. Internal setbacks have been designe to provide common access drives for the
quad units, and a minimum of 25 foot setbacks from the curb line for the twin home units.
Due to the mix of buildings, however, this proje is likely to feel somewhat more "spacious"
than the first Klein Farms Estates project.
.
In the twin home section of the project, there re some concerns due to building spacing
and garage orientation. The design of the uni s results in a 44 foot wide paved driveway
5
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~3/05/98
for each building. This expanse of paving can e unattractive, and problematic in the cul-
de-sac area. Around the cul-de-sac, four of he buildings would result in a continuous
"curb cut" with small triangles of green space se arating the driveways at the building lines.
These extensive pavement areas should be miti ated in some fashion. One concept may
be to consider quad units in this area as well. his would have the effect of reducing the
impact of a streetscape made up of garage d ors, and could also reduce the amount of
paving at the curb line. In any event, we would ecommend extensive landscaping in these
areas to mitigate the domination of pavement in the cul-de-sac area.
Other landscaping issues relate to the treat ent of the drainage area, and pedestrian
access in and through the development. Si ce the project is a relatively short private
street, it would appear unnecessary to requir sidewalks in the development. However,
a pathway connection to School Boulevard fro the cul-de-sac area would be important.
In landscaping the drainage area, the develope should consider the use of natural wetland
tolerant plant materials which would not req ire mowing. The area would look more
attractive as a "wild" area with appropriate p antings, rather than attempting to mow a
grassy area which is often too wet to use acti ely. The primary constraint in this regard
would be the power lines, and the need to utili e low-growing materials in that area.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve the Concept Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat, subject to the
conditions as described in Exhibit B, ased upon a finding that the zoning and
density are appropriate for the project.
2. Motion to deny the Concept Stage PUD nd Preliminary Plat, based upon a finding
that the design of the project does not re lect the intent of the City's PUD regulations
or the area in which it is located.
3. Motion to table action on the Concep Stage PUD and/or the Preliminary Plat,
subject to additional information and al erations to the project design.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that the project can be approved i concept. The land use is generally a low
density design, and should be compatible with it location adjacent to two major roadways
and a low density single family neighborhood. here are design changes which we believe
would improve the project's appeal, particula, Iy from the street view, however. These
include a reduction in the number of driveways and width of continuous pavement) in the
twin home portion of the project. This could be elped by leaving a planting strip between
the driveways of the common wall units, or com ining some of the twin home buildings into
6
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda ;3/05/98
quad buildings. There are also some chang s which we believe are necessary for the
project to qualify for the flexibility granted und r a PUD. These include the elimination of
the driveway onto Farmstead, intensive Ian scaping in the areas where twin home
driveways result in more pavement than gree area (e.g. around the cul-de-sac), a well
thought-out landscape plan for the drainage rea, and a pathway connection to School
Boulevard. With these changes, the PUD Con pt Plan would meet the requirements for
design which is superior to standard subdi is ion and development, a PUD minimum
criterion. If the Planning Commission and Ci y Council agree with the recommendation
which would convert some of the twin homes into quad buildings (assuming no increase
in unit count) it may be appropriate to approv the PUD with conditions, but table action
on the preliminary plat.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit B - PUD Conditions
7
FEB-27-1998 09:51
1/ 'I 'i'. I :. u ,:r,
! ~""\~\ r:i;L ~
,I, r ,,"..;;
.
z
0
-
E-<
-
~
Cl
<
0 z
<(
-'
0:: Q..
C":l >- ~
l-
:J .....
f:: 0
U'J. ::> :.- r:
...,
~ C l- ~
E-- z L; :oi
<( illE,j
-< I-
e l- .
~ ...J ::::;
Q.. l:::i u;
Cf.l '-'
t:;z;;l ~ t:::
ll:
<l: C
Z ;0;
. C/J ~
-'
~ .....
'"
p::; ...
-<
~
Z
-
t:;z;;l
~
~
,:' :i
~ .:~.: I'r ~! ~l:ti-1
.. oJ~':' !~. . ~
! '11"'1'1~ : !:~~ '
:: t)r! 'Il !U~ ' ,~,\.~ ~~ ~:
.(.;"':~,~~' f"T r: .--
" . '. , (I'
.
NAC
I
I
__----3, 'i
_--- -,I I
__ --- ~II I
, ___.- .-' t If; V ,\ I~ ~ .:.. -.-I.. +--+-
.-- 111.0 V '::-"-"':'-';"'''. .. , o. 'I' 'I
. ".......- L - 1~ ' :....... '.' ,0 ."', ..
