Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Planning Commission Agenda - 01/04/2022 (Joint Meeting)
AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 4th, 2022 – 4:30 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center City Council: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Charlotte Gabler, Jim Davidson, Sam Murdoff, Bill Fair Commissioners: Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Alison Zimpfer, Eric Hagen and Teri Lehner Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden Stensgard 1. General Business A. Call to Order 2. Joint Meeting Agenda A. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Proposal for a 180-unit Single-Family Residential Development Proposer: Tamarack Land Development 3. Adjournment NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. __________________________________________________________________ 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Hilgart and Monticello City Council Monticello Planning Commission Angela Schumann, Community Development Director FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: December 27, 2021 RE: Monticello – Tamarack-Nelson Property Concept PUD Review MEETING DATE: January 4, 2022 NAC FILE NO: 191.07 – 21.27 PLANNING CASE NO: 2021-051 PROPERTY ID: 213-100-242201; 213-100-242202 Project Description. This memorandum reviews the elements of a proposed concept plan for a Planned Unit Development on parcels adjoining the north side of 85th Street NE and Fallon Avenue NE. The proposed subdivision property consists of approximately 62 acres of development area, on which approximately 180 single-family units are shown. The proposer initially submitted a concept with 164 units. Their narrative therefore notes 164 units, as does the City’s engineering comments. However, this memorandum addresses the revised 180-unit concept plan. Land Use Process For the proposed project to proceed, there are a series of City approvals that will be required: 1 o PUD Concept Review (the subject of this report). The project requires a PUD as it proposes to develop a series of parcels that will have 180 units on individual lots, the majority of which are below the City’s general R-1 zoning allowances for single-family lot sizes. Further approvals would include the following: o Annexation: To develop as proposed, the developer proposes annexation into the City of Monticello. At this time, a complete petition for annexation has not been submitted for City Council acknowledgment. o Preliminary and Final Plat o Development Stage and Final Stage PUD o Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District PUD Concept Review Criteria The first stage consists of an informal Concept Plan review which is separate from the formal PUD application which will follow the Concept Review step. 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- 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 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 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. Land Use and Density The Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan designation for the parcels is “Low Density Residential”. The designation specifies a density range of 3-6 units per acre and lot areas ranging as low as 6,000 square feet. The companion residential zoning districts noted are the R-1 and R-A zoning districts. The applicant is seeking development of single-family homes on lots that are smaller than allowed under the current R-1 zoning ordinance. Single family lots are most often developed under R-1 or R-2 zoning requirements. Those districts require lot areas of 12,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet respectively, with lot widths of 80 feet. The proposed concept illustrates lot sizes which break down as follows: Minimum Lot Width Minimum Lot Area Total Proposed Single Family 65 feet 8,775 sf 125 lots Villa Lots 45 feet 6,300 sf 55 lots With a total of 180 lots, the gross project density is approximately 2.9 units per acre, including street rights of way, pond areas, etc. Excluding the public and common areas, the net density is approximately 4.0 units per acre – an average overall lot area per unit of approximately 10,600 square feet, within the Comprehensive Plan’s allowable range. Of particular interest in the PUD request is the acceptability of the smaller single family lot sizes, and how the proposal meets the City’s expectations for enhanced development design in exchange for those lot size accommodations. The applicant’s primary support for the modest lot sizes relates to conditions in the marketplace that push toward more efficient use of land and resultant lower costs for housing. Staff has acknowledged that market condition (and its use in other recent subdivision development) and has raised the City’s long-standing contrary interest in larger single - family lots. The change to smaller lots suggests the need to examine how those neighborhoods will continue to promote both home ownership and neighborhood stability