Planning Commission Agenda 05-05-1998
.
.
.
Members:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Dick M tie, Rod Dragsten, Robbie Smith
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes ofthe regular meeting eld April 7, 1998.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Continuation of Public Hearing - Considerat on of a conditional use permit allowing open
sales as an accessory use in the B-4, Region 1 Business District. Location: 101 West
Broadway, Lot 9 & 10, Block 52, Original lat. Applicant, Scott Rolfe, Skippers Pools
and Spas.
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a zoning' mendment from Agricultural to R-PUD
(Residential Planned Unit Development) an a request for concept stage approval for a
Preliminary Plat application. Location: NW 1/4 of NW 114 of Section 19. Applicant:
Darrel A. Farr Development Corporatio ildwood Ridge.
7. Public Hearing - Simple subdivision, Locati n: Lot 14, Block 1, Hillcrest 2nd Addition.
Applicant, Daryl Tindle.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a zoning p amendment from Agricultural to PS
(Public/Semi Public Use) and consideration of a conditional use permit within the PS
Zoning District to allow a church facility. ocation: The SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 Section 13.
Applicant: United Methodist Church.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration for a condit onal use permit allowing a concept plan for a
PUD in a PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) zone. Location: North of proposed 7th Street
alignment between Minnesota, Elm. Appli ant: Star City Builders, Inc.
10. Public Hearing - Consideration for a preli . ary plat and a conditional use permit for a R-
PUD in an R-2 (single and two family resid ntial) zone. Location: Lot 7,8,9, and 10,
Block 8, Original Plat. Applicant: Michael Cyr d.b.a. Front Porch Association.
11.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a zoning text amendment in the 1-1 (Light Industrial)
zoning district to allow a go-cart track as conditional use. Location: Lot 1, Block 1,
Oakwood Industrial Park. Applicant: Rus and Paula Adamski d.b.a. Monticello Roller
Rink.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/05/98
Public Hearing - Consideration of an amend nt to the City Zoning Code providing for
seasonal open sales in the PZ (Performance one) and in the Bl, B2, B3, B4 (Business
District Zone). Applicant, City of Monticell .
12.
13. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration 0 a request for a Preliminary Plat for River Mill
4th Addition. Location: Outlot B, River M' 4th Addition. Applicant: Residential
Development, Inc.
14. Continuation of 04/07/98 Meeting - Conside ation of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for the South and West growth areas adjace t to the City of Monticello. Applicant: City
of Monticello
15. Consideration to adopt a resolution finding t at the modification of the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment oject No.1 and the TIF Plan for TIF
District No. 1-23 conform with the general lans for the development and redevelopment
of the city.
16. Updates:
-MCP, Rod Dragsten
17.
Adjournment.
.
.
.
MINUT S
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICEL 0 PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, Ape" 7, 1998
Members Present:
Council Liaison:
Staff Present:
Dick Frie, Dick Martie and R d Dragsten
1. Call to order.
Chairman Dick Frie called the meeting to or er at 7:00 p.m..
2.
AFfER DISCUSSION A MOTION WAS ADE BY DICK MARTIE AND
SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO A PROVE MEETING MINUTES AS
PRESENTED.
Motion passed unanimously.
3.
There were no added items to the agenda.
4.
Citizen comments.
There were no citizen comments.
MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE A D SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE TO
TABLE REVIEW OF THE SOUTHWEST EA STUDY PENDING ADDITIONAL
INPUT FROM THE CITY PLANNER AN THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE.
Motion passed unanimously.
5.
Steve Grittman outlined the principles behin establishment of the CCD district as it
relates to the Comprehensive plan. It is a to I to implement the downtown redevelopment
plan. Grittman reviewed the district bound ies in relationship to the recently adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
C:\SANDY\WORIJ\MINUfES\04~07 -98.WPD
Page 1
.
.
.
PLA NINO COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Dick Frie opened the pubic hearing.
Kimberly Rice and Dick Rice, residents on ront Street, were concerned that the rezoning
would expose residents to commercial deve opment which they opposed.
Jeff O'Neill asked the Planner to explain ho commercial uses are regulated. Grittman
noted that commercial uses are allowed by onditional use permit. Commercial uses and
associated site plans must be designed to be compatible with residential. Steve Grittman
also noted that single family uses are allow d in the district.
Commissioner Dragsten asked, "Can home wners make improvements or additions?"
Grittman indicated residential uses are allo ed by conditional use permit which does
provide the opportunity for residents to e improvements.
There was discussion about a time frame fo redevelopment. O'Neill noted that
redevelopment is a long term process that y not be completed for many years.
Mrs. Rice wanted to know the advantage fo the people of Monticello? Dick Fried stated
that a vibrant downtown is important to ma' taining a healthy community. Providing a
downtown that is not a Hennepin Avenue, b t is a desirable place to corne and shop, is
very important to the community. Broadwa , at one time, was a downtown, now it is a
dead zone. The MCP has been working on ays to revitalize and redevelop the
community.
There being no further discussion, the publi hearing was closed.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS ADE BY DICK MARTIE TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZO ING MAP AS PROPOSED. MOTION
SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN.
(Later in the meeting, the map was modified via removal of hotel site from CCD District)
Motion based on finding that the rezoning i consistent with the Comprehensive plan.
Motion passed unanimously.
6.
Steve Grittman reported on the request as ti llows:
The Church of St. Henry has acquired prope ty within the City of Monticello currently
C:\'5ANDY\WORIJ'MINUTEOO4-07 -98.WPD
Page 2
.
.
.
PLA NING COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
zoned Public/Semi-Public(P/SP). The City f Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires
church facility uses by conditional use per t in an P/SP district. In his review he noted
that the site plan is consistent with the ord' ance in terms of meeting the defmition of a
church, setbacks. The site meets standards or parking minimums however parking and
drive area dimensions need to be clarified.
The site plan indicates that the aforementio ed requirements have been met. However,
dimensioning of these requirements is neede for future reference. Note also that the plan
produced by Taylor Land Surveyors conta' s a scale that does not correspond with the
featured plan. Also note that the scale, 1" = 80', submitted by the architects, is not a
standard scale. A site plan should be submi ted which corresponds to a standard
engineering scale for future evaluation.
Church use parking requires that there be at least one parking space for each four seats
based on the design capacity of the main ass mbly hall (Section 3/33, subd. (8). While a
parking configuration is shown on the plan, taff did not receive a plan exhibiting the
number of seats that would be designed into the proposed church. Based on the plan
submitted, a total of approximately 420 par . g spaces have been provided. This would
accommodate an assembly size seating appr ximately 1,680 persons. The building
inspector should verify this number based u on building capacity.
Staff received no plans illustrating the propo'ed landscaping for the site as outlined in the
Zoning Ordinance section 3/8, subd. (2). Th's plan will be primarily for ornamental and
erosion control purposes. However, it shou d be submitted for City review to verify
appropriate ground cover and planting of th areas disturbed during construction of the
facility.
Along with this development, the City reque ts the dedication of a R.O.W. for the future
extension and realignment of 7th Street and he future linking of Fallon A venue to 7th
Street by bridging Interstate #94. A tempor y road connecting the existing 7th street to
the proposed church is proposed as an acces substitute until the construction of the future
7th Street and Fallon Avenue.
The proposed layout of the Church and the lignment of future streets require a plat of the
property. Properties which are not immedia ly used by the Church may be subdivided
into separate lots and outlots for future use.
While the current alignment of streets adjace t to the site does not substantially change
existing adjacent land uses, the future align nt of these Streets will segregate portions of
the Church property from the larger whole. he future alignment of 7th Street requires
the elimination of park property which abuts the westernmost boundary of the Church
property.
C:\'lANDY\WORUWfINlITES'{)4-07 -98.WPD
Page 3
.
PL NING COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
With the proposed future alignments of 7th Street and Fallon Avenue, it may be
advantageous to consider using the Church roperty (southwest corner) segregated from
the larger parcel by the proposed alignment to replace the park property that would be
consumed by the realignment of 7th Street.
With the realignment of 7th Street and the xtension of Fallon Avenue complete, the
temporary Church access road could be vac ted, leaving the southwest corner of the
Church property open for possible park use However, the existing park would not
necessarily be abandoned until 7th Street is onstructed. Therefore, there should be only a
short period during which park facilities are not available in the area.
It should be noted that related facilities are utlined on the site plan. The future building is
proposed to be an assisted living senior res} entia! project. The designers of the Church
have placed it on the plan for the purposes f future planning. However, they have
indicated that this facility will be a future de elopment on the property by others, and are
not requesting approval of that project at t s time.
.
Grittman noted staff reconunendation to ap rove the request for CUP if the conditions
meet the intent of the City of Monticello C mprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This
reconunendation is based upon staffs view hat the required revisions to the plans are
primarily minor in nature, and will not alter he basic layout of the project.
Rod Dragsten asked if the church is aware . f the conditions noted in the Planner's report?
Dick Frie outlined the conditions and also a ked if the architect is aware of the
requirements listed in the CUP. John Olsen indicated an awareness of the conditions. He
went on to state that a letter of intent is in p ce to build 120 units of senior housing on
the site; 60 units independent and 60 units a sisted living. They anticipate that they will
begin construction in the fourth quarter oft is year.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE TO
APPROVE THE CUP BASED ON THE NDING THAT THE PROPOSED LAND
USE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE C TY OF MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE WITH ONDITIONS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A.
M
Motion passed unanimously.
7. P
Steve Grittman provided a review of the pr liminary plat as follows:
.
C;\SANDY\WORIM1INUTES'04-07 -98.WPD
Page
.
.
.
PL .NNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
The Shermer site is approximately 33.6 acr s of rolling terrain, primarily comprised of
fallow agricultural fields and remnant woo s on the northeastern boundary. According to
the survey, there are two wetlands on the s te. The site is triangular in shape, bordered on
the NE by interstate #94 and the Rail Road on the south by a power line easement and on
the west by Meadow Oaks 2nd Addition.
Currently the site is outside of City limits. owever, in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan, the site will be held t Single Family Residential Standards (R-l) for
the purpose of preliminary plan review. An exation may be proposed pursuant to the
submittal of the final plat.
The power line easement which straddles t e southern boundary of the site should be more
clearly defined on the site plan. Flood elev tions of the wetland on the site must be
included on the grading and drainage plan ( hapter 4, p. 2, subd. (B) #6 in the City
Subdivision Ordinance).
The project consists of 66 single family lots The minimum lot size requirement of 12,000
square feet (Section 3/22, Subd. A of the Cty Subdivision Ordinance) has been met in the
proposed development plan. Lots that are I cated on a curve must have the width of the
lot at the building setback line clearly denot d (Chapter 4, p.2, subd, @ #5) in the
Subdivision Ordinance).
Blocks one (1) and three(3) slightly exceed he 1320 foot maximum block length allowed
for an R-l district (Chapter 5, p.1, subd, (A B) in the City Subdivision Ordinance).
However, it may not be necessary to correc this as the layout of the subdivision logically
delineates the location of the Blocks. The' pact of a Blocks slightly over 1320 feet in
this design are negligible.
The average lot size of 17,778 square feet i consistent with the abutting property to the
west. The proposed development sites four een (14) lots against its western boundary,
whereas the abutting property currently site (16) lots against the same boundary.
Fourteen (14) lots are proposed to abut the southern property against the existing four (4)
properties. These densities correspond wit proposed land uses outlined in the
comprehensive plan.
Proposals to develop this site have been ma e to the City previously. Since the initial
proposal, several additional suggestions/ch ges have been made.
The suggestion which proposed the connec 'on of the two easternmost culdesacs with a
road running NW to SE was deemed an inti rior alternative to the proposed culdesac
version. The current proposal to culdesac t e central east-west road avoids aligning the
road over compromising grades and conser es a greater amount of existing vegetation.
C:\SANDY\WORIJ\MINUTES'04-07 -98. WPD
Page 5
.
.
.
PLA NINO COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
The request to include street sidewalks in t e subdivision has been waived by the City in
favor of a pathway system on the southern oundary of the property in the power line
easement and along the western boundary f the property. Staff feels that these
independent pathways will serve pedestrian traffic as well as roadside sidewalks in the case
of this proposed development.
The proposed plat would cut through an e sting park area from Meadow Oak Drive. The
developer has proposed replacing this parkea with a new park adjacent to Lot 1, Block
2. That park area has adequate space to ac ommodate some smaller hard-court
recreation, including tennis and basketball. he plan would rely on Meadow Oak Park to
the west as the primary open space area. A a replacement park area, the new proposed
park would not offset the development's p k dedication requirements. Proximity to
Meadow Oak Park should be adequate to' pose a park dedication fee in lieu of land on
this plat.
The pathways constructed on the south and west sides of the property:
.should be contained within a public R.O.W at least 20 feet wide.
-are constructed such that they con ct to existing pedestrian corridors and open
spaces or logically align with future djacent pedestrian corridors or open spaces.
(See Exhibit illustrating the Plat)
-are accessed periodically by easements between lots so that the access points to
the trails are not limited to the extre ends of the property. The pathway access
in the proposed development which urrently sits between lots six (6) and seven
(7) of block one (1) is one such acce s point. However, the access may
accommodate pedestrian movement ore effectively if it were aligned with the
existing easement between lots one (1) and eleven (11) in block two (2) of
Meadow Oak 2nd Addition. In add tion, a pathway connection from the end of
the cul-de-sac between lots 16 and 1 of block two should be added to the south
street.
Proposed locations of storm water detentio retention basins will sacrifice an excessive
amount of vegetation. Alternate sites and c eative design solutions for storm water
detention/retention should be conceived to urtail the excess loss of existing vegetation.
A survey of all significant trees should be pe formed to be added with the project
proposal. Staff recommends that every exist g tree six (6) inches caliper size or greater
that is removed from the site be replaced so ewhere on the site with a native and
indigenous tree no less than 2.5" caliper for eciduous trees and no less than 6' for
coniferous trees. This replanting should be companied by a detailed landscape plan
following the requirement outlined in sectio 3 of the City of Monticello Zoning
C;\SANDY\WORI1'MINUTES'()4-07 -98. WPD
6
.
PL NNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Ordinance. The I to I tree planting requir ment is in addition to the requirement set for
individual property owners within the subd vision. The standard landscaping requirements
can be found in section 3 of the City of Mo ticello Zoning Ordinance.
Dick Frie opened the public hearing. John ohnson engineer representing Harold
Schermer stated that he had few questions, no problems with the park trail and corridor.
They will inventory the trees. Ponding are s are located where there are poor trees
anyway.
Scott Douglas noted that the fewer culdesa s you have, the better off you are. The
engineer noted that the culdesacs were nee ssary due to he steep grade between blocks
making it difficult to connect streets.
La V onne Olson asked if all of the traffic wi be coming through.
Brian Lambert asked about the connection t the south. There was discussion about the
land being in the orderly annexation area w ich will limit its long term potential for
development. O'Neill noted that the land t the south is in the Orderly Annexation Area.
.
A resident asked what kind of homes will b built. Harold Schermer noted that the homes
will be comparable to those in the neighbor ood. These homes will not be starter homes.
The lots have too much natural amenity to a ow for only starter homes.
The park area was discussed. O'Neill noted that the plan has been reviewed by the Parks
Commission. The intent is to increase the p k area to allow for basketball, volley ball,
and other improvements. The developer w' provide the land and grade the park area.
A resident asked about where the water in t e swamp behind his house will go. Johnson
noted that we are not intending to drain the wamp or increase water running into the
swamp.
B. Harper, who lives in the house that faces he property, indicated that he was not happy
about it the proposed project.
Rod Dragsten asked how we were going to eep track of trees. John Johnson indicated
the grading affected by the road and the tree in the building pads are not hard to keep
track of. Also noted was that the areas that e graded will not be taking out trees of
significance. He had no problem conforming to the tree preservation requirement.
Public hearing was closed.
AFfER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS ADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND
SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE TO APP OVE PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON
THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED L ND USE, WITH CONDITIONS, IS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY COMPR HENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND THE
.
7
.
.
.
CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. THE CO DITIONS TO THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT
ARE ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT A AN APPROVED BASED ON THE
RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANN R AND CONTINGENT ON THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
-The power line easement on the so them boundary of the proposed development
must be more clearly annotated on t e site plan.
-Flood elevation(s) must be added t the wetland(s) on the site.
-Lot sizes below the minimum of 12 000 square feet must be brought up to
standard.
-Lots that are located on a curve m st have the width of the lot at the building
setback line clearly denoted.
.A logical system of pedestrian corr" ors be designed and clearly outlined on the
site plan. Easements should be alig d to increase the efficiency of this system
whenever possible.
· Storm water retention/detention ba ins must be located such that excess losses of
existing woody vegetation are .. . ed.
-A detailed vegetation plan illustraf g the location and species of trees to be
removed and the location and specie of the replacement trees must be conceived.
8.
P
A .. n Pr .. PI'
Residential Development. Inc.
City Planner Steve Grittman reviewed the p
Residential Development, Inc, has requested preliminary plat approval of a 27 lot single
family residential development titled River ill 4th Addition. The proposed subdivision
overlays a 14.51 acre parcel south of Count Road 39 and north ofInterstate 94 currently
platted as Outlot B of River Mill3rd Additi n. The subject parcel is zoned R-l, Single
Family Residential.
Streets
Layout. The proposed street layout is gener lly acceptable. One issue is the intersection
of Mill Trail Drive and Mill Trail Lane. The applicant is proposing to replat River Mill3rd
Addition to change Mill Trail Lane/Mill Tra" Drive from a loop street and make Mill Trail
lane extend as a through street across the Ri er Mill 4th Addition (Exhibit C). Mill Trail
Drive would intersect at a "T" with Mill Tr Lane. The proposed street layout results in
a non-linear alignment of Mill Trail Lane. Saff recommends that the original layout of
Mill Trail Lane/Mill Trail Drive within River Mill 3rd Addition be maintained and that Mill
Trail Lane be extended to River Mill 4th Ad ition from a 90 degree intersection between
8
.
PLA NINO COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Lot 5, Block 4 of River Mill 3rd Addition an Lot 6, Block 2 of River Mill 4th Addition.
Half Street. The applicant is proposing to pI t a half street 30 foot right-of-way on the
east edge of the subject plat. The proposed aIf street provides access to Lots 13-17 of
Block 2. The right-of-way for the other half of the street would not be dedicated until
such time as the property to the east is subdi ided and developed. As only 30 feet of
right-of-way is available, a public street desi ned to City standards cannot be provided.
Staff recommends that the proposed half rig t-of-way be platted as an outlot and Lots 13-
17, Block 2 also be platted as a second outlo as access cannot be provided at this time.
At such time as the property to the east of t 's plat is subdivided and developed, the east
half of the public right-of-way will be requir d to be dedicated and a public street
constructed. The outlot area of proposed L ts 13-17, Block 2 could then be subdivided
and developed.
The construction of this future street would e dependent upon the cooperation of two
separate owners. If for whatever reason, the property owners cannot work together to
construct the street, the City may be compe d to undertake a public improvement and
assess adjacent property owners to complete the street.
.
Ri&ht-of-way. As required by Ordinance, th proper right-of-way width of 60 feet has
been provided, except as discussed above.
Access. Access into the proposed subdivisi n will be via Mill Trail Lane to River Mill
Drive, which connects to Riverview Drive/C unty Highway 39. It is anticipated that there
will be a future secondary access to County oad 39 to the east as adjacent parcels are
developed.
Blocks. Section 11-5-1 (A) of the Subdivisi n Ordinance establishes a maximum block
length of 1,320 feet. The proposed subdivis on layout conforms with this requirement.
The Subdivision Ordinance also suggests lot widths sufficient to accommodate two tiers
of lots. The proposed blocks conform with his provision as well.
Lots. The lots of River Mill 4th Addition a conform to the minimum lot area and lot
width requirements of the R -1 District:
Lot Area 12,00 square feet
Lot Width: 80 fee
.