....... . P Q ..,....-:... ".... .. 5']".'-" L ,",
...< l' \I ___.~.- '11.1> '~I, ,
...... l l'.f. ~ '. --",- ~.~ ' , \
.,.,....~ 3A,,~:_...:'-- p.., \ '
_'._~.~_._-:.:~~:::~_. l.~~ .:_' . \
;
~
'\ i
11'1 II Inn.... I
11111111~!Qllirr,....,
.11111Ii:ilJ~I'.III'ID
Illllla''; 11.111' 111
:::: :'~i~,~:::: ~:I
11\I~hlflfIIILI!},I'.
11"'11(1\111'1)'
~,~,1~::::1:yV
1111 II nl~f
'''pll,l' ,
IIH
1"n',.
"
"
I
t
~
1;
~
,
,
,-
f:! ~
'"
liP
IIII
IUI
1"'1
I[:i~:'
lilH
11111
Hid
, 1111
.~ I:~I
_..l;: i.",J
;'
,.
,J
,
,
I
.
~j:
~\':
~i '
I
,
i,
~
..
J:
1
1
I:
)j i
I
I
" '
, .
,
~
;~
l:l
't+,,,
:J.-'
_.-----
~ ~
~ ::~:~
lit ~~:a:
.,.~~,
.. =':;
.~ ;~~€
.8
~~'=
i; "-
.t, f
<g .
:Ii~
~~i
~
~
'j i
iE
E: .'~
'ot it ~
~:.: ~ ==
~ . w~
':.!.i~
jt:f.ili
., i'.~r
~...::!
. '~.I ..
i~~~~~.. -
*
!
. "
H t~i L ,
[' .. ;;G! ~i!
.1 So ,.Iolo. A Q
" ,', ~ M ;;!o "
" ~d ." l'
~!l;~~..
,.
~ .~
,;~
"
,
~
!:l
11 \ .
''': .:. .; ~: I
"I .:: ";..::.e,r.,
.. 1~ -
i
,. ~
"
,"
l:~.
. r' ",
612 595 9837 P.02/05
i H~~ I! :rm I i
. L .:_
..
. .J
,-
~
~
..
~3
:e.~
1- Ei
5
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I ..,
I
I
I.
I
I ...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'~I" J
~ bJJ'~'T'..rJ:' "~':!:
t; --" I .
t!. ."
:"'III! . ":. .
I~; "
Ill,;' " '.
~
11l
~j
~~
0.2
~
~
,
i~
,
~ t,
;--
'..
I !'o
Ii! ~,
,
o
!.."
Oo.l
...
~
IIo.i
:...
"T.
i~
iO
, "J
i~
10
,::>
I~
11.0.1
Io.l
~
~
.f!: t
~ :;' tI a z
~ ~~. 'i ;;
" ~,'.:::"
e, ~ '4~ .....a
,,~ ~ Ii i~ ~
I", j; .= =It ..~
~ " or ~J ~~
~.. 11= ~ ~~:
i~ii:E~:=~l
s.!! 'WI, ,'I':....~
~'~";.; .:~ ,;w
r .. _.......M....
oJ f<i"" . ...
.!t. -.
~~..,:;
!.'l~
:;:-t~~
\I~~'.~
..:.~:'"~
,
~
I
'i.' o~
i;o~~ j~
.!,RIl. ,,~
:~ il~~i'
~ ,;,;:.""m
i! :,,~...,
..
Ci I
.. ,;
! .. p
"',r; ,:
C; ~:.! '
It ,I.".
'" ]'1; ,;
- I.
::iI =-.-..
~
Exhibit A · Preliminary Plat
- "- I
'-'i;,,~
./
.
.
.
FEB-27-1998 09:52
NFlC
Conditions of PUD Concept Approval
612 595 9837 P.03/05
Planning Commission Agenda ,3/05/98
1. Reorientiation of northeast quad unit to J" uire all driveway locations to access the
internal street.
2. Reorientation of twinhome areas to avoid ntinuous "curb cuts" of wide driveways.
Consider the combination of some of the e units into quad units if unit count is not
to be reduced.
3. Landscape front yards intensively in th twin home area to reduce the impact of
wide driveways and extensive paving.
4. Provide natural vegetation of drainage rea to avoid the urge to cut and maintain
wetland grasses. This should include a m ure of trees, shrubs, and ground covers
or grasses which can thrive in the envir nment being created there.
5. Provide a pathway connection between he cul-c:le-sac and the School Boulevard
Pathway system.
s.