and look to the developers to demonstrate how those goals can be met. 3 This discussion should be a component of the City’s review of this subdivision proposal. The Comprehensive Plan projects the property as “Secondary Growth Area”. The Comprehensive Plan accommodates development within these areas when there are logical extensions of utilities and street infrastructure to provide for a reasonable development pattern that does not unduly interfere with the overall goal of infilling its Primary Growth areas. Site Layout & Access The development adjoins the south boundary of the Cardinal Hills subdivision and would gain access from the existing street extension of Tanager Drive, as well as a street extension of Fallon Drive through the adjacent Cardinal Ponds subdivision. The subdivision would connect to 85th Street on the south, and provide two additional future connections to the south, and one to the east, with these three future connections providing access to adjoining property for future development. The setting of the property raises some unique challenges, given the existing lot arrangements and street configurations in the area. Fallon Avenue extends to the south and provides access to the Haven Ridge subdivision south of 85th Street NE. The current property owner’s home and agricultural buildings sit along both Fallon and 85th, and the owner wishes to leave those portions of the property out of the subdivision, avoiding annexation of those areas. This leaves access to the subdivision through the aforementioned Cardinal Hills and Cardinal Ponds subdivisions, and to the south along 85th Street. As a part of this aspect of the project, the developer should illustrate a “ghost plat” design that shows how the residual property being retained by the owner would be able to accommodate utility services and future resubdivision whenever that is ready to occur. There is one additional private property located on the north side of 85th Steet that would be bordered to the north and east by the proposed development. This parcel is not part of the proposed concept and not proposed for annexation. The 85th Street configuration in its current alignment provides access to only a few remaining parcels with existing homes. The Haven Ridge subdivision was designed with lots backing up to 85th Street. Staff Preliminary Comments and Issues. For this proposal, the primary considerations evident at this point in the process include the following elements: 1. Annexation. To proceed, the applicant is proposing to split a portion of the property currently occupied by the owner’s home and a series of existing 4 outbuildings from the platted area, annexing only the development portion of the property. There is a potential option for this to occur at the County level, however, the process is not clearly defined, and the owners are concerned about complications that would arise under the requirements for land in the MOAA to meet agricultural zoning requirements (or the potential need for variances from those requirements). a.One option may be to annex the entire area, but preserve the existing home, considering the existing outbuildings legal non-conformities. Under this approach, the buildings could remain, and be maintained and/or restored, but not expanded. To facilitate this option, it would be prudent to require that once that residual parcel is ready for future sale, the connection of the existing home (and any new construction) would be made to the utilities serving the project area. 2.Land Use. As stated above, the proposed project area is guided “Low Density Residential”. The Comprehensive Plan includes land uses in this category as follows: “Generally, an average density of 4 housing units per acre characterizes single-family neighborhoods but these areas could likely be developed between 3-6 units per acre depending on utility infrastructure, sensitive natural resources, conservation style development, developer preferences and project specifics.” a.While the subdivision proposes much smaller lots than are typical of the zoning used in these areas, the density falls within the ranges specified by the Monticello 2040 Plan. The primary issues will be adherence to the principles of the City’s PUD objectives. b.As noted previously, significantly smaller lots changes the way single family housing has traditionally been developed in Monticello, and those changes should be an aspect of the discussion for this PUD. 3.Environmental Considerations – Wetlands. The Developer’s wetland delineation is complete and it is noted that the concept plan has inconsistencies with the delineation. These discrepancies will need to be addressed either through an amended subdivision layout, or the required processing through the City’s wetland impact process. A quality assessment of the wetland is also necessary for application of wetland buffer requirements. 