Planning Commission Agenda 03-06-2018 (Joint Meeting)AGENDA
SPECIAL/JOINT MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY
COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 611, 2018 - 4:30 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, Katie Peterson
City Council: Brian Stumpf, Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, John Rued
1. Call to Order
2. Concept Proposal for rezoning to Planned Unit Development for a multi -story multi-
family apartment complex in the CCD (Central Community District)
Applicant: Briggs Properties
3. Adjournment
" NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4150 Olson
Telephone:
MEMORANDUM
Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, uolden Valley, MN 55422
763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
TO: Angela Schumann
Mayor Stumpf and Monticello City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: February 28, 2018
RE: Monticello — Landmark II — Briggs Multi Family PUD —
Concept Review
NAC FILE NO: 191.07 — 18.01
PLANNING CASE NO: 2018-008
Application and Prosect Description. This memorandum reviews the elements of a
proposed rezoning to Planned Unit Development on the "Landmark Square II" property,
a vacant parcel at the northeast corner of 3rd Street and Locust Street. The parcel is
approximately 32,700 square feet in area, or about three-fourths of an acre.
The proposal is made by Pat Briggs of the Briggs Companies for a four-story multi-
family building with 48 units and one level of underground parking. The property is
currently zoned CCD, Central Community District, and is at the edge of the CCD area,
within the Walnut Street Character Area and south of the Broadway Character Area.
The Small Area Plan recommends residential uses for this parcel.
For reference, the project site had been considered for a previous multiple family
building with 23 units. It was noted at the time that the underlying zoning would
accommodate up to approximately 18 units (about 24 units per acre) under the base
CCD requirements, and PUD zoning was necessary to go beyond that threshold. The
Planning Commission and City Council were generally accepting of the proposed use,
with a Development Stage PUD approval occurring in April of 2016, but that project has
not gone forward. At a proposed 48 units, the current project proposal is double the
density, with a residential density of 64 dwelling units per acre.
The current proposal is for a PUD Concept Plan review, which is not a formal zoning
application, but is intended to provide the applicant an opportunity to receive City
feedback on a potential development proposal prior to more formal zoning review and
the extensive supporting materials that such reviews require. The Planning
Commission and City Council will have the opportunity to review the project, ask
questions of the proposer, and provide comment as to the issues and elements raised
by the project. The neighboring property owners have been notified of the meeting, but
it is not a formal public hearing. This memorandum provides an overview of the project,
and will serve as an outline for the discussion. No formal approval or denial is offered
for a Concept Review.
As noted, the proposed project contains 48 units on 4 floors above grade, with one level
of underground parking. The underground parking garage would contain 34 spaces,
and an additional 38 parking spaces are shown as surface parking on the north side of
the parcel, for a total of 72 parking spaces on the property. The applicant also
illustrates 9 angled parking spaces building within the 3rd Street right of way.
The 3rd Street wall varies from about 12 feet to 20 feet from the right of way. The
Locust Street setback is shown at just 5 feet, and a 5 foot setback is also shown to the
east property line, adjacent to the office building parking lot. To the north, as noted, is a
surface parking lot which would directly abut the parking lot serving the
commercial/residential uses along Broadway.
Public sidewalk is shown along both Locust and 3rd Street frontages, and a private
sidewalk serves the access from the parking lot along the north side of the building.
The building is shown with a hipped roof design, with gables over the screened
balconies. The applicant indicates that the proposed materials would be steel siding on
upper stories, with cultured stone on the ground -level story facing the streets and the
north parking lot. It is presumed that this description proposes all steel siding on the
east -facing wall. The roof utilizes steel shingles and shakes.
Ground cover materials would include stamped concrete and pavers, with some areas
of landscaping to be designed.
PUD Concept Review Criteria. The first stage of PUD review consists of an informal
Concept Plan review which is separate from the formal PUD application which follows
the Concept Review step if a developer decides to proceed. The Concept Plan step is
optional.
The Ordinance identifies the purpose of Planned Unit Development as follows:
(1) Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is to
provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non -
Oil
residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more
creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and
marketable. This is achieved by undertaking a process that results in a
development outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable
through the conventional zoning district. The City reserves the right to
deny the PUD rezoning and direct the developer to re -apply under the
standard applicable zoning district.
PUD Concept reviews are to proceed as follows:
(a) PUD Concept Proposal
Prior to submitting formal development stage PUD, preliminary plat
(as applicable) and rezoning applications for the proposed
development, the applicant may, at its option, prepare an informal
concept plan and present it to the Planning Commission and City
Council at a concurrent work session, as scheduled by the
Community Development Department. The purpose of the Concept
Proposal is to:
1. Provide preliminary feedback on the concept plan in
collaboration between the applicant, general public, Planning
Commission, and City Council;
2. Provide a forum for public comment on the PUD prior to a
requirement for extensive engineering and other plans.