Further, all of the proposed lots demonstrat sufficient building area in consideration of R-
1 District setback requirements:
Front Yard 30 fee
Side Yard (Interior) 10 fee
(Street) 20 fee
Rear Yard 30 fee
9
.
PL NING COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Parks Dedication. Section 11-6-1 of the ubdivision requires a minimum 10% area of
the gross final plat be dedicated to the City or development of parks, open space and
trails. The applicant is proposing to dedicat 3.78 acres (26.51 % of gross area)
designated as Outlot A on the plat to the Ci y. Park dedication requirements for this
development have already been satisfied. A such, the dedication of Outlot A is over and
above dedication requirements. Acceptanc of the dedication of Outlot A requires
approval of the City Council.
Sidewalks/Pathways. Section 11-7-2 (H) fthe Subdivision Ordinance stipulates that the
City Council may require standard design si ewalks. Outlot A abuts a significantly sized
park to the northwest and is adjacent to M' Trail Lane. As access to the park is available
across Outlot A, no additional pathways are anticipated to be necessary.
Screening. Proposed Outlot A separates th residential lots from the adjacent Interstate
94 off-ramp and right-of-way. Plans submit ed by the applicant indicate vegetative cover
over the majority of the outlot. This vegeta ion will provide valuable buffer between
residential areas and noise impacts of the Int rstate.
Grading and Drainage. As required by Se tion 11-4-1, the applicant has submitted a
grading plan for review (Exhibit F). The pr posed grading plan does not include erosion
control measures, which will be required as art of a [mal grading plan. All grading,
drainage and erosion control plans will be su ~ect to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
.
Utility Plans. The applicant has submitted reliminary utility plans in accordance with
Section 11-4-1 ofthe Subdivision Ordinance (Exhibit D). These plans will be subject to
review and approval of the City Engineer. e City Engineer should also provide
recommendation as to the need for easement to be included as part of the final plat.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that t e property owner to the East (Rod Norrel)
has provided a written objection to the plat s proposed. He does not want to be required
to dedicate a portion of his property toward evelopment of a street on the west side of
his property. Bob Murray explained that the shared road arrangement proposed is the
most efficient method for setting up the lots or both properties. He noted that the parcel
tot the east can develop two tiers of lots wit the layout as proposed.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS ADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND
SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE TO TAB E APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT AND DIRECT CITY STAFF TO RE EARCH ISSUES RELATING TO
SHARED USE OF ROAD RIGHT OF W A BETWEEN PLATS.
.
Motion passed unanimously.
10
.
.
.
9.
NINO COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
City Planner surrnnarized the request as foll ws:
E & K Development is requesting Develop nt Stage PUD and preliminary plat approval
for the proposed development of Klein Far s Estates 3rd Addition. The proposed
preliminary plat was also considered previo sly, but action was tabled pending approval of
Development Stage PUD. The developmen consists of 34 single family units within eight
twin home buildings and five quad unit buil ings. The subject site is located between
Farmstead Drive and School Boulevard, adj cent to the Edmonson Avenue (County Road
117), and abuts Klein Farms 2nd Addition s' gle family development to the east. The use
is appropriate for the zoning district of the s bject property, but requires PUD/CUP
approval to accommodate the proposed private street.
Cul-De-Sac. Section 11-5-3 ofthe Subdi ision Ordinance suggests that cul-de~sac
streets not exceed 600 feet under normal co ditions. The cul-de-sac proposed for the
private street is approximately 610 feet in Ie gth. The additional length can be
accommodated within the PUD flexibility a considered appropriate to provide additional
green areas between structures. In confor nee with Subdivision Ordinance
requirements, the radius of the private street cul-de-sac has been expanded to 60 feet.
Also, consistent with Concept Plan PUD ap roval conditions, the paved area of the cul-
de-sac has been expanded from 45 feet to 5 feet. A green space island of 44 feet in
diameter has been provided in the center of e cul~de-sac, which will be provided with
additional landscaping.
Driveways. The Development Stage PUD has been revised from Concept Plan PUD
layouts such that all of the proposed units ac ess Farmstead Drive via the private street.
This is different from the Concept Plan that ad Units 1/3 and 33/34 accessing directly
from Farmstead Drive. However, there are everal issues with the proposed shared
driveways:
1. All driveways at the quad units are 0 ly 12 feet wide, which is insufficient for two-
way traffic, whereas a suggested 18 et would provide for two-way traffic and
address issues of emergency access. owever, widening the driveway widths
would increase the overall imperviou surface coverage of the site and reduce
green area.
2. Reduced green area adjacent to Unit 3 and 34 as the driveway is only 10 feet from
the structure, whereas 20 feet is co on for other quad homes and twin homes.
3.
Reduced snow storage area that coul impact visibility.
These issues may suggest that the co bination of structures, as well as the number
11
.
PLA NINO COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
of structures may be more than can t on the site. The removal of one or more of
the structures may provide sufficien area to allow the site to be re-oriented to
address the issues above.
Setbacks. The proposed Development St ge PUD plan illustrates conformance with all
applicable perimeter setbacks of structures om adjacent properties.
Sidewalks/Paths. There is an eight foot w de bituminous pathway extending from the
cul-de-sac to a connection with existing sid walks adjacent to School Boulevard. This
connection is positive as it provides pedestr' access to the east of the site (and park
access).
Lots. The proposed development is to be latted in a base lot/unit lot configuration.
Residents will own their unit and directly su ounding ground area. The base lot area will
be held in common by an owners associatio responsible for all grounds keeping
maintenance. Documents establishing the 0 ners association will be required as part of
final PUD application.
Density. The total area of the parcel is 8.58 acres. With 34 dwelling units, the resulting
gross density is 3.96 units per acre. When e sement and ponding areas are considered, the
resulting net density is 4.92 units per acre. he Monticello Comprehensive Plan defines
densities of five units an acre as mid density. With the recommendation of staff to reduce
the number of units discussed above, the net density can be expected to decrease.
.
I~andscaping. Approval of the PUD Cone pt Plan was based upon the conditions that
the green area around the twin homes be inc eased, the front yards of these units be
intensely landscaped and the natural drainag area be provided with a mixture of trees,
shrubs and ground cover or grasses that wo ld thrive in that environment. The intent of
these requirements was to justify granting flexibility from strict Zoning Ordinance
provisions in exchange for an enhanced deve opment and elements intended to mitigate the
impact of reduced performance standards. I consideration of these requirements, the
submitted landscape plan with minimal plant" g materials is inadequate.
The quantities and specifications of planting terials must be substantially increased prior
to being considered acceptable in exchange fi r PUD flexibility. The intensive plantings
required of Klein Farms Estates 1st Addition (Exhibit D) should be considered a model
upon which a landscape plan for this develop nt be created. Intensive landscaping may
be extended beyond the front yards of the twO units, however, to include the
open/drainage area, cul-de-sac center island, and areas around the quad units. Intensive
landscaping of the entire site may satisfactor" y mitigate the impacts of the "tight" site plan
as proposed.
.
Building Plans. The applicant has not pro ided typical building elevations and floor
plans for the proposed structures. These pIa s should be provided prior to [mal plat
application and are subject to review and app oval of the City Council.
12
.
NING COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Snow Storage. Due to the intense use of t e subject site, there are limited areas for snow
storage. As a condition of preliminary plat pproval, the applicant will be required to
incorporate a snow removal plan as part of he owners association rules and bylaws.
Park Dedication. Park dedication require ents applicable to this project have been
satisfied by the dedication of land along Fall n A venue, south of School Boulevard, that
was made at the time Klein Farms Estates 1 t Addition was approved.
Easements. The City Engineer should pro ide comment and recommendation on the
need for easements per the Subdivision Ord' ance requirements.
Parking. The proposed building footprint indicate a two stall garage for each unit. The
driveways adjacent to the units all have a . imum depth of 20 feet, which is sufficient to
accommodate one vehicle. As such, each u it has four off-street parking stalls.
The proposed width of the private street an access drives to the quad units is insufficient
to allow on-street parking due to concern fo emergency vehicle access. As such, on-
street parking will be prohibited along the p ivate streets and driveways not directly
adjacent to a garage.
.
Development Agreement. The applicant ill be required to enter into a development
agreement with the City if the final plat is ap roved and post all necessary securities that
may be required.
Grading and Drainage. As required by S ction 11-4-1, the applicant has submitted a
grading plan for review (Exhibit C). All gr ing, drainage and erosion control plans will
be subject to review and approval of the Cit Engineer.
Utility Plans. The applicant has submitted preliminary utility plans in accordance with
Section 11-4-1 of the Subdivision Ordinance These plans will be subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
Grittman noted staff recommendation which is to grant approval of the Development
Stage pun and preliminary plat subject to t conditions listed in Exhibit n. Of greatest
concern is the landscaping plan which is sub tantially below the standard which has been
required of similar developments, and what i necessary to provide a high level of project
quality as required of pun projects.
As noted in the proposed conditions, we wo Id suggest an 18 foot wide driveway for the
quad units. This dimension would minimally accommodate two vehicles, and would avoid
problem... where a large gathering results in 0 erflow parking along the driveway.
.
The public hearing was opened. Sara Schmi t asked about zoning standards. She was told
by the Realtor that single family residential ould be located in this area when she built
her home.
13
.
PLA NINO COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Stacy Foley asked if these are going to be r ntal properties. Developer Bill Gleason said
no, we are building one level townhomes fo seniors with a base price of $120,000. Mary
Schwarz asked what was going to be done t improve the swamp area? Gleason
responded by saying that it will be laid out a a drainage and detention pond. They will
comply with grading and drainage and vegeation requirements.
Liz Demary asked if there will be an associa ion. Gleason noted that yes, there will there
be an association. The development will be lly sodded and landscaped. An underground
sprinkler system will be in place. Maintenan e free vinyl. Some brick and higher grade
shingles.
There was discussion about sale of the tow homes. Gleason responded by saying based
on the market, selling the townhornes shoul not be an issue.
Dick Frie closed the public hearing.
AFTER DISCUSSION A MOTION WAS ADE BY DICK MARTIE AND
SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO PROVE THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KL IN FARMS ESTATES 3RD ADDITION
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AS DSCRIBED IN EXHIBIT D BASED UPON A
FINDING THAT THE PROJECT CONFO MS WITH ALL APPLICABLE CITY
ORDINANCES AND POLICIES. CONDI IONS OF PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE
AFPROV AL FOR KLEIN FARMS EST A ES 3RD ADDITION INCLUDE:
1. Reorientation of the dwelling units, including the possibility of reducing the
number of units, providing 18 foot d iveway accesses to the internal street. and
maintaining green spaces.
.
2. Submission of a revised landscape p an that provides intensive landscaping
adjacent to all of the quads and twi home units, center of the cul-de-sac, and a
variety of materials in the open dra' age areas.
3. The applicant provide all proposed ovenants and documents necessary to
establish an owners association.
4. The applicant provide typical build' g elevations and floor plans subject to review
and approval of the City Council.
5. A snow storage plan be submitted s. bject to review and approval of the City
Council.
6.
On-street parking is prohibited on t e internal streets and those areas not directly
adjacent to a garage stall.
.
7. All grading, drainage, utility and eas rnent plans shall be subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
14
.
.
.
11.
PLA NINO COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Motion carried unanimously.
10.
Steve Grittman provided his staff report on 13 unit development.
Public hearing was opened. Mike Cyr note that the plan needed to be modified to return
to the original plan which called for a 7 unit development. The change is due to the
inability to acquire the land necessary to co plete the 13 unit development.
After reviewing comments by Cyr on the re ised application, Steve Grittman
recommended approval of the revised plan ased on the fmding that the project is
generally consistent with the intent of the Ci y's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. The proposed project is also ge erally compatible with the existing uses in
the area. As such, staff recommends appro al of both the PUD and Preliminary Plat with
the aforementioned conditions.
Public hearing was closed.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS ADE BY ROD DRAOSTEN AND
SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE TO APP OVE THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT/CONDITIONAL USE P RMIT FOR THE CONCEPT AND
DEVELOPMENT STAGE SUBJECT TO HE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW:
1. A landscape plan is submitted which 'dentifies the location, size and variety of site
planting.
2. Provision of a privacy fence on the s uth side of the property.
3. Approval of grading and drainage iss es by the City Engineer and Public Works.
4. Preliminary and Final Plat will be revewed and approved at time of Final PUD.
Motion based on the finding that the develo ment is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan; existing land use in the area; the pro vis ons of the Zoning Ordinance, and other
City's use of Planned Unit Development.
Motion Carried unanimously.
15
.
PL NINO COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Fred Patch reported that Mr. Scott Rolfe 0 Skipper's Pools and Spas is proposing to
seasonally setup and display an above grou d swimming pool in the paved area east and
irmnediately adjacent to the building housin his business. Open/outside sale as an
accessory use is allowed as a conditional u e in the B-4, Regional Business District subject
to the following conditions:
1. The outside sale must
to- be connected with the princi al use and limited to 30% of the gross floor
area of the principal use (or arger only as a condition of the conditional
use permit).
to- be compatible in its relation hip to the Comprehensive Plan,
to- be compatible in its relation hip to the geographical area and the character
of the surrounding area,
to- be justified by a demonstrati n of the need for such use, and
to- not depreciate the area in w 'ch it is proposed.
.
2.
Lighting must be directed away fro the public right of way.
3. The sales area must be surfaced to c
While it is clear that the outside display and sales of swimming pools is connected with the
principal use of the property, the outdoor r tail display and sales of large products such as
swimming pools appears to be inconsistent nd incompatible in its relationship with the
Comprehensive Plan and the intents of the onticello Downtown and Riverfront
Revitalization Plan to, "...create developme t that "fits" the context of each district." The
Broadway - "Downtown" district is intende to provide for small and mid-sized retail,
specialty retail, and personal and business s rvices. It does not appear to be intended for
the outdoor display and sales of swimming ools or other large scale products such as
automobiles, garden structures, lumber, and the like.
If the Commission finds that this proposed se is compatible with the intents of the
Comprehensive Plan, and a conditional use ermit is approved by the City Council, the
pool display would cover approximately 61 square feet of the paved drive and parking
area as depicted on the Exhibit C h Site PI . On-site parking for the business would
remain sufficient as at least 12 parking stall are provided on the site, and according to the
applicant, at least 10 additional stalls could e developed across the alley to the north of
the building. Currently, parking stalls are n t sufficiently marked or striped.
.
According to the application for conditional use permit, the swimming pool would be
surrounded with a railing system to prevent unauthorized entry and would not contain
water.
16
.
PLA NING COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Public hearing was opened.
Scott Rolfe reported that the pool is a self c ntained swinuning pool with a railing. It is a
kit pool with treated lumber. Currently his tore is the only on in the state that carries this
pool. It is a specialty item and it is a special y store. Rolfe stated he could put it in the
back, but it is not visible. He stated he woul be able to abide by all of the conditions
noted. The pool would take up some space.
Rita Ulrich MCP director asked about the location of the pool relative to the parking and
drive area. Rolfe responded by saying that t e pool itself is 12 by 24. Room is available
between the pool and the sidewalk for vehic es.
Public hearing was closed.
Dick Martie says the man is in the pool bus' ess. Finding that it is non-compatible is a
matter of interpretation.
.
AFfER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS ADE BY DICK MARTIE AND
SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO R COMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONDI IONAL USE PERMIT BE APPROVED
BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE P OPOSED OUTDOOR DISPLAY AND
SALES USE AS PROPOSED IS:
· connected with the principal use and . ited to no more than 30% of the gross
floor area of the principal use,
· compatible in its relationship to the
· compatible in its relationship to the g ographical area and the character of the
surrounding area,
· justified by a demonstration of the n d for such use, and
· does not substantially depreciate the ea in which it is proposed.
The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject 0 the following conditions:
1. Outdoor sales and display shall be co ducted only between April 1 and August 31
of each year;
2. All lighting must be directed away fr m the public right of way;
.
3.
Parking stalls must be clearly striped nd marked;
4. No permanent or temporary signs sh 11 be erected on the outdoor display.
17
.
.
.
12.
NING COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
5.
Any swimming pool or spa displaye outdoors must be provided with a continuous
surrounding barrier to prevent entry; and,
6. Outdoor swimming pool or spa disp ys must not contain any water.
Motion passed unanimously.
L
DuFresne
Steve Grittman provided a staff report out' ing the request.
The public hearing was opened.
The developer Wendal Maltbie noted that t e site is very difficult to develop for the use
proposed under the CCD district regulation due to parking regulations. Property owner
Chuck Desfresne made a similar observatio and they both requested that the parcel
remain in the B-3 District boundaries.
Public hearing was closed.
Dick Frie stated that the city needs to enco rage this type of development at this location.
Rod Dragsten concurred. This is a valuable piece of commercial property on 1-94 -- I
think it should be a B-3 zoning.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK MARTIE AND
SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO MEND ACTION TAKEN EARLIER IN
THE MEETING TO PLACE THE SITE I THE CCD DISTRICT. PROPERTY TO
BE PLACED BACK INTO THE B-3 DIS RICT. MOTION TO INCLUDE
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A QUEST FOR A CONCEPT PLAN PUD
APPROV AL AND TO APPROVE A CON ITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING A
HOTEL IN A B-3 DISTRICT. MOTION ASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED USE AND CONCEPTUAL ESIGN LAYOUT IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE -3 REGULATIONS. APPROVAL
CONTINGENT UPON DEVELOPMENT OF A DETAILED SITE PLAN IN
CONJUNCTION WITH APPLICATION OR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL
STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPME T APPROVAL.
Motion passed unanimously.
18
.
13.
.
.
NING COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Fred Patch reported that Mr. Glen Posusta f Amax Self Storage, LLC is proposing to
amend the existing conditional use permit 9 -017 to add three buildings to the site
currently serving Amax Self Storage. Two of the proposed buildings are 3,960 square
feet in area each, and are intended only for door storage purposes. The third building is
to provide 3,668 square feet of office space and 2,620 square feet of indoor storage space.
In addition to the proposed buildings, a fen e is proposed to surround the entire property
with the exception of in front of the propos d offices toward Dundas Road.
Conunercial storage contained entirely wit in a building is a conditional use in the B-3,
Highway Business District (See Exhibit A) The commercial office is a permitted use, and
in this case accessory to the principal use.
Staff has reviewed the site plan proposed y the applicant (See Exhibit C). The site plan
as proposed meets all requirements of city rdinances with exception of the following:
1. The office building must be provide with at least 21 parking stalls. Only 14
parking stalls plus one handicap aco ss aisle are provided by the proposed plan.
2. The fence is proposed to be constr cted of masonry and wrought iron/steel along
Dundas Road; however, the balanc of the fence is proposed to be chain link with
three strands of barbed wire on top. (See Separate Variance Petition)
Mr. Posusta has agreed to redesign the site plan to accommodate additional parking and
improve on site traffic flow (See attached evised Site Plan -- Exhibit D). The City
Engineer has recommended that only one cess be permitted off of Dundas Road. The
relocation of the street access to the center of the parking area and relocation of the gate
into the storage area will accommodate boh the needs of Amax Self Storage and the City.
Public hearing was opened. Posusta made 'omments relative to the need for barbed wire
fence as detailed in related item.
Public hearing was closed.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WA MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND
SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE TO RE OMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PER IT AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 93-017 BE APPROVED TO OW SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING
19
.
.
.
PL NINO COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
THE ADDITION OF THREE (3) NEW B ILDINGS TO INCLUDE STORAGE AND
OFFICE USE, FINDING THAT THE PR POSED USE IS COMPATIBLE IN ITS
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHE SIVE PLAN, & COMPATIBLE IN ITS
RELA TIONSHlP TO THE GEOORAPHI AL AREA AND THE CHARACTER OF
THE SURROUNDING AREA.