Revise Preliminary Plat drawings to co espond with revised Development Stage
PUD Plan.
Exhibit B - Conditi ns of PUD Concept Approval
7~z.-
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 3/05/98
8.
c
A.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Barry Fluth, owner of the Monticello Mall, h s submitted a request for approval of a
Conditional Use Permit allowing a Planned Unit Development on the mall site. The PUD
would facilitate the demolition of the Mall, and r placement with a Cub Foods grocery store
and 8,900 square feet of leased retail space be een the Cub Foods and K-Mart buildings.
The PUD is necessary to accommodate a roject with zero lot line development _ a
property line exists between the K-Mart parce and the Mall/Cub Foods site.
The project consists of the demolition of the existing Mall, some reconstruction of the
parking lot surface and overlay of the remaind r, a new loading dock facility on the south
side of the building, a seasonal garden cente in the parking lot, and the removal of the
landscaped island which generally separates th K-Mart parking area from the Mall parking
area. Cub Foods has expressed a concern wth the total supply of parking, both on the
same parcel as their building, and near the front ntrance. The subject site and the K-Mart
. site are covered by an agreement for shared arking and access.
The design of the site provides for truck circul tion to a one half of the dock area which
requires access to the property from 7th Street a Walnut, circle around to the rear (south)
side of the building, then exit around K-Mart bac to 7th Street. The rest of the dock area
would be accessed in the opposite direction. n the east side of the building, the trucks
would be driving between rows of parking, mo t likely used by store employees.
One of the concerns of staff is the amount unbroken paving area surrounding the
project, and the objectives of the revitalizat on plan for a more pedestrian-friendly
environment. While most grocery custome s are likely to utilize automobiles, the
landscaping in the parking area is important for b th aesthetic and environmental reasons.
It is suggested that row of parking in this area be edesigned to accommodate a significant
landscaping element. This is particularly importa t on this side of the property where most
of the local views will be from Highway 25.
Also of high visibility is the truck dock area on the south side of the building. Working with
staff, the plans have been drawn to illustrate a bl ck screen wall on top of the retaining wall
adjacent to the east side of the dock. We ould further recommend a landscaping
treatment of the area behind the curb adjacen to the 1-94 ramp. Although this area is
narrow, a small planting of low shrubs would elp to screen the view of the dock area,
while retaining view of the bulk of the building nd the store's south wall signage. The
. proper plant material selection could also help t avoid erosion in this area.
8
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda, 3/05/98
At staff's suggestion, the plans have been dra n to provide a more heavily landscaped
entrance into the project from Walnut Street. Th s entrance is intended to reflect the City's
interest in developing Walnut as its principal do ntown street. Since the Cub Foods store
will form the south terminus of this street, it is i portant to pay attention to how the store
fits into that scheme. The Design Advisory Tea has made a series of recommendations
to accomplish this objective. Many of these have already been incorporated into the
design. Since the project is the direct recipi nt of City financial assistance, the CCO
language relating to OAT recommendations makes those recommendations binding,
subject to City Council reversal. The OAT reco mendations are summarized as follows:
. The main drive aisle from Walnut Stree should be lined with landscaped islands,
with no parking on the east side as sho n.
. Ornamental light poles line the main e' trance, and match those to be used on
Walnut Street.
. Add a bench to the front of the building t accommodate Heartland Express riders.
. Landscaping should reinforce the Cub S ore as an integral "focal point" at the end
of the Walnut Street vista.
.
The building should be complemented wi h a cornice detail, similar to the one used
on the Edina store viewed by the OAT embers.
The plans reflect the ornamental lighting, and extend that lighting along the front of the
building as well. The parking lot lights will be of a more standard height, but as designed,
should not interfere with the effect of the ornam ntal street lighting. The building has also
been modified from its original form to include a aised panel at the northeast corner. This
comer would be the terminus of the Walnut Stre t view. With the added cornice, the effect
of this view would be enhanced in keeping wit the goals of the Revitalization Plan.
On the main entrance area which is recomme ded for a broader island with no parking,
a reflection of the plant materials opposite the driveway, such as the Black Hills Spruce,
would help to frame the intended view. The re ainder of the landscape plan provides for
landscaping in the islands adjacent to the d iveway which parallels 7th Street. The
landscaping in this area would provide slightly more than the replacement requirements
for the island which is being removed. Th additional landscaping on the east as
suggested above would help this project co e closer to the intent of both the zoning
ordinance and the Revitalization Plan.