4.Street Connections and Subdivision Layout. The proposed subdivision relies on two existing street connections from subdivisions to the north, connection to an existing roadway to the south (85th Street), and future extensions to surrounding properties once those areas are proposed for development. Overall, those connections should adequately serve the proposed homes in the project. 5 a.One issue noted at staff level is the long-term need for 85th Street NE. It is currently used by just a few homes and is otherwise likely to be excess roadway once the areas develop to the south (including the extension of 85th Street south of this project as and east-west collector road by the Haven Ridge project). b.Staff has encouraged the applicants to continue to explore design options that would allow the removal of excess portions of the existing 85th Street, as it will be an expensive road to maintain over time. One option has been to shift the north-south street that connects to 85th Street in a way that will allow future access to existing homes in the area. These options will require continued design and planning. c.The City Engineer will need to comment on the necessity of a more detailed traffic analysis. 5.Lot sizes. The applicants propose two tiers of lot sizes, at minimums of 45 and 65 feet in width, with some variation. As noted, the City’s current zoning for single family homes requires minimum widths of 80 feet. It should be noted that the narrower widths in this subdivision result in lot areas that are not far from the averages found in other single-family subdivisions within the City. The primary impacts will be the spacing and number of homes along the street frontage, the greater percentage of lot widths occupied by driveway cuts, and the loss of longer-term growth for families living in the homes on those lots. a.As lots shrink in size, there is less room for accessory buildings or private open space – this can create an additional demand for nearby usable public open spaces. It also limits the ability of homeowners to expand their original footprints as families grow. These may result in impacts to neighborhood stability. As discussed above, the developers should describe how the PUD compensates for those potential impacts. b.Buildings are identified in the narrative as being setback from side lot lines at 7.5 feet, with adequate space for front and rear setbacks typical of single-family lots. 6.Parks, Open Space and Pathways. Two existing parks (Hunter’s Crossing and Pioneer Park), are near the development area, and the school campus is within one-quarter mile to the north. Pathway and sidewalk development should concentrate on maximizing connections to those existing open space areas. a.As a part of this accommodation, the applicant has provided a series of pathways that utilize connections to and through the Cardinal Hills neighborhood. Internally, the Subdivision Ordinance requires mid-block pedestrian access when block lengths exceed 800 feet, as these do. 6 Alternatively, the Subdivision Ordinance requires street connections when block lengths exceed 1,300 feet. The blocks as designed do not appear to break that threshold, and as such, the proposed design is acceptable. b.Any such pedestrian connections should be contained within outlots of at least 30 feet in width to moderate impact on the adjoining lots and accommodate maintenance of the constructed trail. c.One unique aspect of the site is the designation of the north boundary of the site as a part of the Greenway routes in the City’s Natural Resources Inventory document. That north boundary is also occupied by a power line corridor and easement. The plat layout should take the Greenway route into account as a part of its pathway connections and will have to adjust lot locations along the northern boundary as a result of the easement. d.Apart from these, the open space areas in the plat are dominated by ponding areas, two of the larger of which are placed in the rear lot areas. Enhancements (and access) to those areas can have a significant visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Staff would encourage a design that pushes access and views of the ponds to more prominent locations, with enhanced landscaping. The site is otherwise devoid of trees. Attention to individual homesite landscaping, and the resulting streetscape along the grid-pattern layout will also go far in supporting the use of PUD to flex the lot sizes as requested. e.PARC review is required at the time of application for preliminary plat. 7. Building Architecture. The applicant is working with a national builder with a variety of housing styles. Architecture can have a significant impact on the look and feel of a neighborhood, and even more so in a neighborhood of smaller lots. The applicants should be prepared to provide examples of the building designs to be used in the project. Understanding how those floor plans can adapt over time will be critical to addressing some of the longer-term aspects of the project. 