The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The site plan for the Amax S lf Storage facility and offices must be as
depicted by Exhibit D.
b. Prior to issuance of a buildin' permit for the construction of a new building
subject to this conditional us permit, Amax Self Storage, LLC must
comply with all conditions 0 the original Conditional Use Permit 93-017.
c. Prior to issuance of a buildin permit for the construction of any new
building, the City Engineer ust approve the grading and drainage plan
submitted in application for uilding permit.
d.
Prior to issuance of a buildin permit the applicant must specify the species
and size of trees to be plante
e. All areas of the site not pave or built upon must be sodded to the property
lines on the south, east and est, and to the street on the north.
Motion carried unanimously.
14.
Fred Patch explained that Mr. Olen Posusta f Amax Self Storage is requesting a variance
to allow the installation of barbed wire on to of a chain link: security fence to be
constructed in locations, as described in Ex "bit C, at the Amax Self Storage facility in the
B-3, Highway Business District.
On March 14, 1998, the City of Monticello dopted an ordinance amending the City
Zoning Code Section 3-2 [F] as it related to fences, prohibiting barbed wire, razor ribbon,
electric fences, and the like. (See Exhibit A.
It is the opinion of staff that such dangerous fencing materials represent blight, are not
aesthetically compatible with the desired . e of developed areas of the City, and present
a significant hazard to the health, safety and elfare of the public.
20
.
.
.
PL NING COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Patch went on to report staffrecomrnendat'on to deny the request based on finding that
the applicant has failed to demonstrate a un que circumstance or hardship.
Public Hearing was opened. Posusta noted hat he wants straight barbed wire which is
difficult to notice. The contention is that it s a danger to city residents. Posusta
commented, "I think: I have a bigger danger with the holding pond. The pond can be up to
6 'to 8'." The barbed wire is viewed as anot er deterrent. It is a marketing tool and not
necessarily related to functional benefit.
Posusta was asked if he has had security pr blems. He stated that he had not had a
problem with security.
Public hearing was closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK MAR IE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE
BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT DUE TO A SECURITY CONCERN, A
SUFFICIENT HARDSHIP HAS BEEN D MONSTRA TED.
Motion died for a lack of a second.
MOTION MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN D SECONDED BY DICK FRIE TO
DENY THE VARIANCE BASED ON TH FINDING THAT A HARDSHIP HAS NOT
BEE DEMONSTRATED.
Voting in favor, Frie and Dragsten; opposed Martie.
15.
Steve Grittman reported that Star City Buil ers has requested the City review a proposed
townhome development concept along the s uth side of 7th Street. The project consists
of 60 dwelling units in two and four-unit clu ters. The proposal is designed around three
cul-de-sacs, from which the 56 of the 60 uni s would gain access to either 7th Street or
Minnesota Street. An additional 4 unit struc ure proposes access to 7th Street via a direct
driveway.
The current zoning of the area is PZM, Perti rmance Zone - Mixed. This designation
provides for townhouse style development b conditional use permit. The proposed
project would meet the general intent of the oning District with regard to land use and
structure type. The Comprehensive Plan call for a land use pattern which is similar to
that of the existing development. In this are , the community is transitioning from higher
density residential development and tradition I single family areas to a more suburban style
subdivision. At approximately 10.2 acres, th density of the project is just under six units
per acre, a mid-density pattern as defmed by he Comprehensive Plan. The proposal
would appear to meet the housing style and ensity concepts supported in the Plan.
21
.
NINO COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
Surrounding land uses affect the project as ell. To the north lies an auto salvage
business, and some vacant land which is co trolled by the auto salvage operation. To the
south lies the future connection route for 7 Street, and B-3 zoned commercial property
between the 7th Street route and 1-94. Bu ering of these differing land uses would be
necessary to help ensure a positive resident' I environment.
As noted above, all but four of the units sound a series of three cul-de-sacs. This
results in the development of a relatively in ulated neighborhood. As a collector route, the
City will discourage direct access from 7th treet, so the proposed design would appear to
meet this objective. However, it may be be eficial to consider a project layout which
avoids the use of cul-de-sac design and bett r reflects the more traditional pattern found in
Monticello.
One possible design option could be to focu the entire project along a single primary
street which meanders through the property This would help to break up a pavement-
dominated streetscape appearance, and wou d retain the varied building facade setbacks
built into the current proposal. With the co cept plan as drawn, the cul~de-sac areas
would consist of broad expanses of paveme t, including the street and the driveways,
many of which flow into each other before r aching the street itself. With a different
layout, street access points from Minnesota treet, 7th Street and Elm Street on the west
would help distribute internal traffic.
.
Project architecture is another area where t plan can reflect traditional Monticello
development. We would encourage a mix 0 unit types, with traditional detailing
reflective of the existing community where ossible.
On the positive side, we believe that the mix d size of unit clusters would help to vary the
streetscape, and the plan would appear to al w for a variation in building facades along
the street. In addition, there appears to be a significant reservation of open space in the
project, particularly in common areas shared by residents of the development.
The project should be sensitive to issues on djoining parcels. The City's buffer yard
requirements will apply to the north based 0 an industrial - residential buffer standard. In
addition, there are adjoining properties whic will be affected by access, layout, and the
street alignment of this project. We would r commend consideration for access and future
development of neighboring properties be in egrated into this project design at a
conceptual level.
At this stage, the project is in concept form nly. The Planning Commission's role should
be to identify the land use and design issues hich the project raises, above and beyond
engineering issues which will be raised as mo e detailed plans are developed. Any changes
which the City would like to lead the develo er toward should be mentioned at this stage
to guide the design of the next phase of proj ct planning.
.
22
.
Grittman recommended approval of the St City Builders concept, but with conditions
which would alter the design. The purpos a concept approval would be to endorse the
general land use pattern and unit types (2 a d 4 unit townhouses) of about six units per
acre. The conditions suggested in Exhibit are focused on design and layout issues. At
this time, there are also issues relating to t e construction of 7th Street in this area, and
the existence of an intervening structure at innesota Street and the route of 7th Street.
These issues would need to be resolved as part of any continuing consideration.
After discussion it was the general consens s to accept the concept plan subject to the
following conditions.
1. Reorientation ofthe street system t provide fewer, or no, cul-de-sacs in the
project.
2. Development of a plan which avoid joined driveways and other large expanses of
pavement.
3. Submission of plans for Developme t Stage PUD approval which include:
a.
b.
. c.
d.
e.
Utility Plan.
Street Plan, including 7th St eet.
Grading and Drainage Plan.
Landscape Plan, including b ffering from neighboring land uses.
Floor and Elevation Plans fo the proposed units.
4. Concept Plan coordinating develop nt on the exception parcel at the southeast
corner of the project.
16.
'il
17.
18.
.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported th t the City Council has requested that the
Chairman of the Planning Commission serve as representative to the newly formed
Orderly Annexation Board.
23
.
PL NNING COMMISSION MINUTES- 04/07/98
A few weeks ago the City Council and To nship established a new agreement outlining
the process of annexation. This agreement stipulated creation of an orderly annexation
board comprised of two members from the Township, two from the City and one from the
County. The role of this board is to evalua e annexation requests for consistency with the
comprehensive plan and for consistency wi h the minimum requirements for annexation.
Attached is a copy of the agreement. This oard needs to form quickly to address three
annexation requests and to adopt land use egulations for the annexation area. This Board
will meet once a month.
After discussion, Dick Frie accepted a two ear appointment to the OAA.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETIN WAS MADE BY DICK MARITE AND
SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN.
Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjo rned at 11 :45 p.m.
.
.~CJ~
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant City Administrator
.
24
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 5/5/98
5.
Skippers Pools and Spas. (FP)
This item was previously before the Plannin Commission on April 7, 1998. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the onditional use permit to allow open sales of
swimming pools at 101 West Broadway. n April 13, 1998, the City Council reviewed
the recommendation of the Planning Co ssion and moved that the application should
be returned to the Planning Commission fo further consideration as it appeared that there
was information in the application that had ot been fully considered by the Commission.
Mr. Scott Rolfe intends to install an outdoo swimming pool display and sales area
downtown, just to the east of the building 0 the northwest corner of West Broadway and
Hwy 25/pine Street. The swimming pool a d surrounding decking is planning to be 34
feet in length and 7 feet in height, covering pproximately 634 square feet of the existing
parking and drive area.
Upon comparing the site plan against the d survey provided by Mr. Rolfe, the distance
between the pool display and the property . e east of the proposed pool display would be
effectively reduced to 7.68 feet in width or ess. With the required 5 foot driveway
setback applied to the drive aisle, the drive isle width would be only 2.68 feet in width.
The loss of the drive aisle significantly alter the usability of on site parking and traffic
movement.
In addition to the drive aisle concerns, the ity Council mentioned the impact the outdoor
display may have on the intentions of the D wntown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan as
adopted into the City of Monticello Compr hensive Plan. That issue is whether or not the
outdoor open display and sales of swimmin pools or other large scale products is an
appropriate use in the downtown, B-4 Regi nal Business district. For a conditional use
permit to be allowed, the City Zoning Code requires that the use be:
,.. Compatible in its relationshi to the Comprehensive Plan,
,.. Compatible in its relationshi to the geographical area and the character of
the surrounding area, and
,.. Justified by a demonstration of the need for such use.
Outdoor retail display and sales of large pr ducts such as swimming pools appears to be
inconsistent and incompatible in its relation hip with the Comprehensive Plan and the
C:\SANDY\WORIMGENDA\'lKIPPERS.PC
1
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 5/5/98
intents of the Monticello Downtown and R verfront Revitalization Plan to, "...create
development that "fits" the context of each district." The Broadway - "Downtown"
district is intended to be the cultural center f the city, with land uses that provide for
small and mid-sized retail, specialty retail, d personal and business services. No other
retail use in downtown area conducts the 0 tdoor display and sale of such large-sized
products.
It is the opinion of staff that the outdoor di play and sales of swinuning pools or other
such large scale products in the downtown ea of the City is not consistent with the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan, not in keeping ith the Vision Statement, and not
aesthetically appropriate to the downtown ea of the City.
The Planning Commission has previously r commended approval of the conditional use
permit making fmdings and subject to cond tions as described below in Alternative 1.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Move to recommend to the City Council that the issuance of the conditional use
permit be approved, finding that th proposed outdoor display and sales use as
proposed is:
.. connected with the rincipal use and limited to no more than 30%
of the gross floor ar a of the principal use,
.. compatible in its reI tionship to the Comprehensive Plan,
.. compatible in its rel tionship to the geo graphical area and the
character of the surr unding area,
.. justified by a demon tration of the need for such use, and
.. does not substantiall depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
The Conditional Use Permit shall e subject to thelollowing conditions:
A. Outdoor sales and display s all be conducted only between April 1 and
August 31 of each year;
B. All lighting must be directe away from the public right of way;
C. Parking stalls must be clearl striped and marked;
D. No permanent or temporar signs shall be erected on the outdoor display;
E. Any swinuning pool or spa isplayed outdoors must be provided with a
continuous surrounding bier to prevent entry;
F. Outdoor swinuning pool or spa displays must not contain any water; and,
G. This conditional use permit hall be issued for the term of one (1) year from
the date of approval by the ity Council, and shall be subject to renewal by
the same procedural require nts as the initial conditional use permit.
C:\SANDY\WORlJv\GENDA\SKIPPERS.PC
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 5/5/98
Motion to deny the issuance of the c nditional use permit, finding that the outdoor
sales and display area interferes with on site traffic movement and parking, and
that the proposed outdoor display a d sales use is not compatible in its relationship
to the Comprehensive Plan and to th character of the surrounding area.
2.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the conditional se permit according to Alternative "2"
above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
Exhibit C -
Exhibit D -
Exhibit E -
Copy of Applicable Ordinane Section: 14-4 [B] 3.
Location Map.
Copy of Application and Pro osed Site Plan.
Copy of Land Survey for lot 9 and 10, Block 52, Original Plat,
Monticello.
Excerpts from the Compreh nsive Plan, Monticello Downtown and
Riverfront Revitalization PIa
C:\SANDY\WORlMGENDA\SKIPPERS.PC
3
.
.
.
[A] Open and outdoor stora as an accessory use provided that:
1. The area is fenced nd screened from view of neighboring
residential uses or . f abutting a residential district in
compliance with C apter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in
compliance with C apter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is gra sed or surfaced to control dust.
4. All lighting shall b hooded and so directed that the light source
shall not be visible rom the public right-of-way or from
neighboring reside ces and shall be in compliance with Chapter
3, Section 2 [H], of his ordinance.
5. The privisions of C pter 22 of this ordinance are considered
and satisfactorily et.
Open or outdoor service, sale, and rental as a principal and accessory
use and including sales i or from motorized vehicles, trailers, or
wagons, provided that:
[C]
1. Outside service, sal s, and equipment rental connected with the
principal use is lim ted to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor
area of the princip I use. This percentage may be increased as a
condition of the con itional use permit.
2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of the
neighboring reside tial uses or an abutting residential district
in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this .ordinance.
3. All lighting shall b hooded and so directed that the light source
shall not be visible rom the public right-of-way or from
neighboring reside ces and shall be in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section [H], of this ordinance.
4. Sales area is grass d or surfaced to control dust.
5. The provisions of C apter 22 of this ordinance are considered
and satisfactorily et.
Custom manufacturing, estricted production and repair limited to
the following: Art, need ework, jewelry from precious metals, \
watches, dentures, and pticallenses, provided that: ~.",
1. Such use is accesso y as defined in Chapter 2, Section 2, of this
ordinance to the p ncipal use of the property.
EXhi bi+ '"
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14/3
Public Hearing:
ation of a Conditional
allowing open sales
ory use in the B-4.
ness District.
'. ~
-> -'-.
....'-~
. --..: ..","<
.
!..._'
.~
,.'
'-~
""" J,
.
CITY OF M NTICELLO
COMMUNITY DEVELO MENT DEPARTMENT
250 E. Broadw ,PO Box 1147
Monticeno, MN 55362
(612) 2 5-2711
Planning
Case # l' y." 01 <...
Check Requested Action:
PUBLIC HEARIN APPLICATION
'$ CONDITIONAL USE ~ 125.00 + an necessary consulting expenses.
- ZONING MAP/ TEXT ENDMENT - $250.00 + necessary consulting expenses.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION. $50
SPECIAL PLANNING C MMISSION MEETING. $250
- SUBDIVISION PLAT. 300 + $100/acre up to 10 acres; $25/acre
after 10 Beres + expense . City will refWld excess of per-acre deposit.
- VARIANCE REQUEST - $50 for setbackl$125 for others + nee. consult. expenses*
OTHER - Fee $
· NOTE: Necessary consu1tinH fees include cost to ha e City Planner analyze variance, rezoning, &
conditional use permit requests at the rate of $75/hr. e need for City Planner assistance is determined
solely by City staff.
Applicant Name: S k" -e.4!..-s
Address: /6/ UJ. r6\.z~"'Y"...<i...... ,c-~
Phone: Home:
Business: ~;J -~'1S- '5-7 7~
Property Address: ~" -e....
.T .egal Description of Properly:
Lot: q .d- \ 0 ; Block:
Other:
Current Zoning:
5~
; Sub ivision:
Or,' j .' ,,~{ P /01 +
Describe Request:
t6'l '50'-1,
4-
~I
:.<.
I
Information provided by the applicant on this form is true an correct.
Date
Propert Owner Signature
3-IO~ 98
Date
Applica t Signature (if applicable) ;> khtfe
.~ 0,(1,".
VCUSSAM.APP: 2/06//95
(CaNT NUE ON BACK...) Exhi bi t c.
Date ReceivedIPaid: S - 1. 0-'1 '9, t....' ~
Receipt Number: 'd.3. 7l/ ~ :J
Public Hearing Date: l/ - 7 - ~1
.
ALLEY
6' .
CD
OJ
-0
)>
;0
z
'0'
"-J OJ (Jl ...j::>. 0J
'0'
..,
0
z:
f'l
""l
"'D :E
0 -":. J>-
0
r --<
-
'0
. ;;:0
<
f'l
~ ::r
0 :2:
f'T1 V) --<
n
^ CJ
RAILING fTl 1'0
II:: :::E (Jl
>- )>
5i! I
^
....
'"'l
0
.
tI:I ~
q -
-o:J:
J>-P
1 0" ;;:0::2::
AO
-0
C) Zp
0-0
4 I "
/v>
/ :c
:::D
ffiO
(J)
--->
--->
.
SIDEW ALK
SIDEWALK
5
"
'-.
/
,/
//
<9~
Q
( C ~o~
o ':<1y
190
~()
I
/
/
/
I
;>
/
/
~:}-
<J
<.'-v
Go
/
n
\ v
~.
"J
.
/
I 6'c
! /.<
/ '0
/-1../
~i G
"y\
(" ~I;
V I;
n..' ,t-'
'" 'Ii
,'? ..\
'Iv
"."
,t,{
l
, 'JO
'/
~.
f
I
/
/
~
~"
~
~~
"
'-
/lIo
.
s)'
;>s ·
.)
S'~ 1-
E,..c "i bi+ D
TAYl{
230 W;
MONTi
PHnNF
.
.
.
I{:
,Encourage the development of sign programs on Br adway that meet
the intentions of the plan's design guidelines, stressi g an orientation
to pedestrians and integrity related to the original buil ing and the cur-
rent use.
Poll building owners to determine which might be illing to partici~
pate in a storefront or infrastructure loan program.
Institute loan program to encourage rivate sector
redevelopment/rehabilitation of existing structures (storefront loans
and infrastructure loans); create "design grants" f no more than
$2500 to defray some of the costs of storefront desi n assistance; tie
loan approval to satisfying the design guidelines of th s plan.
Explore tax abatement to help fund improvement eff rts of individual
building owners.
Pursue development of empty sites in accordance with the intentions
of the "Broadway: Downtown District."
Create connections between parking areas behi d buildings and
Broadway in key locations (as conditions allow).
Probable Costs
It might be assumed that five loans per year might b provided in each
category, with a $25,000 loan maximum for storefr nt improvements
and a $50,000 loan maximum for infrastructure i provements. A
design grant related to the storefront improvement would be $2500.
The term of the loan program (that is, the period f time which the
City determines is appropriate to operate the progra ) and the cost of
the write-down witt determine the total cost for the a tion.
The pedestrian "pass-throughs" would cost approxim tely $22,000.
F ltltd in ~
Tax increment financing might be the best source 0 funds for a loan
progarm.
Staff time will be required to organize and initiate 10 n program: MCP
cou Id poll building owners and help them move through the loan,
design and implementation process.
Tax abatement might be a likely source of funds fo individuals who
desire to make improvements on their own.
TIF will be the most likely source of funds for the d velopment of the
pedestrian "pass-throughs."
Related Guidinr Principles.
Improve Broadway outside
of downtown
An identity related to Monticello: This road is t e introduction to
Monticello for many who use Broadway to get to d wntown or to get
through the community, yet it says nothing of the co munity. Actions
should be taken in concert with the county's planne reconstruction to
make it feel more like a local street - Broadway - than a county
highway - CASH 75.
A transportation web: All streets are important to anaging traffic in
Monticello, but it cannot be accomplished solely y making bigger
roads. The configuration of the road is important allowing for free
flow of traffic, but this does not have to mean moe lanes of traffic.
Also, as the road is planned, accommodation of ot er transportation
modes (bicycles and pedestrians) should be a part of he road's design. r ""'1 "" ,.
Downtown's neighbors: This street is the "main st eet" for many of .,
I
A New Bridge '
Rtvllallzlnr MOIIl/erllo's Down/own and RJvtrfron/ ...~
U"i~,~ E:'
. Strategy 3b
KO the highest possible
ity of development within the
boundaries of downtown
Strategy 3c
Define transition zones at the
ry of downtown for uses such
JS multi-family residential and
home-based businesses
.
Strategy 4a
renovate buildings to create a
hip to the community as well
c; to their immediate purpose
Strategy 4b
lRIbllc buildings that stand out
ollIer downtown buildings but
~ .that have a common
-' character and quality
\New Bridge
lmla/lzlng Montlcello's Downtown and RJverfront
-,
Actions
~. Require design review of every new development or rehabilita-
tion within downtown t ensure conformance to the design
guidelines outlined by th s plan, especialIy when such projects
receive city assistance.