9
.
Planning Commission Agenda, 3/05/98
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to approve the Conditional Use ermit for a PUD to allow the Cub Foods
store and additional retail to be const cted with a zero lot line, subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit 0, based up n a finding that as amended, the project
would substantially comply with the int nt of the City's Comprehensive Plan and
Downtown Revitalization Plan.
2.
Motion to deny the Conditional Use Pe it, based upon a finding that the project
does not meet the requirements of the ity's plans and ordinances.
3.
Motion to table action on the Condi ional Use Permit, subject to additional
information.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional U Permit PUD with the conditions outlined
in this report. Although there can be little rgument that the store is only a small
modification of franchise architecture, and would be wholly inappropriate in the heart of the
City's downtown, its location at the edge of the downtown, adjacent to the freeway,
modifies the concern over architecture somewh t. The Revitalization Plan accommodates
differences such as these in its breakdown of he area by block. As a result, we believe
that the Cub Foods store would fit reasonably ell in this location.
With regard to parking supply, it should be noted that the site is relatively close to
Ordinance requirements for off-street parking fo retail establishments. However, grocery
stores commonly attempt to develop more parking than the Ordinance minimums.
Therefore, Cub is concerned about the amount f parking available, particularly near their
main entrance. We would note that while this i an issue, the aesthetic values of the site,
and the objectives of the Revitalization Plan sh uld not be abandoned merely to develop
more parking. The K-Mart side of the parking rea is currently underutilized, and should
provide adequate overflow during peak times As a result, we strongly encourage the
developer and the City to maximize the attractiveness of the project.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site and Landscaping Plan
Exhibit B - Grading Plan
Exhibit C - Building Elevations
. Exhibit 0 - Recommended Conditions of Appr val
10
~ 1hiilln !
~ ~I~fl. I I " I II I I II
_____ ~3 J -=- ~~.:.1i~:'hJ~~
.
, .
'I il
:',1"
'!,d,
,,1,1
! il I
t I ,I I I
I . I :1' I I
'I . ',1 f
! I,'
, ,I I' II '/ ~
I 'I I. I
. ! I I, h!
.l.. i :.!i H f
_ f H} ~ !~!i
i I Ill" I "dt
I I I , I. I I. r t!
I ! I ! I II I I Ii ::
t I 'I I I I' i I 'I If
I' II' I 1,1 I
! II 'II! II f Ipl
i I tr I Ii',' r: II r If
1111'" J I I II
I ; " I . I, I I I II
,j H : I i' '>I rill
I . III !!I !II. ~ ~i
j j jl . ,ll J~ ',1111
I , 'I " JI ,
i ~ ! ~l ~ ! ~!I H ~ !i !!
,!,,~~U~~J!
.".;\.\;\.~.\:.\".
, i
'; ", "
"} ,ld
rlHljil,ll
~ ~ 1, I : II!!!!
iudtJiHH
'. .
lqq!.:lid
.1.. jJriP
Ln!UH.!!
!I":I'~'D'[
II.!',I
ltji!:l 1. ,~"..__n"___._
-'-''1V\J 0-' 3:::>L1NOV\J
~[~
It 1003 NI~ 'OTl3:x1N01"1
NOli ON3"! O~
.
" L
J.r !I
II lij.
l: "I
u
z
C I
2 :
~ I
~
11
,II
el!
u.
i
,
Ii
.i
t
eIi
i.:!
I-
W
W
0::
I-
l.n
I
I-
Z
W
>
W
l.n
\l! I ~ I i I II II1111 I' Q
:i
~LJ.' ~.
~:'.""
.~'~,I
, 8
\ I ~
"~n~'
, i
I ,.
I
\
\
\
1\
I I
\
eH
W.o
I-
W
'>!:
0::":
<ton
L2
0::"
WID
0..'"
J
(J)
1-":
~~
:<-
I"!
'>C::l
II i i 'I'
I, 1'1 III! t!! I!' II!:
i I1II 1IIII111111 i II! II: I
'<t
OJ
>-
<t
3;
I
Cl
I
W
I-
<t
I-
1I1
0::
W
I-
Z
f(-!