8.Grading, Drainage, Utilities & Transportation. The City Engineer has provided a separate comment letter which addresses other transportation, utility and grading considerations for the concept. Summary 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 get 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 7 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. However, it is vital that Planning Commission and City Council members engage in a frank and open discussion of the project benefits and potential issues. The Concept Review process is most valuable when the applicants have the opportunity to understand how the City is likely to look at the project and the potential issues it presents. In this way, the subsequent land use and development details can be more finely tuned to address City policy elements. 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.Overall Land Use 2.Density 3.Lot Configuration and Size 4.Park and Open Space Requirements 5.Pond Locations, Landscaping, and Access 6.Building Design and Materials 7. Landscaping Improvements to Streetscape and Homesites 8.Annexation Considerations 9.Street Access and Design 10. 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 Site Image B.Applicant Narrative C.Concept Site Plan D.Engineers Comment Letter, dated December 22,2021 E.Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Excerpts F.Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Excerpts Consideration of Concept Stage PUD Proposal for Single-Family Residential Development Legal: Lengthy - See City Hall | 213100242202, 213100242201 Created by: City of Monticello 1,507 ft Project Contacts Site Data Address: 5106 85th Street NE (PID 2131002401) & PID 213100242202 Current Zoning: General Agriculture (AG) Gross Area (After Lot Split) 61.91 Acres/ 2,696,800 sf •Legal Descriptions Source Wright County GIS •Parcel 213100242201- 11.66 acres Sect-24 Twp-121 Range-025 UNPLATTED LAND MONTICELLO TWP2 11.66 AC NW OF NW EXC LOT A & E9.18 CHS •Parcel 213100242202 – 55.82 acres Brief Tax Description, Sect-24 Twp-121 Range-025 UNPLATTED LAND MONTICELLO TWP2 55.82 AC NW1/4OF NE1/4EX E270.89FT&EX E575FT OF N732.60FT ALSO NW1/4OF NW1/4&E1/2OF NW1/4DES BEG NE COR OF NW1/4OF NW1/4TH W ALG N LN605.88FTTH S806.73FT TH E90D R153.63FT TH S90D R347.57FT TO CTR LN OF TWP RD TH SE R129D48'49" ALG CTRLN 34.33FT TH SE ALG CTRLN 152.74 FT TO N LN OF TR DDED TO ARTHUR BYE H/IN/AF REF TO AS TR A TH E47D23'51"L ALG N LN OF TR A277.17FT TH NE24D15'36" L ALG NLY LN OF TR A 163.72FT TH S AGL L72D25'33" 597.88FT TO W LN OF TR DDED TO DENNIS ARNOLD H/IN/AF REF TO AS TR B TH N AGL R1D17'41" ALG W LN OF TR B 128.35FT TH E88D42'19"R ALG N LN OF TR B 142.5FT TH S 90D R ALG E LN OF TR B 467.71 FT TH W90D R125.45FT TO CTRLN OF RD TH SELY ALG CTRLN TO S LN OF E1/2 OF NW1/4 TH E TO SE COR TH N ALG E LN TO NE COR TH W TO POB EX TR DES ON DOC 639008 Name Company Role David & Judy Nelson Property Owner Seller Mike Wilen Coldwell Banker Sellers Agent Clay Montgomery Tamarack Land Development Buyer Dan Willenbring Tamarack Land Development Project Manager Jim Osterberg Tamarack Land Development Buyer Chris Dahn Bogart Pederson Engineer Project Narrative Over the past few months, Tamarack Land Development, LLC has coordinated with Monticello city staff to design a concept for the property located east of Fallon Ave. NE and North of 85th St. NE, which we are pleased to submit for your consideration. The development site consists of 2 parcels located in Monticello Township totaling 67.5 acres currently zoned for agriculture use. One of the parcels will require a subdivision for 5.95 acres that will remain in the township. The new site of 61.91 will require annexation into the City of Monticello, which abuts the subject property to the north and west. Instead of standard R-1 zoning, we propose a PUD which will create 164 single-family residential lots. We are proposing 65’ wide by 135’ deep lots with 7’.5’ side yard setbacks. This lot size is prototypical for the industry and lends itself to a concept design and quicker build out that is attractive to regional and national builders thus providing more affordable housing opportunities within the community of Monticello. No Commercial nor Industrial uses are planned as part of this development. The concept’s efficient placement of lots and streets creates a neighborhood with a sense of community and extends the small-town feel of Monticello further to the south. New trails will be constructed throughout the neighborhood and connect to existing trails in adjacent neighborhoods. Significant infrastructure will be put in place that will allow connections for continued residential expansion beyond this development’s boundaries. Home sales will generate increased local and school district tax revenues. This development will create 164 new households increasing attendance at the local schools and increasing the pool of potential community volunteers that are needed to make a city thrive. We have taken great care to craft a plan that maximizes use of the area while maintaining the feel of a traditional neighborhood with trail access to schools and