Reduce on-site parking equirements for downtown uses by
allowing on-street parkin along a site's public periphery.
Encourage the developm nt of multi-story buildings in down-
town.
Actions
. Establish land use cont ols for an area lying generally one
block beyond the down to n boundary that will alIow for "tran-
sition" uses and develop ent.
Strategic Outcome
A downtown that is reco nized as the center of the Monticello
community due to its bu It patterns, and one that is interesting
for pedestrians and enco rages pedestrian activity on the streets
of downtown.
Strategic Target
Revised land use contro s adopted within one year of accep-
tance of the plan.
Strategy 4: An identity related to Mo ticello
Actions
~. Work to identify and un erstand the community's special char-
acter and qualities so tha those ideas can be passed on to those
private sector that might contemplate changes to their buildings
or new buildings.
Require adherence to th design guidelines for alI new build-
ings, for all renovations that receive any degree of city assis-
tance and for all other improvements that total more than
$10,000 in value or effe t more than one-quarter of a building's
gross floor area or more han 25% of total facade of a building.
Encourage the creation f buildings that are flexible enough to
accommodate a variety of uses over time, and that are con-
structed with a life span f at least 50 years.
Mandate that any impro ement that requires a building permit
have a building mainten nce program submitted and approved
before issuance of a cert ficate of occupancy.
Actions
Agree upon an architect ral style for all public buildings that is
based on character of th community.
Place public buildings 0 sites that are prominent within down-
town.
i:-
~,'1
fNai '4>>i-t f:
.
.
.
,..
6.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
Darrel Farr Development Corporation has a plied for approval to develop single family plat
of a 79 lot single family development to be k own as "Wildwood Ridge". This property has
been known as the "Anderson" property, nd is currently unincorporated but within the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Th property consists of approximately 39 acres
straddling County Road 118. The develo ment portion of the plat would occur on the
southwest side of 118, with about three a d one half acres northeast of 118 taken up by
wetlands and storm ponding.
The property lli on the southeast side of the" onte Club Hill". It is severely sloped, and has
a large stand of trees covering its northwest uarter. City staff has had discussions with the
developer regarding extraordinary efforts to rovide protection for this resource. Since the
hill area is one of the two or three most do 'ant natural features of the area's landscape,
staff would like to be able to explore the opportunity to create an environment which
preserves the major features and provides rea onable return for the development of the land.
This opportunity may include the creation of a special set of considerations for development
of the Monte Club Hill area. Considerations y include additional tree or slope preservation
efforts, as well as clustered development to 'nimize impacts on sensitive or unique natural
areas. Public access and use of some of hese areas should also be included in such an
analysis. This area may be appropriate for' clusion in a greenway concept which connects
the school campus and the rest of the City's pathway system.
The developers have indicated a willingness to consider additional preservation efforts as a
part of their development scheme, and hav prepared an alternative plat as one example of
how the City and the developer can accomp sh those objectives. That plan will be available
for review at the Planning Commission's upc ming meeting. As a result, we are withholding
detailed review of the current plat proposal to allow for Planning Commission feedback on
the alternative.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to table action on the Pre' . ary Plat, Concept Stage PUD, and Rezoning,
pending consideration of additional oncepts proposed by the developer.
C :\SANDVlWORD\AGENDA\W ILDWOOD.PC
4
.
.
.
c.
ST AFF RECOMMEND A TION
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
Staff recorrunends tabling of the proposal to llow continued discussion of natural resource
protection on the Monte Club Hill The purpo e of this tabling would be to allow discussions
between the developer and the City to explo e the opportunities of preservation, as well as
the costs and benefits of negotiating certain ity standards in such projects.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Original Plat Proposal
Exhibit B - Original Plat Grading/Topograp y
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\W ILDWOOD.PC
5
/
· _FHA
\P McCombs Frank Roos
0/ Associates, Inc.
.
.
April 30, 1998
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator
City of Monticello
Post Office Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
SUBJECT: Wildwood Ridge
Darrel A. Farr Development Corp.
MFRA #11929
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
~"..",~~~~4I1iU'",.~/'^""'fi>-+'I'f!(~I~~~"'.""I'~""...,'1 'l;-";"N'~,wn""""~'~ ~"""''''\'1''''f
~'""" I (" #
Engineering Ph/fllllll[J Surveying
This letter is written following our meeting at Cit Hall on March 28, 1998. The purpose ofthis
letter is to confirm the developers commitment re arding key design considerations and tree
preservation. As you know, we have completed a tree inventory and location survey. This work
followed our submission ofthe proposed prelimin plat on March 13, 1998. The tree inventory
has provided the developer and its consultants wit sufficient detail to support revisions to the plat
and preliminary engineering plans. With the tree nventory we are able to prepare a tree preservation
plan, modify the plat accordingly and duely consi er the plat under the provisions of Planned Unit
Development section of the ordinance.
The tree preservation plan alters the previously su mitted preliminary plat in the following
significant areas:
1. The removal of home sites from wood d areas and the resultant increase in outlots for the
tree preservation areas.
2. Realignment of the public road in the ooded area to mitigate tree loss.
3. More precise location of home sites ( uilding pads) in response to tree preservation
objectives.-
" ...\
15050 23rd Avenue North . PlymoutlJ, Minnesota . 55447
pl10ne 612/476-6010 . fax 612/476-8532
e-mail: mfra@mfra.com
1-
,Mr. Jeff O'Neill
April 30, 1998
Page 2
.
4. Reconfiguration of lots and front and side y rd setbacks to accommodate tree
preservation/protection.
5. The removal of 5 lots in wooded areas are p rtially replaced by an increased lot count in
the open field non-woodland area.
As we discussed during prior meetings, reasonable and rudent tree preservation methods will be
employed by Darrel A. Farr Development Corp. and th home. The monetary and aesthetic value of
the individual residential lots and the development as a hole is directly proportional to woodland
preservation. The developer will employ tree preservat on techniques similar to those enforced in
the Maple Grove Gladstone project. These techniques ill include:
I. Providing each lot purchaser a tree inve tory, building location, and tree loss/tree
preservation notations.
2. The developer will review each lot build ng proposal and house plan for consistency
with the approved tree preservation pIa .
3.
The developer will review site construct on as well as home building activities to
provide further assurance and compliance with the site development and tree
preservation plans.
.
4. The developer will provide with the sale of each lot, tree preservation instructions and
recommended tree preservation techniq e responsibilities.
Darrell A. FaIT Development Corp. has successfully e ployed these tree preservation/protection
methods in the implementation of the Gladstone planne unit development in the city of Maple
Grove. These specific techniques, detailed site design nd construction procedures will be further
elaborated on during subsequent plan development and review phase.
On behalf of Darrel A. Farr Development Corp. and Lu inda Gardner we respectfully request your
favorable consideration of this development proposal d look forward to the opportunity to review
these materials with City Planning Commission and Ci y Council.
Kindest Regards,
iOMB
Micha
. MJG:dam
OOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc: Lucinda Gardner, Darrel A. Farr Development, orp.
e:\main:\11927\o'neiIl4-30
fi'l.-
.
.
.
7.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
(NAC)
Daryl Tindle is requesting approval of a simp e subdivision of property located at 1707 West
Broadway. This parcel is adjacent to Hillcres Park, and has a single family home facing West
Broadway, a county highway. Lot requireme ts include a minimum of 12,000 square feet and
80 feet of width, with setbacks of 30 feet fro t yard, 30 feet rear yard, and 10 feet side yard.
The parcel is encumbered by a power line easement which restricts the ability to create
buildable area. With an existing home and etached garage on the parcel, any new side lot
line is required to be located no closer than 0 feet to the current structures. As can be see
on the Site Plan, Exhibit B, the applicant has stirnated the locations of the existing structures.
Based on this drawing there should be adequ te room to construct a new home on the newly
subdivided parcel without requiring setback v 'ances. However, this will need to be verified
by certified land survey prior to recording of the subdivision or approval of any building
permit.
With regard to lot sizes, both lots will b significantly oversized compared to the R-1
requirements. The new lots would be more han 35,000 square feet and 43,000 square feet
in area. As noted, however, a significant por ion of the lots is encumbered by the power line
easement. Therefore, this proposal is likely the only subdivision arrangement possible.
It should be noted that the applicant has illust ated a number of alternative land trades which
involve remnants of parcels under the pow r line easement. This review does not address
those trades as they would not affect the ab 'ty to construct additional housing units in this
area.
In addition to the requirement that a surv y be completed which verifies the dimensions
proposed by the applicant, the City will re uire written confirmation of a driveway access
permit from Wright County. The applicant as indicated that verbal authorization has been
granted at the time of application. Finally, th City Engineer should comment on the need for
additional utility and drainage easements in . s area. Since the lots were previously platted
in an alternative layout, easements were pro ided which would no longer conform to the lot
lines. Any additional drainage or utility issu s should be reviewed to ensure that the revised
subdivision plan will not affect, or be adv rsely affected by, the existing patterns in the
neighborhood.
6
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\TINDLE.PC
.
.
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
1. Motion to approve the simple subdivis on as proposed, subject to the conditions listed
in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the simple subdiv sion, based upon a fmding that the existing
conditions in the neighborhood ne atively affect the appropriate development of
additional single family homes.
3. Motion to table action on the simple subdivision, pending additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the simple su ivision, subject to the conditions listed in the
attached Exhibit Z. The conditions include s rvey verification that the dimensions proposed
by the applicant will be upheld, and that there ill be adequate buildable area for an additional
home on the new lot. Staff would like to not that this application was accepted without the
typical requirement for a survey to facilitate ity review prior to the applicant's expenditure
of significant funds on surveying. As a simp I subdivision, staff considered the review of the
application to be possible without the surv y requirement being enforced up front. Upon
approval by the City, the applicant would t en be able to contract for the survey with the
confidence that his proposal has been appro ed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Subdivision Plan
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
C:\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\TINDLE.PC
7
.
R
.
II.
/'
RS
AO
-'.
"
",
,
.~
.
".,..1
L~ ~t\\i-:?~I- ~ n.:-__~2{I0~_-- ~i~-)(.%I( t~ l"-l
':';..I.~:..,~:\....""!~~~:~!-,"'~#j~~'g~r:;;Y;)'i5!!;}.~ ~;:~ :~;;-'::';K~~~~~~-:-:~'~""I~ ':\;;.:i.-
:~t~<~..c.}~,;:~ -i ,.-'-' :-1';.:'1' ~:t:-~~~L,;;".~~~r~~~-.:;"'~:,,~'~~-: .~~; '.~."'_j.c~", ',,'. ~ ~ . ~ .' .~."';~'--"> ,-~":.:._"'..,
....: .-. . "\ ,(..- -.. . "..~, ~.-... <. --.- - . "'., ,
......... .J
. n - . ~-',,"'~\:7."--'~7c':' :::.:~..,:~
."'" - . -.., ',-
\
\
\
\
\
I,'...:.... t,.'
II v' j, 'bqO ~V/~:~ F
~ V IY ;t-' (y u
N;r~4 ll'n~ or}.h1Z.
sw Y4- o~ -t t7~ .:Jw Y4
of S~C. 3
HI
. .. _ - '11 -
I"l
I'"
1
J":::/C
III I
:::100
All B(l..cu;r
\
-,
\
\.
.
O<Z..r
o DL;
.
~. .,
,
. .
.3J'j-
ft .. .
~:..'~-
~ 4t~.J~...
;.,,>;-.."":<-,>
-c. ./
- ---..;.r'-'- -."
...... :
..
: .'
....
. .
. .
'''-,
'"
~
,"
I
':orth.
i"hl ("If
~-Jl1ml;(~ r
1"
.- -~.....
----..-.-........-
.
.
.
1. Written approval of access permit is receive from Wright County.
2. A certified survey is completed which vet" es lot dimensions and illustrates the ability to
provide adequate setbacks and buildable are s per Zoning Ordinance requirements, without
variance.
3. City Engineer review of drainage and utility patterns and easements in the area.
C:\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\TINDLE.PC
Exhibit
- Conditions of Approval
1"
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~5/05/98
8.
United Methodist Church is requesting a rez ning of their parcel south of County Road 118
and north of the City water tower site from A 0, Agriculture to P~S, Public and Serni~Public
District. The P~S District is typically single zo ed parcel~ intended to accommodate land uses
that are distinct from other large land use. Religious institutions such as churches are
allowed in the P~S Di~trict as a conditional u ; therefore the applicant has requested approval
of a CUP as well. The subject site is cu ntly outside the City limits within the Orderly
Annexation Area (OAA). As such, all action aken by the City with regards to this application
is conditioned upon annexation of the parc 1 into the City, which may be processed at an
administrative level.
1. Annexation
The subject site is within the established 0 . As a result, annexation of the parcel into the
City should be a matter of administrative pr cessing. All actions by the City with regard to
the rezoning and CUP applications will be c nditioned upon approval of the annexation.
2. Rezoning
The purpose of the P~S District is to pro ide for the unique location and development
characteristics of public or semi-public uses, . cluding churches. The District recognizes that
the these uses may occupy only single pare Is surrounded by different uses and establishes
performance standards intended to address co atibility and impact issues of the institutional
use. Therefore, the issue of spot zoning sh uld not be considered an issue. The 6.35 acre
size of the subject site is sufficient to prov de adequate site design that minimizes off-site
impacts of the proposed use.
3. Conditional Use Permit
Religious institutions, including churches e allowed as a conditional use within the P-S
District, subject to the following:
a. Religious institutions on parcels exce ding 20,000 square feet in area shall be located
with direct frontage on, and access 0, a collector or arterial street.
C :\SANDYlWORD\AGENDA\METHCHUR.PC
8
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
Comment: The subject site hasfronta e to County Road 118, which is considered to
be a collector street. In terms of ccess, the applicant is proposing to utilize the
existing City access to the water tow r site as a shared driveway. This idea has the
benefit of reducing the number of a cess points onto County Road 118. However,
the City access is currently only a Ii ited use gravel drive that would be inadequate
to handle traffic associated with t e church. At a minimum, a shared driveway
should be improved to the driveway r quirements outlined in Section 3~5{D}9 of the
Zoning Ordinance, which are a 24 fo t wide bituminous sUlface with concrete curb.
The driveway improvements should e extended the length of the east property line
of the subject site. The extent of improvements and the cost of installation is a
matter that will need to be negoti ted between the applicant and the City as the
adjacent property owner. If a shar d driveway were not used, the applicant would
have to provide similar improvement for a private driveway on their own property.
As such, the required improvement are not beyond the minimum required by the
Zoning Ordinance.
b.
The buildings are setback from adjo ning residential districts a distance no less than
double the adjoining residential setb ck.
Comment: There are no establishe residential districts that abut the subject site.
However, the setback of the principal structure is at minimum 70 feet from a side lot
line, which would exceed the condit'on requirements.
c.
Parking areas are developed to acco odate the most intense concurrent uses of the
facility so as to minimize overflow arking onto the public street.
Comment: Section 3-5{H}8 of the Zo ing Ordinance requires one stall per each four
seats within the main assembly ha I, based upon building design. The submitted
building floor plans indicate that the main Worship hall will have a design capacity
of 332 seats. Based upon this info tion and Zoning Ordinance Requirements, 83
parking stalls are required. The sub itted site plan indicates that 115 parking stalls
have been provided. The parking sta Is above the ordinance requirements satisfy the
condition to provide ovetflow parki g.
d. Compliance with requirements of S ction 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
Comment: Section 22 of the Zon ng Ordinance addresses compatibility of the
proposed use and compliance with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. The
subject is in a location and of suffi ient size that will avoid compatibility conflicts
with adjacent land uses.
C :\SANDYlWORD\AGENDA\METHCHUR.PC
9
.
.
.
3.
Site Plan Review
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
Building Elevations. Structures ithin the P-S District are limited to a maximum
building height of 50 feet howeve , church spires or belfries are exempt. The
applicant will be required to provide uilding elevations, which are subject to review
and approval of the City Council.
Landscaping. The applicant has not provided a landscaping plan for the subject site
as required by Section 3-2[0] of the ning Ordinance. Landscaping is an important
consideration for this project to preve t erosion of the significant slopes of the subject
site. In developing a landscape pla , the applicant should consider the opportunity
for a unique landscape treatrrent to t e slopes adjacent to the parking areas including
retaining walls/terraced gardens. S aff has also discussed the potential joint use of
the sloped area between the Churc and City park system as a sledding hill. This
concept should be considered by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The
landscape plan will be subject to re iew and approval of the City Council.
Parking. As noted above, the num er of required parking stalls has been exceeded
for the proposed use. Section 3-5[D1 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines parking area
design requirements. Parking stall must be 9 feet wide and 20 feet deep. The
proposed parking stalls conform to this requirement. Drive aisles must be 24 feet
wide. The drive aisles on the site p are approximately 22 feet wide. The applicant
should verify that the drive aisles are 24 feet wide or revise the site plan accordingly.
Based upon the number of proposed parking stalls, five stalls must be designated for
disability accessible use, including at ast one van accessible stall. Disabled accessible
stalls must be 9 feet wide with and adjacent 4 foot access strip and van accessible
stalls must be 9 feet wide with an jacent 7 foot access strip. The disability stalls
may be so located to share an access trip. The site plan should be revised to indicate
the location of required disability a cessible stalls.
Section 3-5[D]9.k of the Zoning Or ance requires that all parking areas be surfaced
bituminous or other material to c ntrol dust. Also, Section 3-5[D]9.0 requires
concrete curb around the perime er of all parking areas and islands. These
improvements will be required to b installed.
Grading, Drainage and Utility p. os. The applicant has submitted a site grading
plan. However, the plans do not inc ude proposed erosion control measures. Given
the significant slopes of the subje t site, an erosion control plan is critical. All
grading, drainage and utility plans m st be subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
C:\SANDYlWORD\AGENDA\METHCHUR.PC
10
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Rezoning of the subject prop rty to P-S, Public & Semi-Public District:
Alternative 1. Motion to approve the rezo ing based upon a fmding that the proposed use
is in conformance with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and is
compatible with surroundin land uses.
Alternative 2. Motion to deny the rezon' g based upon a finding the proposed use is
inconsistent with the obj ctives of the Comprehensive Plan and is
incompatible with surround' g land uses.
Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit for a religious institution in a P-S District:
Alternative 1. Motion to approve the Cond tional Use Permit for United Methodist Church
based upon a fmding that he proposed use has met, or will meet with
appropriate changes, the c nditions as defined in the Zoning Ordinance,
including adequate traffic ccess, adequate setbacks to protect adjacent
properties, adequate park' g to accommodate the proposed use and
compatibility with the area d Comprehensive Plan objectives.
Alternative 2. Motion to deny the request d CUP based upon a fmding that the proposed
use can not meet the require nts of the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive
Plan.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff reconunends approval of the rezoning Decision I, Alternative 1) and Conditional Use
Permit (Decision 2, Alternative 1) subject to he conditions included as an attachment to this
report as Exhibit D.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
Exhibit C-
Exhibit D-
Site Location/Existing Zon' g
Site Plan
Floor Plans
Recommended Conditions f Approval
C:\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\METHCHUR.PC
11
!-
".--
84
PZ..M
i_
i-
i ~
i=
~"
~~""'''''
I ,.......
~., .)/ ;;:;:'"
g"~:;:~,...
;' . ~~.~~~~'~~
'fJjl!iD'~~ .~~~.,
,&f!!l'(lJ ',., ",/~~o~ ".
~J;\~~ ',,~\( (:>~ -~.t-._._._._._.
...,j... .:~ PS.' .j;,..;......... ~'\J. :_,.,i; ":;t:j'I;~ . T -._._._.