(., ('~ , 1,1/1.\ f") 'i; !l~ '(I ~'( J I ,I i
_ _ __.. ---,..-.~..- ,- .__.n. .... l~ lJ _u._ ----.-- m_,_ :I'~.!rll:: N)l' ~~I~~i~'iI:~lIj;~.\~:~.;~;~:'t< '~i
_ ,:~l~'~:~~-=~~~~: ~==. ~_T,'~"~~~:~n;i':':l~~ (~,~;:;~~~"~~:~~~;~!~~0~ _~_ ,..,'~_< _.~.. "~. ~,
~;,~:~~~. 11"0 ~ --'-'ii~':f;;7--- ',1;'0-\1 \~:~': ~~/:~~~\~~I g~~'l~; I~~/;I~~/~ "OUT 'S918JOO'GV' f JOII 0 UtfOr
~-J
NVlJ 8NIOV!J~ nlVNlVll'mJJ ..\-
NOJ~V ~
)JO;l :-' \
V jOS31~Nlf' 'OT13JIHIOI1 I., -r \
~<J01S 5000." unJ :i: I )
..,_.. -
.
3 ~
s
"~
~
I-
l1J
:><:
"'::i
.(
. ~~
e5:s
D..
:J
VI
"'t'
\71
r
I- -<
ttl ;:
IX :.r:
I- =:li ~ lJ
I/) <", ~ I
:r: t;;~ ~ l1J
I- "'.. I-
Z -<
w I-
> I/)
w Pi:
I/) w
I-
6
~::ill
<R~
'i:H
~..t::
.
I
j
I
~tttttttH+tttt11 ~H+tt11tttttHtttt11++tt ~
\III i I1I1111111111 ~
g,z...,
.' . I
_.- -- D~
V-l 3NNI~ '0T13~
-'-'V'l^l 0 i -'. 38U.NOl^l :
V^ON311 03SOdOl,kJ
F II "
I .1 "
: ': ,Iii ~ I
r ·
'~
i ,
'~.
.-
.--.-
f_ __ __ I~ ~I- -'; ,
I] II, I
I II'd,1
' 0
-]
1
. , i
- --- ,
I
"",.. .~-
--1- -..-
t-=-----
_n__.. ____
l=
~ ~-
il1
~
~
~ I I
~
! = .- --- , ~
II -- I-
i
.
i
i ~
, , f
L,- I
I
---
Jj .---
i --- .-..
.- -----
.__u.
-- ---
.-- ---
-.--.- ----
H -
I
~
, ,I
.. C\J 0;1
t':'~ ~
~S (L
r"'3
.
.
.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Cub Foods/Barry Fluth Conditional Use Pe
Planning Commission Agenda. 3/05/98
it PUD
1. Revised Landscaping Plan reflecting th following changes:
a. Additional landscaped island al ng the parking area edge, east of the
building and adjacent to the liCK" lot.
b. Additional landscaping along the south boundary screening the dock area
from view of the freeway ramp. Low shrubs should be considered which
retain the view of the building its If.
c. Amendment to the plan reflectin a mirroring of materials in the expanded
island along the main entrance d iveway as suggested by the OAT.
2. Incorporation of the OAT recommend tions as listed in the OAT minutes of
February 12, and summarized in this re ort.
Exhibit D ... Recomm
nded Conditions of Approval J I
~~T
.
.
.
9.
A.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/5/98
II
Planning Commission is asked to revi w the Eastwood Knoll 2nd Addition,
which includes replatting of the origi al Meadow Oak Estates, Lots 1,2,
and 3, Block 2. This requested action is essentially a housekeeping matter
stemming from development of the E stwood Knoll subdivision a few years
ago. With development of the Eastwo d Knoll preliminary plat, it has always
been anticipated to realign property li es at the entrance to the Eastwood
Knoll plat in a manner that would all w development oflots on both sides of
the Eastwood Knoll Lane entering th Eastwood Knoll subdivision.
Essentially, the proposed plat takes p rtions of Outlot C, Outlot A, and
remnants from Lots 1,2, and 3 to cre te three new residential lots that meet
minimum standards, along with provi ing formalization of the roadway
connecting Meadow Oak Avenue to th subdivision.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the prelimin ry and final plat of the Eastwood
Knoll 2nd Addition subdivision
2. Motion to deny approval of the astwood Knoll 2nd Addition
subdivision.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This is essentially a housekeeping ma ter. The design is consistent with the
approved plan for the Eastwood Knoll subdivision. The lots created will meet
minimum standards and provide the pportunity for development of these
lots for new homes.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Eastwood Knoll 2nd Addition lat information.
11
.
.
.
'"
EAS_
!
OOD
KNOZJL
~'3ECO
D ADDITIO.N
",....~ .;..;.=~:- ~:~:.~ ~,'. ~~!:'-. "'....1
; 2: ~G ~; ~~:
//
, 10 '
/'Jt,._/~/,
,.; ~,)"./' ;g
/' ,/ ,
, \
,..// /' '
\ - ("~
\ -... '("
.,.- [\ ,-",
C - \ r-\
,," ) \ \
y ....