parks. We look forward to working further with City staff to develop this beautiful area of Monticello. Density Calculations Proposed Density: •Total Lots: 164 •Gross Density: 2.64 Lots / Acre •Net Density: 3.94 Lots / Acre •Undevelopable land (Outlots) 10.09 Acres •Road ROW Area: 10.20 Acres Potential Density under R-1 Density •Base Density (From Ordinance): 12,000 sq. ft. Average •Gross Density: 2.44 Lots / Acre •Net Density: 3.63 Lots / Acre Undevelopable Land: 10.09 Acres Proposed Schedule Application Submission December 6, 2021 Formal Kick Off Meeting with City December 6, 2021 Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting Dec2021/Jan2022 Start Annexation Process Jan 2022 Planning Commission Preliminary Plat Submission March 2022 Planning Commission Decision May 2022 City Council Preliminary Plat Approval June 2022 Annexation Approval July 2022 Commence Site Construction Phase 1 August 2022 Final Plat approval August 2022 Commence Utility Construction August 2022 Commence Home Construction December 2022 PUD Zoning Flexibility We are asking for relief from R-1 zoning for: Requirement R-1 Proposed Base Density 14,000 SF/ SF 2.64 Gross Density Lot Area Min 10,000, average 12,000 SF 8775 SF Lot Width Min 70’, average 80’ 65’ Side Yard Set Back 10’ 7.5’ WLWLWLWL WL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWL WLWLWLWL WLWL WL WLUPDATED INTERSECTIONMALLARD LANEFALLON AVE NE85TH ST NE123456885'65'45'65'45'135' 135' 135'61.5'165'160'65'47.8'48.5'154' 136'135'65'272'70'BITUMINOUS PATHWAY16,398 SF411,801 SF3134,072 SFOutlot C8,778 SF18,775 SF269,632 SF68,775 SF48,775 SF1011,475 SF18,775 SF28,775 SF38,775 SF48,775 SF58,775 SF68,775 SF78,775 SF158,775 SF118,775 SF128,775 SF138,775 SF148,775 SF178,775 SF1612,938 SF1812,665 SF18,775 SF28,775 SF38,775 SF511,942 SF611,475 SF3511,475 SF18,775 SF348,775 SF28,775 SF38,775 SF338,775 SF328,775 SF48,775 SF318,775 SF58,775 SF308,775 SF68,775 SF78,775 SF298,775 SF288,775 SF88,775 SF148,775 SF98,775 SF218,775 SF108,775 SF118,775 SF258,775 SF248,775 SF128,775 SF238,775 SF1313,627 SF178,775 SF228,775 SF198,775 SF158,775 SF208,775 SF1612,803 SF2115,107 SF2015,916 SF1914,696 SF1816,004 SF1619,155 SF1711,635 SF1542,823 SF9,499 SF18200,405 SFSplit Lot13,288 SF149,632 SF39,632 SF49,632 SF59,632 SF79,632 SF89,181 SF99,624 SF2132,836 SFOutlot B64,459 SFOutlot A10,387 SF1710,634 SF1610,400 SF1510,400 SF1413,516 SF128,774 SF1110,283 SF139,387 SF19,724 SF1812,466 SF312,571 SF417,323 SF812,912 SF921,538 SF715,251 SF618,345 SF510,969 SF214,082 SF109,789 SF1116,107 SF1317,258 SF1218,957 SF1414,622 SF1510,720 SF1615,300 SF179,750 SF189,750 SF1912,026 SF209,831 SF2412,478 SF2312,538 SF268,775 SF2521,302 SF1110,021 SF113,779 SF513,875 SF612,265 SF711,508 SF811,517 SF918,416 SF1014,465 SF1317,017 SF1210,341 SF28,775 SF107,897 SF56,300 SF328,775 SF96,300 SF398,775 SF278,775 SF87,671 SF126,300 SF96,300 SF86,300 SF76,300 SF66,300 SF56,300 SF26,300 SF46,300 SF39,207 SF19,101 SF166,300 SF156,300 SF146,300 SF136,300 SF126,300 SF116,300 SF106,300 SF910,308 SF19,837 SF26,300 SF89,000 SF39,100 SF446,300 SF436,300 SF426,300 SF416,300 SF406,300 SF366,300 SF386,300 SF379,800 SF346,300 SF357,840 SF336,300 SF256,300 SF316,300 SF306,300 SF296,300 SF286,300 SF276,300 SF266,300 SF216,300 SF246,300 SF236,300 SF228,091 SF196,300 SF208,395 SF108,033 SF1110,574 SF147,309 SF138,876 SF411,065 SF621,245 SF16,793 SF71,320 SFOutlot D8,006 SF736,829 SFOutlot E7140.0' 140.0' 140.0'45.0'VVVVVVVVVVVVV| | | | | | ||VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV||||||||||||VVV|VVVVVVVVVVVV|||||||||VVVV|||||VV| |VVVVVVVVVVVVV|||||||||SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSV|S60'60'60' V V V V V V||||VVVV|||SFALLON DRIVE SSSSSANITARY AND WATERMAIN CONNECTIONSANITARY MH RIM = 965.75INV WEST = 939.30INV SOUTH = 939.42SANITARY AND WATERMAIN CONNECTIONSANITARY MH RIM = 958.42INV NORTH = 943.68INV SOUTH = 943.75SVVVV V V SCALE: 1" = 100'0100'CONCEPT DATAGross Site Area:61.91 AcTotal Lot Area:43.60 AcOutlot Area:10.22 AcRoad Area:10.78 AcGross Density:2.91 Lots / AcreExisting Zoning:AGProposed Zoning:PUDProposed Single Family Lots:125 LotsProposed Villa Lots:55 LotsPROPOSED PUD ZONINGSingle Family House LotStandard Lot SizeWidth: 65'Depth: 135'Area: 8,775 SFVilla LotStandard Lot SizeWidth: 45'Depth: 140'Area: 6,300 SFBOGARTPEDERSON763-262-8822Concept Sketch Plan AMonticello, MNParcel ID: 213100242202, 213100242201DEVELOPED: 12-01-2021 K:\019537-000\Admin\Docs\2021-12-10 Submittal\_2021-12-22 Nelson Subdivision Concept PUD - WSB Engineering Comments.docx 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM December 22, 2021 Matt Leonard City Engineer/Public Works Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Nelson Residential Subdivision Concept Stage PUD Plan Review City Project No. 2021-051 WSB Project No. R-019537-000 Dear Mr. Leonard: We have reviewed the Nelson Residential Subdivision conceptual stage PUD site plans dated December 9, 2021. The applicant proposes to construct a 164-unit single-family residential development on a 68 acre parcel. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Monticello’s general engineering and stormwater treatment standards. We offer the following comments regarding these matters. General 1. Trail outlots or easements shall be 30’ in width. 2. Verify the project concept will work with the existing utility easements on the property. Show the locations of existing easements on future submittals. 3. City staff will provide additional comments under separate cover. Site, Street, & Utility Plans 4. Streets and utilities shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City Subdivision Ordinances and the City’s General Specifications and Standard Details Plates for Street and Utility Construction. 5. The plan includes trails, sidewalks, and pedestrian facilities. See additional comments on pedestrian access and mobility requirements provided by City Staff under separate cover. 6. A utility plan shall be provided showing the existing and proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer serving the site. Watermain looping may be required through the site to provide adequate fire flow supply. Additional utility stubs to adjacent properties may also be required to accommodate future looping connections. 7. If split lots with existing structures are annexed into the City, provide utility stubs to serve the split lots. Once the utility stubs are provided, connection shall be made with the Nelson Residential Subdivision Concept Stage PUD – WSB Engineering Plan Review December 22, 2021 Page 2 timelines outlined in the City of Monticello Code Chapter 50: Water and Sewer Ordinance. 8. The building department will review required fire hydrant location(s) and emergency vehicle access/circulation. Fire truck circulation will need to accommodate the City’s ladder truck, provide an exhibit showing turning movements. Stormwater Management 9. Below are General Stormwater Requirements for the Site: a. The applicant will be required to submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements in the City’s Design Manual b. The new site will need to provide onsite volume control for runoff of 1.1” over the new impervious area, Pre-treatment measures are required prior to discharging to the volume control BMPs. Infiltration is required where feasible. For a list of alternative BMP’s and credits refer to the City Design Guide. c. An operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater BMPs is required and should be submitted with the stormwater report for review. d. The site is outside of the DWSMA and is not subject to requirements of the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan. e. Provide the required 2 feet of free board from the 100-yr HWL of the stormwater BMP’s to all adjacent structures. f. Include a SWPPP consistent with all requirements of the MPCA CSWGP. SWPPP and Erosion control practices will be completed with future submittals. 10. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to construction commencing. Traffic & Access 11. Based on the proposed site plan the anticipated traffic generation would be approximately 1700 daily trips, 134 AM peak hour trips and 179 PM peak hour trips assuming 125 single family lots and 55 villa lots the uses outlined in the proposed site plan. 12. Access to the site is proposed from 85th ST NE and through the existing developments north of the site. In order to assure that the appropriate traffic control and lane configuration is provided the following intersections should be evaluated: a. Site Access Street at 85th St NE b. Fallon Ave at 85th St NE c. Fallon Ave at Fallon Dr d. Fallon Ave at Starling Dr e. Site Access Street at Mallard Ln f. Mallard Ln at Starling Dr 13. The location of the driveways on the Site Access Street adjacent to 85th St NE should be reviewed to make sure they are not impacted by the traffic turning on to 85th St NE. 14. A sight line analysis should be completed at the Site Access Street and 85th St NE. Nelson Residential Subdivision Concept Stage PUD – WSB Engineering Plan Review December 22, 2021 Page 3 Wetlands & Environmental 15. The plan shows ponds within wetland locations. Any permanent or temporary impacts to wetlands proposed as a result of roadway, lot, pond, culvert, or stormwater outfall construction must be permitted via the Wetland Conservation Act and the US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 process. Verify the concept will work with the wetland delineations. 16. Wetland buffers are required around wetlands per the City’s Zoning Code. Buffer widths should be shown on the grading plans or site plan and are based on MnRAM functional assessments. MnRAM functional assessments will be required by the City to determine buffer widths. A more detailed review of the development plans will be completed when the applicant submits complete civil plans and a stormwater management report. Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Feel free to contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or comments regarding the engineering review. Sincerely, WSB James L. Stremel, P.E. Senior Project Manager LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 50 GROWTH STRATEGY Monticello’s growth strategy balances land use development needs with real estate market demand, and transportation and infrastructure improvement requirements to ensure an orderly and efficient use of land and resources. There is a significant amount of development potential within Monticello’s existing municipal boundary and even greater potential in the surrounding MOAA. Therefore, for the next 20 years, the general growth strategy prioritizes development of remaining available vacant land within existing boundaries and the downtown and surrounding area before substantially developing and annexing land within the MOAA. The growth strategy has three objectives: • Encourage growth which creates a strong and vibrant place to live, work, shop and recreate, with focused infill development and redevelopment to create a vibrant downtown and core community; development which provides a range of housing, employment and economic opportunity; development which provides both a walkable community and safe multi-modal transportation options; and development which sustains and enhances the natural amenities of Monticello. • Support investment and reinvestment within the existing city boundary of Monticello, directing development into areas of Monticello already serviced or planned to be serviced by roads and utilities, while also thoughtfully designing and limiting development within and around sensitive natural areas. • Ensure the managed development of appropriate and compatible land uses which is resilient to shifts and changes in the economy, real estate market and consumer demand, and responds to a changing tax base. Another aspect of the growth strategy is the designation of significant portions of the MOAA as a Development Reserve. This is land reserved for an extended, longer-term growth horizon beyond 2040 and the time horizon of this Comprehensive Plan. However, some development in the MOAA is likely to occur before 2040 and Monticello should adjust its land use policies and decision- making with some measure of flexibility to accommodate new development proposals as they occur. As long as development proposals meet the overarching land use planning goals presented in this Comprehensive Plan, an amendment to the Plan is the proper procedure for consideration of such projects. Consideration for projects in the MOAA and annexation requests will follow the current annexation agreement parameters, or any future amendments to the agreement. Growth and development within the MOAA would naturally follow the existing roadway network and its potential for expansion as well as the availability of utility infrastructure, specifically sewer and water lines provided as City services. Specific projects will require analysis of utility and infrastructure needs, roadway network capacity, as well as land use compatibility. Given the MOAA’s existing land area and its growth potential, its full development build-out would occur over a much longer time period, extending beyond the 20-year timeline of this plan. Land in the Monticello Orderly Annexation AreaBriar Oakes Residential Property, Source: City of Monticello MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 51 PRIMARY GROWTH CITY-WIDE GROWTH AND DOWNTOWN Developing parcels within the City and the Downtown are the primary growth objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Monticello will prioritize infill development within the existing municipal boundary and adjacent lands accessible by existing utility infrastructure, with a strong focus on the revitalization and redevelopment of the Downtown. SECONDARY GROWTH STUDY AREAS AND PORTIONS OF THE MOAA The secondary growth objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan include directing growth into the Northwest Study Area, the East Bertram Study Area, specific parcels of land within the MOAA with a future planned land use designation, and other areas that align with City goals and policies. In particular, property outside the Study Areas but with frontage on County Highway (CSAH) 39, Highway 25 and other major transportation corridors, or properties already served by utilities are logical development opportunities and may be considered Primary Growth Areas. The City shall retain discretion when evaluating development proposals in the Secondary Growth Area that are consistent with the Goals and Vision of the Comprehensive Plan. TERTIARY GROWTH DEVELOPMENT RESERVE OF THE MOAA The third growth objective is to direct growth in the Development Reserve of the MOAA. Property within the MOAA will retain their existing uses until requests for annexation and development under the Orderly Annexation Agreement occurs, and transportation and utility improvements are installed. This includes utility studies to support cost effective and efficient infrastructure into the secondary and tertiary