- ~......... . .' '......~....r:;..~.:.:~......._.:....."::. ;""."n X-~~. . .....,. '. _'_. ., -'
", N~;:~';,~,," ":.E~~~~/y;~? ~'~:::'Yr ' . '. :S:1i-i
"...~' .~' ...~~~~(,,;)~:.~~;; '. . ~ c". rr/', . rm~ DJB.--'~' i,
.11.... .,.{~...f.'..).: .' ,..'......"".. . ~.. ~.' ~.::! ~"'--.).' ';. - TlI\\ ~ - =- ---I
f!2>" ~ ." ..', :..,:....i>:>.> '" :.'.,~' ,,, ~., :G - ..:....111/ j I 1--7- I ,
'Pol: ',..:'.," . ,," .', ! l-- .~, -'-- . '
W ....-;' .'. ..... .'. .-... ,....- N ~ . ,.l _ I , --;- I
.:....f'.:....,;l... 0'-.T~.... l~'~~---'R("-;::::0 ...:.... ~. 118 I ~l-. .. ~ \! ~ I
"~, '" 'I~ -:; ~.,." , ",- CI ''Y'' I zl
,,~; " ", '.'1. .,(' · ",. ~ ,',.., ' ~.Jl', / : I=i='
~k ': -1;.U';, ~;;:,';;!i'; ,........ lj 'o;l' :, ! ~ . I
~l:i{.;.:';. l' .>'/:> ........ ~~C' 'J. ~ \ __. : ~ I
';;i "\1:":'/:", .. -:--""-;i::' _ _ _ . -- . I
;..,..f .' :1.' Ii>' F"'. .': '. ".
- SCHOOL :
~
iiiiR
~
'-
-
~
-
,-
,-
,
~
-
~
::
!i
R2
-
~
...
i!
i;;:
...
Ie
~
I
I
~
r
-- ---\
:~
I
",J:
I
... -. - t- - ."-- --
.
. - - .-." r--"--
......
,
; f"\
1
I
-.- --r -- ~ - .--
_. ___ . _ __" . EXHIBIT A
--..-. ..J
~;
i J ~ ~
~ q X ,i l{
~f~ ~l ~,)
j ii" I ~ ~ \
, ' 'i .. . ' "
~ \. '; ~ \~}: ,.... ,~
- l \; \ ) \, ~ ~ ~ ~
\ ~ ; ,\ \ \. ~ \
,~,. ~\ ~" >
I, ~ ( · ~ 0 l;. ~ ~'
"~Bi q qh"
"~~n ~\\ ~~~~ ~1;)
~ {, : ' ~ q ~ n u '" ~ ~
~ ~p~ -\ '" ~ll ill
,~ ,,\ : , . ~ l~ I
- ~ ~ ~ ~ t. ~. ! .~ .. 0" I
'~'~' ~ I' 'I'" .".,..~,-~ - . I
\' i/ II " ,"'''~'~''. -\ I
1\ ~ ~ I I...... '... ~J...~ljh'l ' , 'I' I ,
ll: ~ I .... I ~ " t) J ., '. ~ ~ ........... ' /' ::- t I
't I -!.';l..,''''~", ",\ _............... " '\~......... I
/ ,'It':r. ~~....... ~ ..,... - -,.... =-* ~ ----r---------- --t-.-:- ~
; I 1/' '_-'\1 I 1 hj"WUkM~~' :\-"'- - "-LIo~"'" -::--:... .,..~__:.-.f':."'-..: .."....',.
,~":i. 1_ /' F.(~ ..._-,"'f_~_ . :~ : ;-. : /_; 1_~:l:T""--'::--=~L~-:--7 '/ --..:.--:
I) ~\) I ";..~ ' ~ ~~ -,"'_ . ... ,_'II~""",..l: .....r.-_.-f7"'"~~_ __.!.J~ ..~
~ /' /.~ t" ,-Lk:i,~ ...41 P/ 1 ~~~~ ~'\..""'l>'"""'#'~ ~rd ...,~ .I'~~~:.""'..':..t; ~ "
~\~ \....1 1/ /ll --1. I t - -~.~- If .e".~i!.O .f.....---,.. ~' J~~;.....lHi.,_'.J;;..ltf.
~ " " /;) ; \t . i! " \ I J (~. ...
~ 1 ~ ~ l:!j~;:: ~.'r'~, '{;: ,ori' ,I )! ,: <--
~~ W / I 1 ~
,1~'/~:..I, ,; I" \ '1/' ,) 'fl' ! ~\~~i",
,.....- .. .y I i /r / I \
'J..; /._ I V I I ~~ \
/l~~' /i,' : " / ' ,1 ~ " /
'~/I~ "' i~'" : ,/ ,/, ~f ( ,
,{~'I.r. ' , 'J I ,/ < .1, I I
,tj'rg// '. 'I -, \ '\ '( I' (', j'll \' \
}(':)\j; . I / - \ \ IJ ............. '" \
i:JJ*' /~?''''------~;:\ \ \i '\ , A,' //) )
,ij/i" i ' \ " \ \~ !, I 1" /'
/~l /;~; '-:~ -. ~,".... '\ .'\~,~\ ,.',//' ','///j't: r',(L...."
I ';< ,.' ,: ' I" \ i J , ' / /.' -- ,
q < "I, _ ~l '\ .' I I ' ",I' ,
I l . '";;."" t ~ \ ' \ I I , , \
~ 1- i.. J'"' - ' ',\ 'I i I I " 'I' ", , \
I 'r. ',: ''\ \ \ . \ " \ I~.... '..., '.... ...~, "
,.~~I '~ .... ,\ \ \ .... ..........-:..~, \
~ t! ..,.llU 1"'..r'l.I'H,m ....
l' ~ 'J:'~~':j';';..~~i: '; \
.' 1\ " ' ')
~}~..+ \ \ \ /
~ ~ '.... ....--1 /
'........... ,/1 II
~
~
;
~
:;;
'"
"
<I.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~ \ '\
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ .
~ ~ ,I)
S ~ )}
~q
~ ~
~
~
>' >
" ~
"
'" "
~
^
~ ~
~
~
~
~
. ~
.:: '
~ ~
,~ l
( ~
\ \
\'
~
\ ~
s ~
~
{
(
'I
~ ~
~ <i
E
I
,
/
--
\
~ 1
~ ~
,-
- "
':, ~
,
"
I,
I
"'
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
\~
"
\
,
"
(. ~ ~
\. ~
~
5
..
".
I
/
,
, I,
/
,
I
~
~"\
il
\ '"
\ J 'l
\ 1,,_
I ',,:
\ h,'<
\ in
Ii Ut.
I ,
/-.t~
,
,
/
"
n
, :
~i
=~
e"':;;,
g~~
"~'
~~~
g., .
~ t. ~
i"o"
2'-~
~~;~
-,
f
~
'4f~
EXHIBIT B
.
.
.
~~~~~~~~~~ z ~ i~~1 ~
- ~. ~
d; z <~,
<<: ~ .
...J ~S.;~ .
11. ~ ": ~
a: 8 ;~;I i
0 z,,~, 8
~I~~~ .( ,
0 ~~~
...J
Ll- ;: ~
c::
W
11.
a.
::>
...
'F
I~
I
I
i,
"
,
"-
"-
,
>
/
(
I
I
I
)
1
I
"-
'--....
,
,
,
't
l,,---
,
, <-'
,
'" ", "
\/ "- v.,
"-
"
/
-<
"
'\
~
,
"-
,
'>
"-
,
)
/
/
~ //
/" /
,,<- -- ---/' y/
~::P~
~ U ~
t--~~
- "'-"l':
'.., ~..:;
r~ == :;;:
o Uo-
;.... ,.J
E-< t-- ~
_(1)8
'7. ..... ti
,,--< ~ 0
80:;;:
~==
~t--
~~
8~
1.,3
EXHIBIT C-1
.
! ~~
~ ~~
.
.
/~'"",
/ "
/- >;
/
/
/
13 ~~~I ~
-~"'i il r--
z"H ~..'!.
. ~liid ~
~'~~
~ 0
> ':l
Cl ::t: ~
~ U Sl
~'"
t::~~
;Z;~~
;:lug
;... ~;;j
, t-< CI'1 ~
..... ..... '"
Z 0 ~
;:lO~
~~
~~
O~
u~
,,~
EXHIBIT C-2
.
.
.
1.
The applicant and the City, as the proper y owner, determine the improvements to be
constructed and responsibility for the cost associated with the installation of a shared
driveway, which satisfies the minimum de ign standards of the Zoning Ordinance, to be
located on the City property along the lengt of the east property line of the subject site.
2. The applicant provide building elevation pI ns subject to review and approval of the City
Council.
3. The applicant provide a landscape plan that demonstrates unique treatments to the sloped
areas adjacent to the parking areas, including etaining walls/terraced gardens, as a means of
controlling storm water runoff and erosion.
4. All drive aisles be designed to a minimum w dth of 24 feet.
5. The site plan be revi~ed to designate five (5) is ability accessible stalls, one of which must be
van accessible.
6. All grading, drainage and utility plans be subje t to review and approval of the City Engineer.
EXHmIT D- RECO MENDED CONDITIONS O:F APPRO V AL
C:\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\METHCHUR.PC
i,s
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
9.
Builders. (NAC)
Star City Builders, Inc., has submitted a plan requesting Concept Stage PUD approval for a
60 unit townhouse project between Elm nd Minnesota Streets, along the 7th Street
aligrurent. The property is zoned PZM, whi 'h allows residential PUDs by Conditional Use
Permit. This developer had submitted a st draft plan which the Planning Commission
reviewed as a sketch plan at its April meetin .
The developers have addressed the generalla out issues suggested by the staff report on the
sketch plan. As a concept plan, the proje t still lacks detail required for more complex
review. There are, however, a few outstan ing issues which should be highlighted prior to
Development Stage PUD review.
First, the project will have to provide a buffe yard along the north boundary adjacent to the
Ruff Auto property. From the aerial phot ,it appears that just under half of the common
boundary is utilized by Ruff Auto for its sa vage operation. The remainder is vacant land.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, where developing parcel abuts another parcel which
is less than 50% developed, based on . ear footage of common boundary, the new
development is required to provide half of t e buffer yard on its side of the boundary. The
other half will be required of the other proper y owner at the time of expansion or significant
alteration.
For Residential to Industrial buffer yards, t e requirements are as follows:
Building Setback: 50 feet
Landscaped Yard: 40 feet
Plant units/IOO ft.: 160
These latter two standards would be hal d for this project, subject to a survey which
establishes the length of the common boun ary, and the limits of use on the Ruff Auto side
of the property line. A five foot high berm r opaque fence may be credited toward half of
the number of plants required of this pro jec .
Given the severe aesthetic issues which may impact the residential neighborhood, we would
recommend a requirement for a full berm ith plantings which would help screen the view
of the industrial use. The auto salvage use 'tself already has a fence for security purposes.
C:\SANDYlWORD\AGENDA\ST ARCIT2.PC
12
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
The second issue raised by this project is the roposal for a private road, rather than a public
street, serving the 60 units. The developer has altered the design from the sketch plan to
provide a more grid-like street pattern. T e City should identify issues surrounding the
consideration of a private street serving this number of units. Long term maintenance may
be one concern, due to the cost of reconstr ction of such an extensive private street plan.
One method of addressing this issue would be to require the homeowner's association to
capitalize a reconstruction fund to be avail ble at the time that the useful life of the street
would be expended.
Separate from the design issues of the plat as proposed will be the consideration for Park
Dedication requirements for this area. e Park Commission has been working on a
Comprehensive Park Plan which identifies this general area west of the downtown as a
neighborhood park search area. For some irne, the City has been envisioning that such a
neighborhood park might be made a part of t e city-owned property at Outlot A of Country
Club Manor. This area is directly west of t 's site along 7th Street. In addition, the Civic
Center project will be located a few blocks e st of this site, although those recreational uses
would be different in nature from traditiona park and open space areas.
The Park Commission should make a spec' c recommendation as to the appropriateness of
a land or cash dedication requirement from t is parcel. Land could serve the area, however,
the dedication requirement for this parcel w uld be just over one acre, whereas two acres is
generally the lower threshold size. Cash don tion from this development could be applied to
the City's reservation of land at the Country lub Manor site to either increase its proposed
size, or fund some near-term improvements
Finally, a pathway connection should be pI nned through this property. Options include a
pathway along the boundary line with Ru Auto, a sidewalk through the internal street
system, or a sidewalk/pathway along 7th treet. For purposes of linkage, the 7th Street
option may be the most appropriate. Again the Park Commission should review this issue
at its upcoming meeting.
There remain a few design issues which s ould be addressed at the Development Stage
submission request. These involve the a ount of pavement shown for driveway access,
particularly on the west side ofthe project. t point A on the site plan, the street is widened
to provide additional frontage for two four- nit townhouse clusters. This results in a width
of over 120 feet of uninterrupted paverne at one point, and creates a very short turning
movement for the units which are not pe endicular to the street. It may be possible to
narrow the street width in the project from the 40+ feet shown to 30 feet, or possibly even
less. In addition, a landscaped island in th triangular pavement area would break up the
expanse. In the circular area, point B on the site plan, the street is so wide as to allow
unchannelled traffic around the circle. Ag in, narrowing the pavement area would better
channel traffic, and provide needed turning adius at the intersection.
C:\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\ST ARCIT2.PC
13
.
.
.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
1.
Motion to approve the Concept Sta e pun, subject to the conditions found in this
report.
2.
Motion to table action on the Conce t Stage pun, pending additional information.
c.
STAFF RECOMMEND A TION
Staff recommends approval of the Conce t pun, subject to the conditions listed. The
primary issues noted in this report will nee to be addressed as a part of the Development
Stage submission.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan
C:\SANDYlWORD\AGENDA\ST ARCIT2.PC
14
.L3:3-zll.S
f1.i'~';':.', ~?:.~~;~~'~
", ,'C" {,t.:, lv~'~,,/,.',
~<;Ct{~' ~I ""':"~
.
'~f
r"I';
. r,;', ~':
,1:,.
,t,;', ,
~'
~-)'
~- ,~{!t
t\.?~ ~7'1;:-.:
4('i...t'
~H~:
~'\'
" ';;i;,
r ':t"'~T:
"
.
l'..'Qr'!:'~,
.. "'.'.. "
~ ,~~~: i'~
.~~
<"-
i':;'
"'~"~"~
'" \"., .'
~.',,<; .':~(r(.:.i~
")~.." .,./.'.-....
- .;_.,".,.,.....-J.
,..:...:.(.;,S~~~:
'~"'JI,"~'\.'
, ~.:v-.;..
. ;;~.~~-( ':~
l~j1 t;~;T
~~~~ ~~:;,:..:,,"
::({.. ~ "'1".~~
~; ~::~; ::j~.~~,Z;~.
k;j)~l\~S
.,'l \.~I~I:' .
~~, "~
~J"~
''I?,\,~
.~
""~OS:lNNll..4
i
~.
~Jg
@:5 u'
J)
~l1Y.
t'tR
.~~~'
'.' . ~," t~'l.:\.''''/~J
!'~'C"'j2f:. ;;f :).:::
',.;/~;''O\c.~ C i/..
-~~
,"(\ ~k .
, ; I ~ ~fl
" ....J. 0.. ~
'/~'t~{' \L -~ ~~
'W'1C<" I, J.L) IJ' -:t.
'{~ ,~. r- GO
"". 1Il'~ .\l,s I
J~--d
{N' ~/~r .:::.,:.~
.""i(;ffr,;..\. -;t'l G::;f.),C'11 "~'
')<'~ ~ "i'\-' '. '~.I . .
,";'~ c :, :"'(J/":'h.J ".
!€t.i" .\,"" . .
;F~"l
'~~~':.~.
~~I~
tJ
~
t1
'X.
}-
~
~
if)
~
e.-hibt4-.A
<srre- PL.AN
'1--/
.
10.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
Mr. Michael Cyr of Front Porch Associates s requested PUD and Preliminary Plat approval
for a seven unit townhouse project to be k own as "Ehn Street Crossing". The project is
located at the intersection of Ehn and 5th treets in a PZM Zoning District. This district
allows residential projects, including PUDs by Conditional Use Permit. This project was
originally designed as now proposed, but was rought to the Planning Commission as a larger
project at the encouragement of City staff. hat larger project included some required land
acquisition and City financial participation. ust prior to the Planning Commission's review
in April, the HRA decided not to provide the financial assistance. As a result, the developer
is requesting both Concept Stage and DeveI pment Stage PUD approvals concurrently.
However, it has now been discovered that a p rtion of the land which the developer intended
to purchase was previously sold to an adjac nt owner to supply needed minimum land area
for other housing. That portion consists of small rectangle of property behind unit 3 (see
site plan). Therefore, the development will n t be able to provide access to most of the units,
since the exception area is needed as a driv way. We have provided a revision to the plan
which would accommodate the seven units n the smaller amount of land.
This plan squeezes the buildings together t create an additional driveway, both driveways
to 5th Street being shown at 12 feet in width as opposed to 20 feet. Units 4 and 5 would be
9 feet apart (6 feet at the eave line), instea of the proposed 11 feet, and Unit 7 would be
placed at the 10 foot setback instead of 11. feet as proposed. Finally, Units 1, 2, 3 and 7
would all be "side entry" garages, while uni s 4, 5 and 6 would be back entry garages. The
arrows on the revised plan indicate garage oor locations.
One other option has been discussed. That ould be to acquire a driveway easement across
the lot adjacent to Vine Street (Lot 6 of the riginal plat). The owner of this lot is the seller
of the land to the developer and could pos ibly provide the easement as a part of the sale.
One concern related to the easement, how ver, would be that it would effectively limit the
lot size applicable to the existing single family home. Moreover, it would have to be included
in the PUD. This would require renof lcation, since that parcel was not originally
contemplated with this project.
With regard to density in the plat, the loss of he exception area puts the project right at eight
units per acre. This is the maximum density or mid-density development. While there is no
stated density maximum for the PZM Dist ict (this district would accommodate R - 3 type
development), the density does indicate an in ense use of land in relation to the unit type. Of
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\FT -PRCH2.PC
15
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
note in this project would be that there is very little green space to the rear of the units,
relying instead on the "front porch" and fro t yard spaces for open space.
Many developments of this density compe sate for the lack of private green or open space
by attaching more units together. Bye' . ating side yards, more open space can be
combined in usable sizes. Due to the unit tyle and the need to provide side windows, this
is not possible for thill project. To acCOI1lITK) ate this unit design on the land as proposed, we
would encourage an intensively landscaped roject, particularly in the rear yards which will
be used primarily for automobile access and parking. No landscape plan has been provided
with this proposal, as commonly required or Development Stage PUDs. Any approvals
should be contingent upon a submission of plan acceptable to staff.
A final issue involves park dedication re irements. The City should decide on a park
dedication policy for development such as this which replat existing land to accommodate
more dwelling units than originally planne . In this case, three additional units are shown
beyond the original four lot plat area. On the assumption that park planning was based on the
four lot development, the three new uni s would increase park demand, justifying an
additional dedication requirement. It is likel that a fee in lieu of land would be appropriate.
The Park Commission should review this is 'ue.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1:
1. Motion to approve the Concept S age Planned Unit Development for Elm Street
Crossing.
2. Motion to deny the Concept Sta e Planned Unit Development for Elm Street
Crossing.
Decision 2:
1. Motion to approve the Development tage PUD for Elm Street Crossing, contingent
upon compliance with the conditio s listed in Exhibit Y.
2. Motion to deny the Development Sage PUD for Elm Street Crossing.
3. Motion to table action on the De elopment Stage PUD for Elm Street Crossing,
pending resolution of the property e issue and redesign of the project.
C :\SANDYlWORD\AGENDA\FT-PRCH2.PC
16
.
.
.
Decision 3:
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
1. Motion to approve the Preliminary lat for Elm Street Crossing, contingent upon
compliance with the conditions liste in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the Preliminary Plat or Elm Street Crossing.