\/.; \
S~.:.:;.! : ;N;."'!. ,,= ~;r-
~.~,' ,- -:~
. J-=:;Jr..' ~:;;,.,,:.I~....- ::;I,;.~
o ~/2 !/I,":k+ ,yo :,( /-\';... ~-~;;,; w:;:I\._''''~'J~ S~;r
..Hie ."'':':;;;.L-~~ 9"" _:;:E'-.'=~ .....; :~,;~!
--
~
~
!'v1EADO~Av'
--
,../
---
-
-- ....- --
--
--
-'
-'
- -----
'7
,.1
~
~
-~----+--- --
/,../
\
! ~....... I A I
fv1E:i~ L)() VV
! ')
c.
3
i
~
;--
/
(N 8.4.52.00; E
1,-"-
'" ' ,
I
I
I
,
I
.~-
--
\
\
-
-
--
. ,
<).
.!-')~
....
."'~
.."
O!:.
--
r
--
-,
.)
(~)I 1-;-: (1 i
'-' I .......
,.
r-
1"
72:
("1
2
--
- 81."27'1.9" I'!
I
I
I
I
j----
I
~-/1
L_ r-l
C" -r- 1 II I -.. ........ ~
,),' V V ( ) ( ) I )
.& "'-'" - t....-
r)
L
~-- /\JI () / /
I \ I "-' L_ L_
:'3
"\
!JE~ MJt:NT~rlON!
~~~~:~~r;~.ta;;:rt;~~='E~~
Itt/1'rIIJTE3 1-4 Se~aNO$ CIJ.ST.
~. .-,...
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/05/98
10.
Monticello. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City's Comprehensive Plan includes land se planning for areas south and west of the
current City boundaries. As you may recall, significant concept of the Comprehensive
Plan is to direct future growth to the south and est of the City by investing in infrastructure
improvements which would serve growth in tha direction rather than to the east. Over the
past several months, staff has conducted a mo e detailed study of the issues which would
affect land use patterns in that area, including transportation, utility corridors, physical lay
of the land, existing land uses, and Goals an Policies from the current Plan. A concept
land use plan was developed with these issue in mind, and which has been discussed at
staff level, with other City organizations, and t a public open house.
The purpose of the plan amendment is to all w the City to plan for both long- and short-
term infrastructure improvements which would' e needed to serve the area. Although the
plan would have no legal effect as things now tand, a component of the proposed Orderly
Annexation Area agreement with Monticello ownship would include the adoption of the
City's land use plan in the revised OAA. As result, the City's Comprehensive Plan and
its component "SouthlWest Area Plan" would form the basis for any land use decision in
the OAA, preserving the various properties r the City's long-term intended use. This
OAA agreement has been tentatively approv d by both parties as of this date.
Since the OAA agreement in not in final for ,there is still a slight possibility that some
event could interfere with final approval. In th event the agreement failed to be finalized,
the land Use Plan for the area is still important for the City. It could serve as the basis for
the City's request of the OAA Board for an mendment to its land use plan, Even as
information for that Board, and the Board's ad inistrator (County Planner Tom Salkowski),
the land Use Plan would provide important g idance for land use decisions in the extra-
territorial areas adjacent to the City. Finally, it n provide direction for future development
of land in those areas when land owners are seeking annexation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as
proposed in the "SouthlWest Area Pia ".
2. Motion to defer amendment of the omprehensive Plan at this time, pending
additional discussion and/or informati n.
12
.
.
.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 3/05/98
Staff recommends approval of the Compreh nsive Plan amendment for the South and
West growth areas. We believe that this pia best reflects the policies and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan, and City's future g owth. The plan permits the City to grow in
a manageable fashion, and allows for the logi I, incremental extensions of infrastructure
to accommodate the natural growth and de elopment of the community. Moreover, it
provides clear guidance for development p oposals in the extra-territorial area. This
guidance is important both to direct land use in areas scheduled for future annexation, and
to direct development proposals from land 0 ners seeking annexation to the City.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - SouthlWest Area Land Use Plan
191.06-97.19
13
.
.
.
SOUTH/WEST AREA
LAND USE PLAN
BACKGROUND
The City's 1996 Comprehensive Plan
includes a land use plan which reflects the
various goals and policies of the City.