3. Provide a forum to identify potential issues and benefits of the
proposal which can be addressed at succeeding stages of PUD
design and review.
The intent of Concept Proposal review is to consider the general acceptability of
the proposed land use, and identify potential issues that may guide the City's
later consideration of a full PUD application. The Concept Proposal review
includes notice to area property owners, but is not a public hearing. The City
Council and Planning Commission meet in joint session to provide feedback to
the developer, and may include an opportunity for informal public comment as
they deem appropriate.
It is important that the Planning Commission and City Council provide feedback to the
developer at this point in the process in order that the developer understand the issues
and concerns that will need to be addressed with any future formal application.
Staff observations/site plan notes — Briggs Proposal:
Briggs Multi -Family PUD Required Applications
• Subsequent Development and Final Stage PUD consideration
• Rezoning to PUD
0
No platting is required as this is a single parcel.
Staff Preliminary Comments and Issues. For this proposal, the primary
considerations evident at this point in the process would likely include the following
elements:
o Parking supply is shown at 1.5 spaces per unit. Staff is concerned that a
general market residential structure would create a demand for up to 2
spaces per unit. The Zoning Ordinance recommends 2.25 spaces per unit
in the R-4 district, and 2.5 spaces per unit in the general parking
standards section. In this case, the unit mix consists of 29 1 -bedroom
units, and 19 2 -bedroom units, a total of 67 bedrooms. It would not be
surprising to see several of these occupied by more than one car -owner.
Reliance on on -street parking in residential projects is problematic. Staff
notes that one option may be to convert a portion of the first floor units to a
drive-in parking level. This would reduce the unit count slightly, and
increase the parking supply. Staff could imagine a reduction to 42 units
and increase in parking supply to 84 spaces. This concept would have the
benefit of increasing the covered parking ratio to more than half of the
spaces covered. The Commission and Council should address parking
supply issues as a part of the Concept Review.
o Building Height. The Small Area Plan recommends building heights up to
3 stories in this location. The 4 story building would require special
consideration. The hipped -roof design helps to mitigate this issue, but the
building is tall compared to the adjoining residential neighborhood to the
west. Density and height in relationship to the cost of underground
parking is a consideration that should be reviewed. The Commission and
Council should address building height as a part of the Concept Review.
o On the north boundary, the parking lot appears to flow into the paved
parking on the adjoining site. The City should consider how these areas
would be maintained, and whether a separate curbed and landscaped
island should be installed on this boundary. In addition, there are
overhead electrical lines along this boundary. Burying of these lines
would be beneficial to aesthetics and livability in the area.
o The engineer notes that the boulevard paving and sidewalk designs
should match the City's installations along Walnut and elsewhere.
o Previous review of development on this site recommended extension of
the sidewalk from this site to connect with pedestrian improvements along
Walnut Street.
o The City Engineer makes the following additional notes relating to ongoing
plan development:
12
• The storm sewer emergency overflow shall be a minimum of 1.5
feet below the lowest opening elevation of the building and the
underground parking area. A positive drainage outlet shall be
provided. How will this be accomplished?
• The applicant has indicated the site will be filled. Will retaining walls
be needed?
• Onsite infiltration is encouraged to manage stormwater runoff
onsite.
• The sidewalk extensions along 3rd Street and Locust Street shall
be 6 -feet wide per City standards and located 1 foot inside the right
of way.
• Decorative street lighting and brick pattern boulevard treatments
should extend along 3rd Street and Locust Street to match what
exists along Walnut Street.
• Sanitary sewer and watermain service stubs are available to serve
the site.
Summary. As noted, the Planning Commission and City Council provide comment and
feedback at the Concept Review level. City officials should identify any areas of
concern that would require amendment to avoid the potential for eventual denial, as well
as any elements of the concept that the City would find essential for eventual approval.
Specific comment should address the following potential issues:
1. Density
2. Building Height
3. Parking Supply
4. Building Material
5. Landscaping, green space, and site improvements (separation from other
parking areas, etc.)
6. Engineering comments and recommendations
The notes listed above acknowledge that a significant amount of detail will be added as
the project proceeds to a more advanced stage of review.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Image
B. Narrative and Amenities
C. Proposal Site Plan
5
lit
e' U� 1 •11 .1 1 � �y �� �
a r 40
Narrative
To construct a New 48 unit, 4 story Apartment Building consisting of 29-- 1
Bedroom Suites and 19-- 2 Bedroom Suites. 48 Total Units. 1" floor exterior
fagadc would include 5" EDCO Steel siding & Cultured Stone on the North, East
and West elevation. 2nd41' floor Steel siding. Copper Steel Shingle Shakes on
each roof dormer with black screened in porches on each balcony to include white
railings and maintenance free decking. 34 Underground parking stalls and 38
Uncovered parking stalls which is a total of 72 stalls/48= 1.5 stalls per unit.