3. Motion to table action on the Pre' . ary Plat for Elm Street Crossing, pending
finalization of the property to be inc ded in the project.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Concep and Development Stages of the Planned Unit
Developrn:nt, as well as the Preliminary Plat, ontingent upon the conditions listed in Exhibit
Y (PUD Conditions) and Exhibit Z (Prelimin y Plat Conditions). If the developer wishes to
acquire other land, this project and Public Haring would have be re-noticed, and new plans
would have to be prepared for review. Altho gh there are typically additional plans required
for this stage of approval, we believe the co ditions as proposed, as well as the fact that the
area is already developed with public improv rn:nts, limit the City's exposure to engineering
problems. The primary concern is with e lack of landscaping plans for the project,
particularly in light of the density. PIa ning Commission should only approve the
Developrn:nt Stage PUD if it is comfortable aving staff review the landscape plan at a later
date. Staff recommends intensive landsca ing throughout the plat, with an emphasis on
providing screening of the automobile spac s behind the buildings.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B - Proposed Site Plan Revision
Exhibit Y - PUD Conditions
Exhibit Z - Preliminary Plat Conditions
C :\5ANDY\WORD\AGENDA\FT-PRCH2. PC
17
.
.
1\
i
6 . y9., 3.90. gg ge N
\
,- ''\:
I ':.9" II (~ ' <.Jr r I \
- -- ~;-_~ ,-- -- 0-- 81 ----..,.'--::, --;:::- - - -~,,- ~ - -- ~'.:--
-~-. --j
I" ..... I' I-~
, ~f:) eo. O[ I
\ ~ \~) I e
'" ~ ., Ii'; I
2 ~ -"" _~_~I rf~ !
~fO' - ,- ..... :" I,
Il -~~ ~ ~ ~,- I ~ Ac. ~
,~,'-.:._" (2\" I I ,
~. ;(() - " '-1l -, .... I I;: i I
) I ~ " i,'
I' I', '~'\ I ".
~ -- -, \! I \~ ~ ' i
--.... -- - I - iJ,
\1 11"1 ~
~ ~,~ I',oi
I \, ~~ I ~: ~
I ,I, I) I. ;, 'Ilu
.1.: ~3- /: ~ I : o:~,~ ~.
I ... I h ~ ~ I ~,"" 0 ""
\l.J \ .~"..~.:
--.... I ~ 'Ii I "f
, ICl
I I L~\ I U)
-- I If:' II
-- , I ' " 0
.._"'--r- I~, I ~
~ - I "3 I'll
4Ic- I~ ~'_, t
~ ' Ii "i~
,..,~---' 0 I\;
r-'-' '~-!-:':\.
-i--- / I ~;: r~
i _;~I Mo, \11 1
L1-~~ .:.. ~ _ _ _ _ ~ .... -li~:_~ f~;=:~~ 'I', :),?
~~ ~\ ~~~~ ~, '- ~,~ -:., I ':',~C'~__~_,~_ _,,> "J
," "' I I ,~- __..T - - -P:
., ,';), I I, ~I, o~o '6:0:"':':'~~' g~ N : '
'0 ,,"-' I ~'" 1 OJ . - -- il
l'5 __" I i I~' "'
,,[c~\1; j I ICl "
~~ I ; i I ::'l;'~v,\~
r~' .' n\
I> ~,,);:~,_.
c:c,--":' ~-.:"'" . I :'"1 ~ :,.
,1", 0" !.fir. ". ,,- I' (Q
1 ~ ~_ ~ _ _~\.. _ __ _.~ ~./. .0' ~~: \~\ ~ U)
-- -- - -~J--- -- -r ~\-~ - ~ (~'I
I .,
--~-------
C:r5 00'9H 3 .L~~99.9C N I i ..-, 'c
- ~;;;',','- , l -- i '",',,;, ~ 10 \
__-,::.-_c:.~::"-o:~!_, ~~~~-=:~-c=_l__~ : _ _-J.:::::______"~=::._=_---~, ..,
" c-,,~~ . ,.~~ ,:,;.'v>~ ,,~. ,'~ ' 6(1\( bI.f'''''A''
.'
'-"
""
"
co
>-
i.
t:1
(0 ~
i
C)
,-
" '"
"
,,~
~~~J~
., ;
" ~.
~/:~
\.1'~
I
;'
,
j <
6 "
IIfJ ;J)
I ~
. ~
--, .
~~ CJJ
....
.
OJ
C
'<r ."
(Q . '-;:j.
U)
" \.
IV
~l .j
"t?
;~
,,'" \ 1.\ ~
'~~l\'\
<.:..:.\). .
I
I
I
"~ I
I
I "'
I
I
I
I
I
(I f;
I __
@i 00
~ I ~
I --
~
1:' '..l
l,
", ct "
_'"
--Q
..
0"9" I
\,
\,
~ ,'~
'~":>'c
........::::----r-:--..".. T"--~ ~-::-"""'-.--"
- --- ----~-------~-
.-,1-;.:. ,-,".
,~
lu
( ,~<'~
~'.
~.\
':")
,
~
\,
\
I,
,..
~1.
c:<-
O
~~I
~,
.
(1 ,~f. ..
I '.. ~/I" II
-- .,.-'- -- .",~
r-
\
I I .....-~
r-~
: '" (i) : o~"
~ ~, t)
I--.r---~~ ~
I <f'Q,
'"
-/-
I' _ _ _ _::-"_,
['-"/'~~Mn/~ ~..
.. / ._on_ (1 'B
\
~~
I
I /---
/
A
/1
I
I
I
I
. I
" I
I
~\ I
--"1
I --
It.J I I
~ ----- : (:~I.
~, (~l Il ~
~ I ~ I
0,.1 'I~~
~ ,~ I ~ Cl
fJ) : ::~) H
I ~ j ~~
: ~ I(:~
': I-::;~~- \ 1\2; ~,
1 T'1 ~.", ____
--1----- \
I
I
/
~~ I
/
/ or
I
I
/
I '"
I <<'
"
"' ~
~~:~.
t;
cr ~
i?
('
',1
J__ \
c;
ct- ~
a tt
Cl_
" "
",
, "
:.t: ."
CJ ~
~
"
" ~,
':f,~
, "
I "
I_
I
0!
\2.71
I
.
6
I~
,Ie)
,I ~
~ -I
-.'
...~
-" 'II'
"''''
! '\\
(l't={
" J:
~. lJ
", Q:
a "
..fl .....
I "
(:21 0'
\::7 I
I -
.
\.'
~ y
,>
') ~
'~ Ii.!
'\
, '
, ~ \ i,
,,:~ \ \
. 0;0'\1):' ,
~)t_-:, '""
:r- "
(,J
,., cr "v
': Z'
0"
\
\
..~. (1 '(1f.. ..
I__~.!__o'____
~
00.9H
L"~~.o(.
\~~ ~~.l.
-':::;'~-:::_--:-:=-:.~:.::-::-:-'~'~~-';-:O::::.~'.':.'--:~-:~.:.'~:.;..::~:~';'';':=:::.i,~:::::-,:,..
~.~
.- !..
..",~'.- "''''~
.,.>..../!O-(~~___
\
-@i--';;;"\ ~~ - -~, .. ~"~~~~::-;~-:-tro-., - ;~D-,"_~--lJI' ~
o yr o'a -..., L..'
hJ ~ F-:\ '->
~ \~\B~ i~ I
~ ~ . ~
[2 ." '-, I ~ ~ I t 0
/ ".... I.~. i
.....- <"""- . ~" 1 I.';.A" Ii
r3\ O' I ~ /1
'" \b .... i J . ~ II
/ I~, "
0" \ I~' .~\ II
'" ~,' 0 --", \ I '\~'
(!) ,~. ~ ...... ' I
--~- ~;: . ------ - \ 11------ 11 '-~I ~
\ .
~ ~ I ". COJ
\8>0.. I _. J OJ
1 \ ~~' .....
I I t, I, .
i.. / l;, r ~':';:. .. t.u__
v \" ~'l:/iC-.' -
I :" ~ I ',,'.- 0
/ " ~""l. 'q- ,
-.~ I ;tjl,'n'
/ ~ I ~.:r ~ k
,d, ~ ~ '^ ~.. ....
~ ~ I ~
} " ~ I \ fJ)
';J .'
"I : ';::1 (]
--1\- I ~II. ~i
I":i- II':".
) I U II"~
.-, , L J.!,~
r-'''-' '\:)'-;1 ,
, -t. I ~:I ~~~~
+-~ZX~ I r<1I: \
I' , Z \.j...l4
,., ..... " ....../ o~ I
1__J.t:r- r;- ~ ~ : , r
1 -<';'" ,;~ ~ + I'
I - --t-o::::..=--=-o - -~:\\).,
""'" I (' -"
'a, I I, \
. n
1-
0<.: I r ,1 ~
UJ .. I ' I 'q- \
l"f,;:;{' 1 I to '"
~~. .'/ :~ [! Jl:L", "'\,,"',
'" IG~. ,u\
~~ ,;1 ki>j~; ~~
'" -. I I I. .... _ '.c.' . ''--___
01 ""y,')
L,I ? J, ' "
_~,__;,:J I, I ~ <
-u I fJ)
/- '0:1'.',., , ,<"~ J ~~ _.1 'I
- --4,- -- 'I ~\--~ - 1-" I
-: : .~
~
~
o 'B;
~-'~ :
. rii,', -- . _-~-
.. Ii=> ".: D. ~. .
'a, -(,{t).. "
0'8'-
~
~ ~
[2
Co '"
\~ 6 \t\
~ ~
~-
[2
~~,- ----.~:
3 .90,99 ge N
bi
~\1J
~~~
t~;
C4:.
o.
[,!:5)
f .
i.{;
;: ~ .',
,"
e'
O'
/
. ...~
() Ii,.
~
< ~
C)
>-
~)
,
(,
J
~
(f'I 'f
<-:
'"
C)
...
" -'-,
~ (~~ ~,
l~ .'...... . oe.--)
n ',~,~
cG
/
....
- (~
. ..'2)
....."
---.
O' ,
/*:'
c.'~~._,____
.--'
,-
I
...,
~;; Q ~
lS)
:~.~'
1'>), ~
, ..
....... '
----'-'.
o .L~.!
~~.,/.. :0
.. "
'" "
iJ;--- --
IlJ ,..r\
l"~, .
"l C' .'1
cr ~ "T
" ~J"
'" ,
h
~'l.
~G'._~ __.rt' _"";1."-(.,;'"
II
,
'I
."
.^
.~
q"-;;J.!)
~. ;
,
~,
"
\
I~
.-
z"-
'"
S
.,
(":
. 0 'R,
':")
.'
~
~~-
~ ~ ~ - - -...-+-
nL. "L,".,'V,' f""
. ~_~( /O,,'d-
"-~_....:....~--_:_.._""- 'f. >/,/) Ii'" I!t:~ rill! HI./,I
-:.cuL~L -.t ·
L:.P> ~ru pi iii
I
_-.-l~
\~~ .":; . ......~-f'/'c... ,'I"' ..__;: ..-,.,'. -:.~ __" ~~'~:,--".... I. -~ -
.~. ,,-'
.
.
.
1.
Revised Site Plan illustrating proper access
2. Submission of Landscape Plan illustrating in nsified landscape treatments as detailed in the
staff report to Planning Commission.
3. Final approval of the Preliminary and Final
Exhibit
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\FT~PRCH2.PC
- Conditions of Approval
10'3
.
.
.
1. Submission of Final Utility Plan for review nd approval by City Staff.
2. Submission of Final Grading Plan for revie and approval by City Staff.
3. Submission of revised Preliminary Plat illust ating lot dimensions and common space.
4. Submission of lot covenants and homeown s' association bylaws demonstrating adequate
provisions for common area maintenance.
5. Final approval of the Planned Unit Develop nt.
Exhibit
C :\SANDYlWORD\AGENDA\FT-PRCH2.PC
- Conditions of Approval
10'~
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
.
11.
Rink.. (NAC)
Russ and Paula Adamski have requested Zoning Ordinance text amendment to allow
outdoor go-cart tracks as a conditional use w thin the 1-1, Light Industrial District. This use
is currently only allowed by CUP in the B-3, ighway Business District. The purpose of the
request is to accommodate an expansion 0 the applicant's existing roller rink amusement
area, located at the southeast corner of Coun Road 117 and Thomas Park Drive (zoned 1-1
District), to include an outdoor go-cart tra k. As such, the applicants are also requesting
approval of a CUP for an outdoor go-cart track. However, any action on this request is
contingent upon the City taking one of t ee alternative actions to allow this use on the
subject property,
1.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
.
The applicants are requesting an a ndment to the Zoning Ordinance so that an
outdoor go-cart track can be develo ed on their property, which is currently zoned
I -1 District. The applicants have re uested that outdoor go-cart tracks be made a
conditional use in the 1-1 District, su 'ect to the same conditions as provided for this
use in the B-3 District. A:rrending the Ordinance to allow outdoor go-carts in the I-I
District increases the opportunity t establish uses within the 1-1 District that are
more commercial in nature than indus rial. Therefore, the proposed amendment may
be considered inconsistent with the urpose of the I-I District and Comprehensive
Plan.
A second option to accommodate t e applicant's request is to amend Section 15B-
4[Dl of the Zoning Ordinance " sement places (such as roller rinks and dance
halls) and bowling alleys" as a co ditional use within the 1-1 District to include
outdoor go-cart tracks. This opti n however is problematic in that "amusement
places" as currently defined relates t indoor type uses. Outdoor uses, including go-
cart tracks, raise different compatib"ty issues such as screening, noise, lighting, etc.
Combining indoor and outdoor recre tional uses under the same conditional use may
result in problems ensuring that co patibility issues of potential uses is adequately
addressed.
.
Finally, a third option to consider i a rezoning of the applicant's property to B-3,
Highway Business District. The land to the west of County Road 117 are zoned B-
3, therefore spot zoning would not an issue with this action. While the B-3 District
C:\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\GO~CART.PC
18
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
allows outdoor go-cart tracks as a co ditional use, the applicant's existing roller rink
is not a conditional or permitted use' the B-3 District. As such, an amendment to
allow amusement areas as a separat conditional use in the B-3 District would be
required. From a technical standpo t this option is more appropriate given the
commercial character of the indoor outdoor recreational uses. This option does,
however, result in a loss of industria zoned land.
2.
Conditional Use Permit - Outdoor G -Cart Track.
If the Planning Commission reco nds and the City Council acts favorably on the
rezoning io;;sue, consideration of the p oposed development of a go-cart track on the
applicant's property may occur. Ass ming that the Zoning Ordinance is amended to
allow outdoor go-cart tracks as a con itional use in the 1-1 District or the subject site
io;; rezoned to B-3 District, approval 0 a CUP for an outdoor go cart track is subject
to the following conditions, as outlin d in Section 13-4[N] of the Zoning Ordinance.
A.
The proposed use must meet all conditions of Chapter 3, Section 4[A].
Comment: This section re/a es to lot area and building size requirements.
There is no minimum lot siz required in the B-3 District and the minimum
lot 'Width is 100 feet. The inimum lot size of the /-1 District is 20,000
square feet and the minim m lot 'Width is 100 feet. The subject site is
approximately 107,250 squar feet in size and has a 'Width of approximately
225 feet at thefrant setback line. As such, this condition is satisfied.
The Conditional Use Permit ill be reviewed yearly to determine whether or
not it is compatible with n ighboring properties and in conformance with
conditions of the conditional use.
B.
Comment: This statement '11 be included as part of the recommended
conditions of approval.
C. A solid six-foot high fence ust be part of the screening required when the
adjacent properties are resid ntial.
The subject site is surrounded only by commercial and industrial zoned properties.
However, to minimize the impacts f noise from the go-cart track to any adjacent
properties, and to screen the use om the public right of way a wood fence and
landscaping should be provided. The types and quantities of planting materials should
be such that a dense planting wall ultimately develops to further buffer the noise
impacts of the go-cart track.
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\GO-CART .pc
19
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
D.
For dust and noise (70dB at re idential property line) must be controlled at all
times to the satisfaction of th City.
Comment: The fence and pi ntings discussed above should be adequate to
address noise issues. Howev r, beyond the noise of the go-carts, in no case
should any type of outdoor p blic address system be utilized on the subject
site.
The submitted plans do not indicate the surface of the proposed go-cart
track. To control dust, the o-cart track will be required to be concrete or
bituminous surfaced.
E. The provisions of Chapte 22 of this Ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
Comment: Section 22 of the
proposed use and complianc
The subject site is in a locatio
land uses.
ning Ordinance addresses compatibility of the
with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
to avoid compatibility conflicts with adjacent
Parking. The existing parking lot is bitu . ous surfaced and striped. However, submitted
plans do not indicate the number of stalls ithin the parking lot. Staff has estimated the
capacity of the parking lot to be at least 70 salls, based upon the minimum design standards
within the Zoning Ordinance. With the num r of stalls to be provided, at least two must be
designated disability accessible with a 7 foo access strip in between for van accessability.
The Zoning Ordinance requires one space r 40 square feet of building area for roller rink
uses. Based upon this requirements and a b ilding size of 11,700 square feet, a total of 294
parking stalls would be required for the ro r rink use alone. However, ITE data suggests
that the actual parking demand for the ro r rink, based upon building size is actually 46
stalls. As such, 24 stalls would remain for t e go-cart track use. At least on an initial basis,
this number appears appropriate. There is a ditional site area indicated on the site plan as a
proposed mini-golf area that could be dev loped as parking, if demand is found to exceed
supply. A condition of approval will be that he applicant must improve the existing parking
lot to provide at least 70 parking stalls, tw of which must be disability accessible.
Mini-Golf Area. As noted above, the subrni ted site plan indicates a proposed miniature golf
area. Development of this use on the subje t site would require the applicant to request an
CUP amendment. Whether the miniature olf use would be allowed would be dependent
upon conformance with Zoning Ordinance rovisions, particularly parking.
C:\SANDY\W ORD\AGENDA\GO-CART.PC
20
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
Lighting. The submitted site plan does not in icate if any exterior lighting is proposed to be
utilized to illuminate the go-cart track. The ap licant should revise the site plan to specify the
location of any and all exterior site lighting. dditionally, the applicant must provide details
regarding any proposed light fixtures, indud' g photometric plans. All site lighting must be
subject to review and approval of the City C uncil.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Amendment to allow Outdoo Go-Cart track use on subject site:
Alternative 1. Motion to approve an amend nt to the Zoning Ordinance to make outdoor
go-cart tracks a condition use within the 1-1, Light Industrial District,
subject to the same conditions as outline for this use in the B- 3 District, based
upon a finding that the use i consistent with the purpose of the I-I District
and Comprehensive Plan obj ctives.
Alternative 2. Motion to approve an amend nt to the Zoning Ordinance to include outdoor
go-cart track uses within th scope of "amusement places" based upon a
finding that the use is s" character to that of other uses so defmed and
that the amendment is consi tent with the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Alternative 3. Motion to approve the rezo . g of the subject site from I-I, Limited Industrial
District to B-3, Highway C mmercial District based upon a finding that the
existing and proposed use of he subject is commercial in nature and that the
amendment is consistent wit Comprehensive Plan objectives; and,
Motion to approve an a ndment to the Zoning Ordinance making
"amusement places (i.e., ro er rinks and dance halls) and bowling alleys" a
conditional use in the B-3 istrict based upon a fmding that said uses are
corrnrercial in nature and ar consi"ltent with the purpose of the B-3 District
and Comprehensive Plan ob ectives.
Alternative 4. Motion to deny applicant's request based upon a finding that none of the
proposed actions are consi tent with the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Decision 2: Conditional Use permit fo go-cart track in subject site:
Alternative 1. Motion to approve a Cond tional Use Permit to allow an outdoor go-cart
track in the I-I District based upon a finding that the proposed use has met or
C:\SANDYlWORD\AGENDA\GO-CART.PC
21
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
will meet, with appropriate c anges, the conditions as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance, including adequa e screening to protect adjacent properties and
adequate parking to acco odate the proposed use and compatibility with
the area and Comprehensive Ian objectives.