Included in the land use plan element is a
specific plan and discussion of the City's
southwest area (within orderly annexation
area).
The southwest area of Monticello overlays
that portion of the City lying south of
Interstate 94 and west of TH 2S. Generally
speaking, the area is characterized by
farmlands and wetlands. Some pockets of
rural residential development have been
established, particularly to the west. As
noted in the Comprehensive Plan,
incremental growth in this area is encouraged
both for financial and social reasons.
This amendment to the City's Comprehensive
Plan is intended to build on the foundation
established in the 1996 Plan. The plan
amendment itself identifies conceptual street
layouts, including westerly extensions of
Chelsea Road and School Boulevard. While
the Comprehensive Plan provides generalized
street and land use depictions, a refinement
of the plan taking into account more detailed
information (Le., wetland boundaries, power
line locations, soil conditions, etc.) is
necessary to achieve eventual plan
implementation.
SouthlWest Area Land Use Plan Page 1
LAND USE PLAN
Design Parameters. A variety of area
features serve to influence the street and land
use depicted upon the refined southwest area
land use plan. These include Interstate 94
visibility and accessibility, existing and
planned interchange locations (accessibility),
existing land uses, property lines, and street
patterns, wetland and drainageway locations
and finally overhead power line routes.
Street System. As shown on the land use
plan, a major collector street has been
proposed which would parallel Interstate 94.
The street also follows an existing overhead
power line route. The collector street would
serve to link a future interchange at County
Road 7S (120th Street) with the existing
interchange at Highway 2S and would
provide connection to existing Chelsea Road.
In addition to the Chelsea Road extension, a
westerly extension of School Boulevard has
also been proposed. This extension would
link 90th Street and Highway 2S.
The land use plan makes note of a future
interchange at County Road 7S (12Oth Street)
and Interstate 94. It is envisioned that the
interchange would be utilized by the majority
truck traffic associated industrial uses in the
vicinity.
Monticello Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1998
10 --I
.
LAND USE
Low Density Residential. As shown on the
attached land use plan, a substantial portion
of the study area is shown as low density
residential use. It is anticipated that single
family growth in this area will be comprised
of residents who have few natural ties to the
community. The area's street system (and
arrangement of land uses) is such that area
residents will be "funneled" into
Monticello's commercial areas by virtue of
their routine use of Highway 25 and/or
County Road 39.
.
To the extent possible, low density
residential uses have been located or oriented
such that the incompatibilities with higher
intensity uses will be minimized.
Specifically, features such as wetlands,
power lines and transitional uses have been
used to mitigate adverse impacts. The
majority of the lands south of the current
City boundaries (generally the north halves
of Sections 22,23, and 24) are programmed
for low density residential land use. It is
expected that this will consist of single
family development, with a possibility of
limited twin-home or low-density townhome
development mixed in.
Mid-Density Residential. In addition to low
density residential uses, mid-density
residential uses have been proposed within
the study area. Specifically, these uses are
proposed along the School Boulevard
extension east of 90th Street. Mid density
residential uses overlay approximately 90
acres of land and are expected to have
densities of generally 4 to 8 dwelling units
per acre. This translates into over 500
.
SouthlWest Area Land Use Plan Page 2
medium density units within the study area.
Commercial. As shown on the land use
plan, commercial development has been
proposed directly south of Interstate 94 and
west of Highway 25. This use designation is
intended to reinforce Highway 25 as a
commercial service corridor of the
community and supplement the downtown
commercial area. It should be noted that
immediate "infilling" of the 173 acres of
commercially designated lands is not
anticipated. In fact, it is the intent of the
plan to designate "long term" locations for
commercial development and confine such
uses to the Interstate 94/Highway 25
interchange area, and the Highway 25
corridor south of the Interstate.
There has been some discussion of extending
commercial uses to the west along the
freeway frontage. However, this plan
attempts to follow the direction of the 1996
Comprehensive Plan in preserving
commercial land for the development of
locally oriented retail and service uses as
opposed to highway oriented commerce.
Too many of the highway oriented uses
would compete with downtown revitalization
efforts, particularly in the areas of food and
lodging. As a result, the commercial areas
shown are intended to encourage a long term
supply of general/regional business locations.
Industrial. The industrial land use
designations shown on the land use plan are
intended to take advantage of visibility
associated with the interstate corridor and
coincide with the future construction of a
west Monticello interchange at 1-94 and
Monticello Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1998
10--2...-
.