Along 3rd and Locust Street there will be a combination of pavers & stamped
stained Burgundy concrete. Tree Plantings to be imbedded in the sidewalk
landscaping design as a team with city staff during Development Phase.
Proposed objectives are to Design, Construct and own a multifamily apartment
building in a downtown housing district to revitalize the area with a focus on
setting a standard for quality design and a commitment to conserve tenant energy
consumption.
Conceptual development schedule:
2/21/18-8/1/18 Development Stage
9/1/18 Construction Start
4/1/18 Certificate of Occupancy
6/1/18 Completion of all Impervious services
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to work with and be a part of The City of
Monticello Housing Efforts.
Patrick Bri s
Monticello 3rd Street Corner Amenities
1. Washer/Dryer hook-ups in every unit
2. Fitness Room
3. Community Room with kitchen, tables, furniture & Wi-Fi
4. Theater Room
5. Resource Center
6. Arts & Crafts Room
7. Elevator
8. 9 foot ceilings with vaulted ceilings on 4"' floor
9. Stainless Steel Appliances
10. Designer Lighting
11. Magic Pack furnaces and air conditioning in each suite with Wi-Fi Thermostats
12. Sub metered water in each suite
13.2 panel doors with Brush Nickle hardware levers with Key Fob access to all doors
14. Controlled Entry
15. Surveillance throughout entire community
16. Onsite Management
17. Dry Cleaning Drop Off/Pick Up
18. Package Receiving
19. Outside Patio
20. Outdoor Seating
21. Heated Underground Parking
22. High Speed Internet
23. Balconies
24. Car Wash
25. Pet Wash Station
26. Screened In Porches on all balconies wrapped with aluminum railings
Listing Contact Information
Engineer: Stark Engineering, Wayne Stark
Surveyor: Duffy Engineering, Barry Dorniden
Applicant: The Briggs Companies, Patrick Briggs
SURVEYORS NOTE: UNDERLYING EASEMENTS MAY EXIST AND ARE NOT
SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING.
RIM=928.61 /
RU1= 927.28
RJV-=92i 9R >
RIM= 928.18
M. = 924.20
RUM = 928.13
INV. = 919.35
RIM - 927.79
INV. = 9z4.4a.a
=
928.50
=921.1. 0
2 � o
sSSZr.
/ X875
91j
RIM 80
/
\/
/ \ RIM =9278 / / \
INV. =9 8 B
k /
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
PREPARED FOR
NELSON BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT
Tract of land lying and being in the County of Wright, State of
Minnesota, Described as follows, to -wit:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11,12,13,14, and 15 and the West 16.00 feet of Lot 8, all
in Block Thirty-six in the TOWNSITE OF MONTICELLO as of public
record, Wright County, Minnesota.
Subject to easements of record.
Containing 1.71 acres, more or less.
RUM=9242
' RR�y9 9 r eT^e , 111 927
wV.=924.292
❑ D q - G ❑ ❑ q
w 11D b q l7q C1n
419
f 0.47/ /
BUILDING ---
,'9 i r r / �'"-.,�•f� • 'p ., r, �.A•�'/''is / / / _
FIBER OPTIC 3 is 1,76I0 r .%� . 4 _
r \
931z
' BUILDING
- =931.22l�y� !� ` V .. O Q ry1
w = 923.4
RIM =931.29
1W=922. UM=931.28
INV. =920.37 '! '.e pp r'..0.\\ 1b �•N� Q / / _�._.__ ._.___ -. ._._-_._
RU=93114
79
INV. =93
RIM=931.19
INV. 927.32
\` "` § ,:. _• •.1 / WVV I I T
s /
� � /BUILDING
S
/B..T I
;-_ � �•,RIM 929ss / CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
wF �� v=9258 O'MALLEY &BOE LAND SURVEYORS, INC.
328 SW THIRD STREET 210 MAIN STREET
O \ OP \ \ / WILLMAR, MN 56201 COLD SPRING, MN 56320
S
PH. 320-235-4012 PH. 320-685-5905
a \ / ij STOfz'�'/t�TME (�T, FAX 320-2214-9380 FAX 320-685-3056
930.00
INV.
INV.=917.
\ _ M UN ITJ 161 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR
\ / UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR
SITE PLAN UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
111 30 1
RIM =928.82 REG. NO. 42300 DATE: 8-15-05
INV. =924.15
BENJAMIN C. O'MALLEY
GUi=yr PP.izK1�6 3 8 NOTE: THIS SURVEY IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT
z . T0_rte- -7 IL, OF THE PARTY TO WHOM IT WAS PREPARED FOR
AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON BY ANY OTHER
\ PARTY OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT FIRST
CONTACITNG THE SURVEYOR WHO DEVELOPED AND
RIM=929.00MADE THIS DRAWING.
RIM _ 929 75
NV. =925.22 RIM=929.73 IW=92137
INV. = 915.66
1 Ik
Y