Motion to approve a Condi ional Use Permit to allow an outdoor go-cart
track in the B-3 District base upon a finding that the proposed use has met
or will meet, with appropriate hanges, the conditions as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance, including adequ e screening to protect adjacent properties and
adequate parking to acco odate the proposed use and compatibility with
the area and Comprehensive Ian objectives.
Alternative 2.
Motion to deny a Conditional se Permit to allow for a outdoor go-cart track
on the subject site based upn a fmding that the proposed use can not meet
the requirements of the Zon g Ordinance or objectives of Comprehensive
Plan.
Alternative 3.
C. ST AFF RECOMMEND A TION
Staff recommends approval of a rezonin of the subject site to B-3 District and text
a.rrendment to make "amusement places" as c nditional use within the B-3 District (Decision
1, Alternative 3) and a Conditional Use Per 't to allow said use (Decision 2, Alternative 2)
subject to the conditions included as an aU hment to this report as Exhibit C.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Recommended Conditions of A proval
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\GO-CART.PC
22
, \'\~ ~riill~-i."l,iJJ i~I'l,~,\:\,I~ [1- ,/ I ~ /;
/ \\ \ "L/' fl,' _,~L _",JJJ / " 1 ~/
I \ : I / : .5/
'\' ,. , I f - - -- - _\ J
~ }~j _~~ ~_ J k-m,'"' ~
2:::: ~-~-~> I "~~- -~~tf
! _n- :/_::__t-JfU1U -'-~ _" / / ,\~ ,;~~- ,\1 /-{; \
- { f I , , ':"... \:..A:.:J- ~ ____lm_. --- --'
/ ~l;:':.! 1 "V\~~it~-;8, ?~..'/ :
. r::c~' --~ ~'j\_I..:,"'1:~ ~:\. ~ i
I --;--- ::.",,: ~,," 'f :-.....:'i. '1,1. u:- '~'l""" !
. - ~ ..o.::;:::::-~~ -...; , 'I' ~I"
I n._;-_' ~ ~-~I.* ' o{'~1 " . 'I'
1--:--- ~~,.,. - 1~~I~:'I.\ l.i _____~___.__ ----- 1..
/'~?1; .@A~ \ ',r . ~ :
I --;:__ : a /~ \1 .....:'), ,I :
./ :-:.l:1Ja,', -' - 6 If '~ '" \ \ ,\ \! II' ~. : I -, 1-- I
1/.//~~~'~-'?..:.::7J~" ;,<. ;, ',i"il' 5'l/~c~ / V ~j; n ~ ~ ; U
. _, J tt . - . . ';;~r. ,~ I
1+ . , ' ,
,..., ----- I' ,- " " \J 'Iii 1
I' / c-:- x: ';j' N-IC"
,. ,.'" \ ". (/. ::, ...'......,( ,--,--,.--- ----- ~. .~"':.:" '~~"j~::,~-- '
i _ ~~~r-'. - e'....1 ~ ;'~ ,:,;' ~,
~~ / .~., ,,'%> .....~ ~ ~~iil
:1ffIJI~V-~-f ..>;.< ... ..... U . _.~ ~ ~
~I .::.-;;i~~' :,: vI <.nl '_, ........... '., :(l........................ ....... V"l ;..:; :','~:%5 /;1
"-~"~;;Z" " ;J: ~ c...., 1\:/><, I';;.. ...... -: :: "t~.~~'~\.;.;
" U j' "'..- - '.C," :,i." " '-'-'
'~I j:,:" , .:' , . I,,' ,~, :./. ',. .1 ,
:''1;JJJj;-!-- " .~ '1 . ' : /;."'.?:./I .. ~-: I'
~1il0~ .-I~~ 1 /;, i'/, '" _ /.:, - :-1 .~ --
f~~k..~"'" 'lII~' If -, -"H'\'L'I'I./! I 1
fJl:_'_fll-~. ~~~----. .~~,.:".-, -~. .. ~~~~"'\'l' ~ . ."' . .H.,.,.,e;-i i
~{ -_- r c- . ~.. 1 . "'.' : ~\'1 ,w' --":S:\.J~.>.' :
1 ~~~' -'S,'t.,...,: 1., "rl ..~. - ::,&t\..1J ':-<;'* ~i.":Z\r.cFl i
," " j'~ .~~ ~ ~)~":-'?;:"!:';f' i'::.,:i ,
r~ ,.....,. t. (-;\.,.,. . b 8: ,_ '.l,c . <~ I
" :f~./f~.J.: LIJ I~ :9::',' . ~.:."".,."... -il------->---~..--:-:~-:..:.
.~ : ~J...."-f_~ ~!:: :c'~. :~.i I" ?~"1~'H- ';"'L:,tj:':;.:lli: r.:~: !
;~I . '~1.,'1 '0::: (/) :.<::M:::;.~": : : ~,,-"'~ ~ I
~~~, "~"... I." ~.~. 0'.'" ....... J ", ,.17.\ : ~ ,lh" : i'i~:(~~:,t \
I~"'" ~j -- ~ LIJ ' " ' , , ;:::; .~'\'~X:\...' -:>..::
. r I .r.,t.., 1 1"Q1tE. , .',' .\,-;:'Y.' :;: ~
~~. :'fS; [fG . :!Q ", l' -'--'- .r " , rJ- :: :,
.....J :., / /1- '
~. ~~;~:~;iiJ';-' ~.jL::(('Hr:;Q... ';:. ~ U'.. u ~ 111 __. _~~~~_:
R':.~ "-f.~, , '/:" '1,:::-, ... /J,' _ : ......:. ...... N ':/;) 1
"-. ~7'<0 .. " -:. I",~, , I~:;;:, ,.;0' -" '_';-"~Cl.. ,t,/ I '
.~ \~~7JU::1r \ -{:-~-.; ~ I).' ~."",,~,!., OC''-~ i
';P / " . '" I I. -' X4!' 1 ,
"I7!ii~tt~ ~~ \, ~ \ ,4:.",\" \-, I<~~-- - li"-. ,~'. ~:~, -----~p-:---- -----
~ ,:<;~ 1S~ ~ -~-- ~~~ ".\. I-,,~'.-l "7' -I - I'"-'f(>~ -'-'- "i , ,\ \
~2j~ -----' ..' '\.-L.-::, Wli. I. ~~:'!' fl) 1> ~S! ~"',~ ,~, l'
.:; .4Q:f \ :',: It! (/11.1.1"'\-\- , ~1. "'...... -,. ,
) l Li.;.J ". ~ /i. I ......,..'" ~
" ........I.l~~j l>i /1 , .'\i......... ,:.\_;t,I.., , EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION I EXISTING ZONING
1:::( 1;'" -, LA"" \ 1 '," '
h,';> . r--.L.._~-,.:.-.._._._. .-. .... - -----\~~.7C'~JA --
~"l...s;:;..~___......."~-r,~-- ................ If I I ~~;. \
- --, I: .1 I __ '.,,, ,,"1__ __ I
.
~=-=r~u_u_-:
I
,
! J~--- -- ./.
C' - ,-----",
--- ----I - \---
----'
_L
r-----
I,
I
.
Or
-_J
. ,. ,.-.. -------.--
-v:;z~
'"
<>
...j
t,
~
ii'
0:
~
(1(.11""
.<
;::,
;::,
.l .
, I
'1
I
'" I I~ \
". :; ~
'jI
~ ~
u, '0
., I ~ 1;,-,
'" l't
- b -
'1 ..
-,
w
I
U.
I I
.1.____.
Tb (1;'
.. "
P~i
~.h
.. "'-:'--
~~:~
.,;~ ~:& 1..1
10
I~
o
I~
I~
~
~
_('1").__
~
~/HI:,;~~~~ H~ :;~~~~:~~ ftJ
Cn.--------.' _~__..m_______ --- <::
" 1NJw::JS~:J .:JNI"1 tf~". rl .,.......-- I
- . - -- - - --- - -B~~<PI- -'".. - - - - - - -.- - - - m_ - - ;::- ( - ---- -~ -_ .~ l-=. -_
6L'~2c 3 .~'.22.' N
!)NIf1!Jf1.1
~==-=.~ -oiJ7.7fdt~='-
. Hmos'"
.-:~,~-===----==~ =-.-_.
(lO 'OCJ2
- -..L o~./
.
,
-~ 2>'&".;7
:?fp cfC3"d'" '..,
~~
en
't
Cl
....
C\J ~~ '~
" '.t
)::Q t,
Qo ~ ..
Q ll" ~
>-
'l C:J ~~~
lutn
a: ~ ~~
",en
li)
?
en ~ ~ '\
'P
" ~~
OJ
c-
'.,
"
,'-.\'~". \ ""....."........,..,/ 'OCT____-"...... ,~
......' ". '.
';...." .
,
.,
"
,
"
.
e
~:
"
"
" " "
~ :: C(
~ ~ ~
" " ~
'" "' c,
(!
a'/
\ \. ' '-. ", " ,
, \. .......,......
, "or-r '\. '... '..' ...., ".,' '\.,'...........,"
"-
'"
--'
OO'gL
..,
"
....
'"
~
o.
Yl
.'
Q
,.
~
1-::
iii
.,
'"
. =-=-~-l - ---
on
'"
"1
,.,
~...l
J';JF~tIf1S ~(I(.,.lhfIJ IF
I
~- --,,,
l..! ,f'",,.
\1 '
t' I
~ I
:~ nl!
__m.1
~ I
I
,
,
I
,
,
'~-
,
,
I
,
i/
I
,
I
'\
\
\
'.
t
~
,
"
-,- I_~_-
:1 .~'r CC.' N.-J
, ('
~
~~
~
.....
i--
~
l.l
G5
"
'"
.>---
t,>
1- ;i
:!: ,
. ~
"'- ,
....
C\J
C\J
0)
CO
~(J)
c
'"
;;
~~
1___ -~--o~ ~--
~
~
'<t
C\J
C\J
CO
C\J
l"Z-
EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN
.
.
.
The Conditional Use Permit will be revie ed yearly to determine whether or not it is
compatible with neighboring properties and in onfonnance with conditions of the conditional
use.
1.
2. A solid 6 foot high wood fence be provided ound the rear yard of the subject property.
3. The applicant provide a landscape plan th t provides planing materials of the type and
quantity necessary to supplement the required ood fence as an effective screen/buffer. Said
landscape plan shall be subject to review an approval of the City Council.
4. The go-cart track be surfaced with concrete or bituminous material.
5. No exterior public address system or loud s eakers be utilized on the subject site.
6. The parking lot be improved so as to pro ide 70 parking stalls, two of which must be
disability accessible with a 7 foot access lan in between.
7. Any expansion of uses on the subject site shall require an amendment to existing CUP subject
to compliance with Zoning Ordinance provis ons, subject to review and recommendation of
the Planning Commission and approval of t e City Council
The site plan be revi<;ed to indicate the locati n of any and all site lighting. Additionally, the
applicant shall provide details regarding a exterior light fixtures including photometric
illumination fields. All site lighting shall subject to review and recommendation of the
Planning Commission and approval of the ity Council.
8.
9. Comments of other City Staff.
Exhibi C ~ Recommended Conditions of Approval
C:\SANDYlWORD\AGENDA\GO-CART .pc
, ,,,~
.
.
.
12.
Displays.
The City of Monticello has been regulating nd issuing licenses for outdoor sales and
display without the substance of an ordinan e for many years. This proposed ordinance
would give the City a legal basis for such re ulation.
Outdoor sales are divided into three classes:
.. Temporary outdoor sales and dis lays are sales and displays conducted by the
operators of a legitimate established business, such as sidewalk sales and the
like. Such temporary sales and disp ys would be allowed for up to 60
consecutive days by the issuance of wo consecutive 30 day licenses.
..
Seasonal outdoor sales/displays ar sales and displays conducted by the
operators of a legitimate established business, such as such as garden center
sales, and the like. Such seasonal s les and displays would be allowed for up to
120 consecutive days by the issuanc of two consecutive 60 day licenses.
.. Itinerant outdoor sales and displa s are sales and displays conducted by
persons other than the operators of legitimate established business, such as
such as farm produce sales, Christ s tree sales, and the like. Such itinerant
sales and displays would be allowed for up to 60 consecutive days by the
issuance of two consecutive 30 day 'censes.
It is the intent of this ordinance to regulate utdoor sales and displays in a manner that is
as consistent as possible with the existing p actices of the Monticello business
community.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Recommend to the ity Council that the Ordinance establishing
outdoor sales and d' play regulations be adopted as proposed.
Move to:
2.
Move to:
Recommend to the ity Council that the Ordinance be tabled for
further study and co sideration.
23
.
3.
Move to:
Recommend to the C ty Council that the Ordinance not be
adopted.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Co 'ssion recommends to the City Council that
the Ordinance establishing outdoor sales an display regulations be adopted as proposed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of Proposed Ordinance
.
.
24
.
.
.
--.-
ORDINANCE O.
CITY OF MON ICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2-2 ND ADDING SECTION 3-11A OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY EST LISHING OUTDOOR SALES AND
DISPLAY REGULATIONS.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Subsections [TA. ], [RH] and [II] are hereby added to the City
Code to read as follows:
rT A.ll
IRHl
Wl
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section [3-11 A] of the City C de is hereby added to read as follows:
3-11A
IAl
\1/\
.
IW.
1Q
.
.
fhuk
TDOOR
TYPE OF OU PLAY
SAT E AND DTS
TeIIlPOfllrv
~
.6!l
TtinerllIlt
. 'mum up to
15mml
30 maximum
illl
11-." 2..
.
.
.
1El
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately pon its passage and publication according
to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Counc. this
day of
1997.
OF MONTICELLO
By:
Bill Fair, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
t2. ' 3
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -5/05/98
13.
River Mill 4th Addition is proposed for Pr liminary Plat approval. This plat was tabled by
the Planning Commission at the April eting due to concern over the neighboring
landowner's objection to the plat of a street ong the common boundary. The City's attorney
has reviewed the request and determined that the City can approve the plat as presented, with
a caution to the developer of River Mill tha there is no guarantee that the remainder of the
street would be available in the future, or hat the interior lots requiring access from that
street could be platted and constructed.
As such, we refer the Planning Commi sion to our report for the April 7 Planning
Commission agenda, with the following ch nge to condition 2:
2.
Proposed Preliminary Plat Lots 13-1 , Block 2 shall be designated as Outlot B, River
Mill 4th Addition, subject to [mal p tting only at such time as the adjacent property
to the east is platted to provide the emainder of any street right-of-way. The City
does not guarantee any such plattin . nor does the City guarantee the development
of any of Outlot B.
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\RIVMILL4.PC
25
~
'"
I
~.."'\~ I'~~
~ - \
'\ !
'1.,.". s.?
':)NI lN3~dOl3^30 l\lllN30lS3Cl
I
<rm:>llJlOIl jO AW
OOOCI-Il.t Cl:U/I) '" ~~ .... "'IJ,.VZJ..YM" J.~B H.1nOS O;~
"JNI '.LSInODH:!IH-:'iUIH.LVS
NOI1IOO\;f Hlt llll^J cEI^I?J
NVld lN31'ld0UII30 ).UVNII'lIU~d
~ \ Z ~
~
~
~
~
.,
r::l
flt
~
;..
~
I
!
J,
, ~I
<>:,
. Q.
~!
'i
<>:
_..J. _
I
'I
I
i.
~
8 OllnO
... .
~.~.
'k
~,
.::"-'
i -=."
'~I! Q
:!~i:'!__I-._
""I>:J
c:~:~~clf=c~':'.
II:c !I!!
'!i
'I
I,
II:c
-,'
'j
1.1'"
-'7':,~.~----_._,,\
'!f ,"
., ~g:i,'
'"
'"
~
';;;/'
.- ~.
::l:t:'.
-.~"i.t,';-
.......
'i" '-no
.;'~
,....;
ill
_.L. ~
]~ '--:h
. y
_,.' ::J
"
,
"
I /.' ,,"
P~P~D f>u:-r
i
i'<t
<n
Ie<
ty'
,,;t.... ...... ':)NI lN3NdOl3^3G IillN30lS3d I i
~ .:, <m:lOIlI'O" ~ IJD
O(:Oi--8lt (ZH).l~ ...,. "'trrtJ.... A.~ H.Lf1OS Olin - - 'II In 11 ~ !~
':JNI '.LSrnh~nI3g-3'MHl.VS " ! I'-.JOl11001if H1t lllf'\J tJ3M::l l oil
.....Jo1*'" ..,'f" a
!'t'1d ~lrill3lld
.
>'-
.-' ~
~ II
':E
,.. '" i~ :.
!i 2~ n. ~
~llilli~ ."
~ lllbl ~ u
- z i~~~ 0" is El
\ >- m~t; >-z !i: t
....", i~ ~ ~ u
~~!S~ :ii~ of;
(1:_",0 Ej'c ili,g
;;:;;:~~ 0 I!.
0'" <I. !f is
...JI-.....~ "'W
0"- ::; b991!! ::;jE "
iE~~)- !:f
t-1-0~ "'~~11I f!2!.< m
'39E I!i","'-' 9jE ~ "
~z~~ bolo cri.B
z:i",~ ~: 58 ~
r= ~
a:i
....,
~
""",.''''"1 11;
,-,'0 ...
.... 21
ou OT S !! ~
83, 011 9' II
_ni" --
i
n_ l_"__
--.J
~
'"
"
--.J
~
~
!<'
'"
--.J ~
~
'"
Q;
~
.:0,-
., '1----
, .- ~-I
.
,--_..-
,- ,
1
f
Q;
~ E
;0';;-
:::J-- -
st "11__ -;-"'1'>,- ~ ~~
'--_.!.':----',:
'"
'"
o
z
..
i
~
1:
B
"
--"I,
--1 :'--
i ,'~--
~
I
"' .
- ;,.:. \. ,;
1'1 r:
..< .....
.
\~,~
-s-p
UHP+J~: \ZBf\S~f?:(UMI~ ~LPI
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/07/98
A.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROU D:
Residential Development, Inc, has req ested preliminary plat approval of a 27 lot
single family residential development ti led River Mill 4th Addition. The proposed
subdivision overlays a 14.51 acre par el south of County Road 39 and north of
Interstate 94 currently platted as Outlo B of River Mill 3rd Addition. The subject
parcel is zoned R-1, Single Family Res dential.
Streets
Layout. The proposed street layout i generally acceptable. One issue is the
intersection of Mill Trail Drive and Mill Trail Lane. The applicant is proposing to
replat River Mill 3rd Addition to change Mill Trail Lane/Mill Trail Drive from a loop
street and make Mill Trail lane extend a a through street across the River Mill 4th
Addition (Exhibit C). Mill Trail Drive ould intersect at a "T" with Mill Trail Lane.
The proposed street layout results in ann-linear alignment of Mill Trail Lane. Staff
recommends that the original layout of Mill Trail Lane/Mill Trail Drive within River
Mill 3rd Addition be maintained and th t Mill Trail Lane be extended to River Mill
4th Addition from a 90 degree intersecti n between Lot 5, Block 4 of River Mill 3rd
Addition and Lot 6, Block 2 of River Mi 14th Addition.
Half Street. The applicant is proposing to plat a half street 30 foot right-of-way on
the east edge of the subject plat. The pr posed half street provides access to Lots
13-17 of Block 2. The right-of-way for the other half of the street would not be
dedicated until such time as the propert to the east is subdivided and developed.
As only 30 feet of right-of-way is a ailable, a public street designed to City
standards. cannot be provided. Staff r commends that the proposed half right-of-
way be platted as an outlot and Lots 3-17, Block 2 also be platted as a second
outlot as access cannot be provided at t is time. At such time as the property to the
east of this plat is subdivided and devel ped, the east half of the public right-of-way
will be required to be dedicated and a p blic street constructed. The outlot area of
proposed Lots 13-17, Block 2 could th n be subdivided and developed.