County Road 75/Orchard Road. Industrial
uses have purposely been guided in the
northern portion of the study area to avoid
the interspersement of industrial truck traffic
with residential/commercial traffic at the 1-
94/Highway 25 interchange area. In total,
the land use plan designates approximately
310 acres of land as industrial use.
.
An area of industrial land use is planned for
the freeway frontage just west of 90th Street
along the westerly extension of Chelsea
Road. This area would be quickly accessible
due to the location of streets and utilities.
Until the street connections and the Orchard
Road interchange are completed, this area
would add industrial traffic to the I-94rrH 25
area. It is anticipated that the improvements
along TH 25, and the signal at Chelsea Road,
will help to manage the impacts of this traffic
until the west interchange is a reality.
Public/Semi-Public. The land use plan
illustrates a large area of park and open space
between 90th Street and Highway 25. Of the
approximately 100 acres, about 60 acres is
wetland. Aside from the obvious active
(Le., ball fields) and passive (walking trails)
recreational opportunities offered by the
park, the use is intended to serve as a
unifying element for abutting low density
residential, mid-density residential and
commercial land uses.
The park has been located such to provide a
visual connection from Highway 25, a
transition from uses of differing intensity,
and finally to provide direct active
recreational opportunities to abutting
residential uses. It is anticipated that the
more active spaces will be able to utilize
.
South/West Area Land Use Plan Page 3
power line corridor as parking area, with
athletic fields flanking the parking. The
more passive areas would be located around
the ponds and wetlands, with pathway
connections to the Chelsea Road and School
Boulevard areas.
Also to be noted is the existing Cemetery
located along 90th Street and the proposed
Chelsea Road extension. The cemetery's
proximity to adjacent low density residential,
commercial and industrial uses allows it to
serve as a highly visible "green area" (due to
street corner location) which will provide
visual relief to the area.
MonticeUo Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1998
10 -- .3
.
.
.
11.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/5/98
A
Planning Commission is asked to call or a public hearing on ordinance
language that would provide special c nsideration to billboards when
destroyed more than 50% of their val e. Under our current city code, all non-
conforming signs, when destroyed mo e than 50% of their value, cannot be
rebuilt. However, as it pertains to bil oards, it appears that there are state
statutes that override the City's abilit to deny reconstruction of the
billboards without compensating the illboard companies. Therefore, the
purpose of this ordinance is to provid special consideration for billboard
reconstruction without hampering ou ability to restrict reconstruction of
other non-conforming signs.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to call for a public hea 'ng on regulations governing billboard
re-establishment after damage of more than 50% of sign replacement
cost,
2. Motion to deny calling for a pu lie hearing on regulations governing
billboard re-establishment afte damage of more than 50% of sign
replacement cost.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance.
14
.
.
.
OLSON, USSET & WEI GARDEN P.L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS A
PAUL A. WEINGARDEN*
DAVID J. USSET
THOMAS B. OLSON**
DENNIS E. DALEN
"MSBA CERTIFIED REAL PROPERTY SPECIAUST
""MSBA CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL SPECIALIST
SUITE 30
4500 PARK GLE ROAD
MINNEAPOLIS, N 55416
TELEPHONE (612 925-3644
FAX (612)925 5879
OUR FILE No.7 97 5 (113)
February 1 , 1998
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362-0245
Re: Billboard Ordinance
Dear Jeff:
LEGAL ASSISTANTS
SHIRLEE ALLEN
DEBRA BAKIO:
KlM FORTIN
KELLY OLSON
BONNIE TRONNES
ROCKFORD OIil"lCE
TELEPHONE (612)477-5010
Enclosed please find the amendment to the "Billboard
Ordinance" which I discussed with t e City Council when the Whiteco
building permits were authorized. please let me know if you also
want me to draft a resolution to g along with his.
DED:sa
Enclosure
E. Dalen
11---1
.
.
.
CITY OF MO ICELLO
ORDINANCE NO
The City Council of the City of Monticello does hereby ordain:
SECTION I. The Monticello
9: [D]2. (e) is hereby amended to rea
Zoning Ordinance
as follows:
Section
3-
Reestablished after dama e of more than 50% of sign
replacement cost except t bring into compliance; except
that advertising devices, as that term is defined in
Minnesota Statutes Secti n 173.02, may be reestablished
after damage of more tha 50% of sign replacement cost
unless the City acquire all rights in the property
pursuant to Minnesota St tutes 173.17(4).
SECTION II. Effective Date. This rdinance shall be effective on
publication.
Dated this ____ day of
Attest:
City Clerk
, 1998.
\
William Fair, Mayor
/1-2-