The construction of this future street w uld be dependent upon the cooperation of
two separate owners. If for whatever reason, the property owners cannot work
together to construct the street, tbe Ci y may be compelled to undertake a public
improvement and assess adjacent pro erty owners to complete the street.
C ;\SANDYlWORD\AGENDA\RIVMILL.PCA
,o/~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/07/98
Right-of-wav. As required by Ordinanc ,the proper right-of-way width of 60 feet
has been provided, except as discusse above.
Access. Access into the proposed sub ivision will be via Mill Trail Lane to River
Mill Drive, which connects to Riverview rive/County Highway 39. It is anticipated
that there will be a future secondary ccess to County Road 39 to the east as
adjacent parcels are developed.
Blocks. Section 11-5-1 (A) of the Subd vision Ordinance establishes a maximum
block length of 1,320 feet. The propo ed subdivision layout conforms with this
requirement. The Subdivision Ordina ce also suggests lot widths sufficient to
accommodate two tiers of lots. The prop sed blocks conform with this provision as
well.
LotS. The lots of River Mill 4th Addition II conform to the minimum lot area and lot
width requirements of the R-1 District:
Lot Area 12,0 0 square feet
Lot Width: 80 fe t
Further, all of the proposed lots emonstrate sufficient building area in
consideration of R-1 District setback re uirements:
Front Yard 30 fe t
Side Yard (Interior) 10 fe t
(Street) 20 fe t
Rear Yard 30 fe t
Parks Dedication. Section 11-6-1 of the subdivision requires a minimum 10%
area of the gross final plat be dedicated 0 the City for development of parks, open
space and trails. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 3.78 acres (26.51 % of
gross area) designated as Outlot A n the plat to the City. Park dedication
requirements for this development h ve already been satisfied. As such, the
dedication of Outlot A is over and abov dedication requirements. Acceptance of
the dedication of Outlot A requires app oval of the City Council.
Sidewalks/Pathways. Section 11-7-2 ( ) of the Subdivision Ordinance stipulates
that the City Council may require sta dard design sidewalks. Outlot A abuts a
significantly sized park to the northw st and is adjacent to Mill Trail Lane. As
access to the park is available acro s Outlot A, no additional pathways are
anticipated to be necessary.
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\RIVMILL.PCA
ry'%
-"/ }
.
.
.
! -
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/07/98
Screening. Proposed Outlot A separ tes the residential lots from the adjacent
Interstate 94 off-ramp and right-of-way. Plans submitted by the applicant indicate
vegetative cover over the majority of the outlot. This vegetation will provide
valuable buffer between residential are s and noise impacts of the Interstate.
Grading and Drainage. As require by Section 11-4-1, the applicant has
submitted a grading plan for review (E hibit F). The proposed grading plan does
not include erosion control measures, which will be required as part of a final
grading plan. All grading, drainage a d erosion control plans will be subject to
review and approval of the City Engine r.
Utility Plans. The applicant has submi ted preliminary utility plans in accordance
with Section 11-4-1 of the Subdivision rdinance (Exhibit D). These plans will be
subject to review and approval of the Cit Engineer. The City Engineer should also
provide recommendation as to the need or easements to be included as part of the
final plat.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Motion to approve the preliminary plat of River Mill 4th Addition based upon
a finding that the project is consis ent with applicable Subdivision Ordinance
and Zoning Ordinance require ents, subject to the conditions outlined in
Exhibit G.
1.
2. Motion to deny the preliminary lat of River Mill 4th Addition based upon a
finding that the project is incons stent with established City policies and/or
ordinances.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on a review in consideration of e tablished City ordinance and policies, our
office recommends approval of the Riv r Mill 4th Addition subject to the applicant
addressing the conditions of approval 0 tlined in Exhibit G to the satisfaction of the
City.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C - Existing Street Layout
Exhibit D - Utility Plan
Exhibit E - Existing Conditions
Exhibit F - Grading/Drainage Plan
Exhibit G - Conditions of Approval
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\RIVMILL.PCA
\~,~
:-::JI
--~
-~
Q
.....
.....
~
~
.-
......
s -.... ~
~
Q
C
.-
u
-=
I:
II
~
- :-~l
__ ~-:=-J
- j~
-j-/-
//
,#
" .......,"~~.j~~.,,>'.,..~....
"";l,atfjC
l/l
...
Q
i:
...
llll
is
/
.il"
bO
=
.....
l:l
=
Cl
.....
p..
~
Q
....
.....
o
p..
'd
Gl
III
~
.':-..;; ...
~
CO ~Q>
~"'~...
~.! ~ ~
~<(~<J
~~l<Jc3
..-04i~:5
~- e il;.-l1l ~
.<(OE'"
~J1l.:,:::d5&;
..............m
\~~ ~I~ H~
.7 .:! z :Ii::\ ~
~ I~ ~ ~ ~
A' '
- Site Locatior
.
.
.
<;
"
'"
~~
a:
"-
iO
~
"
I '
- "1-~---
'"
~
."
r'J(I09-9l' (ll'). 14K~i; 'Nn .';Wv.y~ ~ Ay~lijq HU I)I:~
':)"Nl-''TsYrTh ~m:lH.:::.nTfi.l vs
#'i"."'"
i __-;
~ ~~ a-,; ~.._
\~ .f..f
'1~tl,,")"'f
'JNI HI]~"ld01J^JO l'ill~13CISJtl
II \ 1'1
, ,9.'':.'il~;;\'
~1~TlT~la
O,1jjl\NOIII 10 .l.J1')
NOll.lOOV 1-11.\7 111\"1 cl::J^ltJ
N"'d un"dOlJ,\JO ~UV'''''IlJ<ld
- \ Z ~
~
~
~
g
Ul
....
'"
l'I
o
"
;
it
.1;
!,1
J:
C
S
Q
U
!<
u
~
;<
~
~
"
~!
i<
Q:-
4J
-"
Q:-
"
,I
"
I
,
'.'~
.~ to:"
1l.J:.
.' .J
,.J
.:S,'
.",'
, );t'
..".
II II
" ,..11
,I. ~'
:, 'II !?
II,.:" ;;i
i,\',~11 ~
.:" I ()
11,'4'
:1,",,'
:; I.; ,,',11 I':
"
, Q:-'I
\1 P;
, ./1,,_:: < :_
Ii" ,
~
,"
I'
I"ll :"
i
':
._-~
I
I.:
.,
"
"
,I'
I';
I"
I
'3~1
EXHIBIT E - Existing Condition~
.
.
.
/1
CONDITIONS OF PRELIM I ARY PLAT APPROVAL
FOR RIVER MILL RD ADDITION
The existing design of Mill Trail Lane/ ill Trail Drive as platted by River Mill 3rd
Addition be maintained. The extension 0 Mill Trail Lane as platted by River Mill 4th
Addition shall intersect the existing str et design at a 90 degree angle, subject to
review and approval of the City Engine r.
1.
Proposed Lots 13-17, Block 2 shall be re rawn as Outlot B, River Mill 4th Addition.
The proposed 30 foot right-of-way (half treet) between River Ridge Lane and Mill
Trail Lane shall be platted as Outlot ,River Mill 4th Addition. The adjacent
property to the east will be required to edicate 30 feet of right-of-way parallel to
Outlot C at the time of subdivision. At his time, Outlot B may be subdivided into
buildable Lots 13-17, Block 2 and deve oped.
2.
3.
The City Council accept Outlot A, River ill 4th Addition as adding to previous park
dedication.
4.
The preliminary grading, drainage, ero ion and utility plans are subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer.
5. The City Engineer recommend and appr ve the need and location of easements to
be included on the final plat.
6. The applicant enter into a developmen contract with the City.
EXHIBI G - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\RIVMILL.PCA
f~,t
'1.
-~
-r _._
;1'
,9
:J
.....;;;...
f:
~
.'......,"-.
)\
,.,
.
~ /,
"
~;
'.
'f
.J.:i
"..
.......................,
I
--i.--.- '_.
!
,
I
i
i
i
~'-..c.
I ~_
I .
'0
11 I
I.
.~
mm--......i
/rlv€'1? .
.m__.!
_1_
-- .---.--..".--..------.
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
---'--"
RIVERVIEW DR' E
i
!
-,
II
\....-.
"
\
,--
1 :;
If,
...-L
\.;
I '.~
1.~;
I"
!YIlt
,~_._' J='-I?
.r'
- ---!
4
III
-0
... ~
g:"
:.....tJ"
o.
...
-,-
i
I
-I
(
..J.---i----~
- "'1"'-- ~--f.
__L....____
!wILL
-''-1._.
-1 ",
I
i
-~~,
,
01
.....
......
o
Ol
VI
."
o
c
5
--I
W
. ,
,
.,
\
,
SlllI15'JO'W
177.0.
". <>.
~i"6;>
.)-J~
OUTLOT A
J.711 ACR('5 .-*'
.+P
.,. .,.,q,
~
-v. '1-:;
'6':J '''6
J:t".
it'
64 80 102
:; lUll. 11l,AA. LAN g
82 80 eo 60 80
a; g g J IS 4 g SS
... 1 2
12,~7 12..007 12. 12.000 12.000
eo 603 80 80 110
+ 01.
:sJ.... "q)
.....g.
J.g\
:ol
...
\t"I
80.70
S89'02'OS'W
''l....~
o SO 100
SCAU: IN F"((;T
200
.
LOT WIDTH 80 FEET
LOT DEPTH 150 FEET
FRONT SETBACK 30 FEET
SIDE YARD 10 FEET
NUMBER OF LOTS 22 SINGLE FAMILY
MINIMUM LOT AREA 12,000 SF.
AVERAGE LOT AREA 14,487 SF.
TOTAL SITE AREA 14.51 ACRES
1HESE LOTS ARE DESIGNED TO BE 80'
IN WlD1H AT THE 30' BUILDING SETBACK
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OUTLOT B, RIVER MILL JRD ADDlllON , Wright C.
Minnesota, according to the recorded plat ther.
I t4EII:Dy a;JlTtrY TWliT THI! PI...AH CIt .Jl-[CfrlC'TUJrf V~ ~ .. ~ [It i
M'I' IlREef SUPn'YISIIIt ANU THAt I Alii A lU.T RrnlnuD 1l'U'DS1DW.. ENit~
lJeaI TIC: LAn II'" lK ~T...n: p;;:- .t~...
OATI
..... ...
'3"
.
.
.
14.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/05/98
The City's Comprehensive Plan includes la d use planning for areas south and west of the
current City boundaries. As you may recall, a significant concept of the Comprehensive Plan
is to direct future growth to the south and west of the City by investing in infrastructure
improvements which would serve growth in that direction rather than to the east. Over the
past several months, staff has conducted a more 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 and po cies from the current plan. A concept land use
plan was developed with these i'isues in mind nd has been discussed at staff level, with other
City organizations, and at a public open ho se.
The purpose of the plan ~ndment is to allo the City to plan for both long- and short-term
infrastructure improvements which would needed to serve the area. Although the plan
would have no legal effect as things now stand, a component of the proposed Orderly
Annexation Area agreement with Montice 0 Township would include the adoption of the
City's land use plan in the revised OAA. As a result, the City's Comprehensive Plan and its
component "South/West Area Plan" woul form the basis for any land use decision in the
OAA, preserving the various properties fo the City's long-term intended use. This OM
agreement has been approved by both parti s and adopted by the Municipal Board.
The Land Use Plan for the area is importan for the City. It could serve as the basis for the
City's request of the OAA Board for an ~ dment to its land use plan. Even as information
for that Board, and the Board's administra or (County Planner Tom Salkowski), the Land
Use Plan will provide important guidance fo land use decisions in the extra-territorial areas
adjacent to the City. Finally, it can provide irection for future development of land in those
areas when land owners are seeking annex tion.
This proposed amendment has been mod' ed slightly from its original draft to reflect two
changes. First, following input from a new andowner near the intersection of County Road
39 and the proposed extension of Chelsea oad, and area of "future study" is shown which
contemplates the expansion of the prop sed industrial area to the south of the utility
easement. The text has also been modified t emphasize that this is a guide plan, not a zoning
ordinance. As such, it is intended to ill strate a pattern of land use and the necessary
transportation routes, not specific district lin s. It is expected that, as specific conditions are
encountered by particular developers, the xact location of the lines will need to be flexible
to accommodate conditions at the time.
C:\SANDY\W ORD\AGENDA\SW -AREA. PC
26
.
.
.
B.
AIJTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/05/98
1.
Motion to recommend approval of t e amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as
proposed in the "South/West Area Pan",
2.
Motion to defer amendment of th Comprehensive Plan at this time, pending
additional discussion and/or inforrnat' on.
C.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Compre nsive Plan amendment for the south and west
growth areas. We believe that this plan st reflects the policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, and City's future gr wth. The plan permits the City to grow in a
manageable fashion, and allows for the logi aI, incremental extensions of infrastructure to
accommodate the natural growth and develop ent of the community. Moreover, it provides
clear guidance for development proposals 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 owners s eking annexation to the City.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - South/West Area Land Use PI
C :\SANDY\WORD\AGENDA\SW ~AREA.PC
27
.
.
.
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 25. 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 I
As guide plan, this amendment is intended to
provide an outline of City expectations for
future growth into the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area. To the extent that the
Orderly Annexation Area Board will be
managing land use in the MOAA until
annexation to the City, it is hoped that this
plan will provide a framework for the
activities of the Board. The preservation of
the MOAA lands during the interim period
between now and the time of annexation and
development has been the stated objective of
the MOAA.
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.
Although this land use study pays more
attention to local factors than the 1996
Comprehensive Plan, there are still issues
which will affect the land use pattern which
ultimately develops. Wetland delineations,
Monticello Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1998
14'\
.
utility feasibility, pacing of development, and
land owner preferences will all play into the
development of the south and west extra-
territorial areas.
As a result of additional study, and other
unforeseen factors, it is expected that the
final development pattern will vary somewhat
from this guide plan. Rather than an attempt
to create a strict "zoning" scheme, this plan
intends to layout a pattern of development in
the extraterritorial areas for the purposes of
infrastructure planning, and to provide a
general guide for land owners and developers
as to future land use expectations. The
precise line of land use change, however,
may move slightly one way or another.
.
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 75 (120th Street) with the existing
interchange at Highway 25 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 25.
The land use plan anticipates a future
interchange at County Road 75 (120th Street)
and Interstate 94. It is envisioned that the
interchange would be utilized by the majority
truck traffic associated with industrial uses in
the vicinity.
.
SouthlWest Area Land Use Plan Page 2
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 also
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
Monticello Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1998
'&l-~
.
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 94fHighway 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 purely freeway 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
.
South/West Area Land Use Plan Page 3
County Road 75fOrchard 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-
94fHighway 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 1-94fTH 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.
There is also an area of potential industrial
use south of County 39 and the confluence of
two major power line corridors. This area is
shown in the low density residential land use
category, with an overlining intended to
designate this area for future study. The
ultimate land use of this area should be
evaluated more specifically based on
localized conditions and market forces.
Whereas the Chelsea Road extension
provides the primary land use division in this
area, it may be appropriate to allow
industrial uses to encroach south of this
corridor at that point.
Finally, although not shown graphically, this
plan anticipates an industrial designation for
all areas to the west/northwest of the Orchard
Road 1-94 overpass area. To best take
MonticeUo Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1998
,~...~
.
advantage of the benefits of an interchange at
this location, preservation of these areas for
industrial use is an objective of this plan. It
is acknowledged that both the interchange
and the active development of these areas are
long-term goals. Planning for the future use
of these lands is intended to avoid conflicts
between current uses during the interim
period until annexation and development.
.
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
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.
Moreover, the final delineation of parkland
boundaries will be dependant upon
development needs and design in the
immediate area, as well as public use needs.
It may be appropriate to protect the edges of
.
South/West Area Land Use Plan Page 4
the pond areas for public use, allowing
greater encroachment of private development
than is shown on the plan. More detailed
design study will be necessary in this area as
development opportunities are brought
forward.
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.
Monticello Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1998
IqA
.
.
.
NNING COMMISSION AGENDA - 05/05/98
15.
The Planning Commission is requested to opt the enclosed resolution. The resolution
states the Commission finds the proposed t 0 plans are consistent with the general plans
for development and redevelopment of the ity as described in the Comprehensive Plan.
Redevelopment Plan for Central Montie 110 Redevelopment Project No. 1
Each time, the city establishes a new TIF D"strict, Project No.1 must be modified to
include the changes.
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-23
TIF District No. 1-23 is an economic distri t created for the purpose of increasing the
local and state tax base and creating jobs at the wage level objective. An economic district
is intended for manufacturing use and for 0 Ice, warehousing, and distribution as it relates
to the production. The legal description of the proposed district is Lot 1, Block 1,
Monticello Commerce Center Third Additi n. The property is zoned 1-1 Light Industrial.
It's location is the southeast corner of Fall n Avenue and Dundas Road.
Allied Companies, LLC plans to construct 60,000 sq ft prestress concrete manufacturing
facility for lease to Midwest Graphics. Mi west Graphics designs, pre-presses, prints, and
finishes graphics. The project is projected 0 increase the tax base annually by
approximately $70,000 and create 37 new j bs at a wage level between $8.24 to $12.00
per hour. Grady Kinghorn of Christian & . ghorn, Inc. is the general contractor.
Construction to commence July 1, 1998 an completion December 31, 1998.
Building and site plans are scheduled to be submitted to the Building Department this
week. The City Council will hold a public earing and approve the plan for establishment
of the TIF District on May 26, 1998.
Again, the Planning Commission is asked t adopt a resolution finding that the
Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan are cons.stent with the general plans for development
and redevelopment of the City as described in the Comprehensive Plan.
\\C()()7CH~OLLIE'C'OFFICE\MISC'PC3.RES
28
.
.
.
PLA NING COMMISSION AGENDA - 05/05/98
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. A motion to adopt the resolution fm ing the modification of the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevel pment Project No.1 and the TIF Plan for TIF
District No. 1-23 conform to the ge eral plans for the development and
redevelopment of the City of Monti ello.
2. A motion to deny adoption of the re olution.
3. A motion to table any action.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation is Alternative No.1. The plans increase the local tax base and create
new jobs and the proposed manufacturing p oject is a permitted use in the I-I zone which
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan f the City of Monticello.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Resolution for adoption.
Plans are available for review at the meetin .
\'COO7CH -OLLIE\C'DFFICE'MIS0PC3.RES
29
.
.
.
APR 28 '98 09:31AM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES
P.6/8
PLANNING C MMISSION
(:ITY OF MONTICE LO, MINNESOTA
" ,~" I"
,j .,""
".
/1>' ..... .
.~ .,.. :,J" .. <:";, 'i\'~'; ./
, ,"'I.
'" .'"
<f~:::~';' <:,>:';;.
)., ..(.:.~./
_...,/ .ili~ :~ ,,}.,.,
r- Ri~O~~~:I6N OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING
(:.:~::,~I 'mE MODIFICA nON TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PI..AN FOR THE
:J,i}CENtrtUL MONTICELLO REDEVELOP ENT PROJECT NO.1 AND THE TAX
l;T' IN,.9REMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR T INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
{Z\. ./~O.l~23 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL LANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND
;~~J~i~i>"REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS. the City Council for the City of Mont cello, Minnesota. (the "City") has proposed to adopt
a Modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticell Redevelopment Project No. 1 and a Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District o. 1-23 (collectively, the "Plans") and has submitted
the Plans to the Monticello Planning Commission (the" ommission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.175, Subdivision 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the PI . to detennine their consistency with the general plans
for the development and redevelopment of the City as escribed in the comprehensive plan for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by th Commission that the Plans are consistent with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment f the City.
Adopted this _ day of
. 1998.
Chair
ArrEST;
Secretary
N:lMlNNSOT AIMONTIca\'T1f1-2JIJ'LANCOMM.kES
15"
-,
'---
-:\ . { ,() fVlv11
L/CLv<.- Ov
'$ ',1:.(
'."
,.
\~3--
Be
..
. .,I.}<" CI~