areas. It would be premature to change the land use designations of parcels at the time of this Comprehensive Plan given this Plan’s long-term development horizon, and the potential need for future study and development impact assessment. As appropriate, the City may undertake or authorize development studies to respond to Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals or changing circumstances. Since these areas have a longer development horizon and have not been assigned a new future land use designation, they will continue to accommodate the existing single-family, rural residential and agricultural land uses that exist today. Any future change of land use will require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Sunset Ponds Development Residential Development in the City of Monticello LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 52MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN MONTICELLO, MN GROWTH STRATEGY MAP - EXHIBIT 3.2 DECEMBER 2020 1 inch = 2,250 feet PROJECT TEAM: PREPARED FOR: CITY OF MONTICELLO THE LAKOTA GROUP WSB © 2020 THE LAKOTA GROUP GROWTH STRATEGY MAP EXHIBIT 3.2 North Primary Growth Secondary Growth Tertiary Growth Land - Not Applicable City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Note: The land categorized “Not Applicable” is either: • located outside the Monticello Township boundary • protected as a wetland • designated as Open Space and Resource Conservation or City Parks and Recreation 94 25 131 94PINE STPINE STELM STELM STBRO A D W A Y S T BRO A D W A Y S T CHE L S E A R D CHE L S E A R D JA S O N A V E N E JA S O N A V E N EEDMONSON AVEEDMONSON AVEFENNING AVEFENNING AVESCHOOL BLVDSCHOOL BLVD 85TH ST NE85TH ST NE COUNTY RD 39 NECOUNTY RD 39 NE COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE 80TH ST NE80TH ST NE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 23RD, 2020 ADOPTION North GROWTH STRATEGY MAP EXHIBIT 3.2 Primary Growth Secondary Growth Tertiary Growth Land - Not Applicable City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Note: The land categorized “Not Applicable” is either: • located outside the Monticello Township boundary • protected as a wetland • designated as Open Space and Resource Conservation or City Parks and Recreation MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 55MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN MONTICELLO, MN FUTURE LAND USE MAP - EXHIBIT 3.3 DECEMBER 2020 1 inch = 2,250 feet PROJECT TEAM: PREPARED FOR: CITY OF MONTICELLO THE LAKOTA GROUP WSB © 2020 THE LAKOTA GROUP City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Development Reserve (DR) Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) City Parks and Recreation (PR) Estate Residential (ER) Low-Density Residential (LDR) Traditional Residential (TR) Mixed Neighborhood (MN) Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) Manufactured Home (MH) Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) Community Commercial (CC) Regional Commercial (RC) Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) Employment Campus (EC) Light Industrial Park (LIP) General Industrial (GI) Public and Institutional (P) Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 3.3 North 94 25 131 94PINE STPINE STELM STELM STBRO A D W A Y S T BRO A D W A Y S T CHE L S E A R D CHE L S E A R D JA S O N A V E N E JA S O N A V E N EEDMONSON AVEEDMONSON AVEFENNING AVEFENNING AVESCHOOL BLVDSCHOOL BLVD 85TH ST NE85TH ST NE COUNTY RD 39 NECOUNTY RD 39 NE COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE 80TH ST NE80TH ST NE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 2 3RD , 2020 ADOPTION FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 3.3 City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Development Reserve (DR) Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) City Parks and Recreation (PR) Estate Residential (ER) Low-Density Residential (LDR) Traditional Residential (TR) Mixed Neighborhood (MN) Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) Manufactured Home (MH) Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) Community Commercial (CC) Regional Commercial (RC) Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) Employment Campus (EC) Light Industrial Park (LIP) General Industrial (GI) Public and Institutional (P) Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) North MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 71 Primary Mode Vehicular (slow speeds) Secondary Mode Pedestrian paths and trails Bicycle facilities and parking Transit or Shuttle Service MOBILITY DEVELOPMENT FORM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) The Low-Density Residential designation corresponds to the majority of Monticello’s single-family residential neighborhoods. These areas are characterized by subdivisions of detached homes, usually on lots from 7,000 to 14,000 square feet. Housing in this designation includes single-family detached residential units as well as detached accessory structures. Other compatible uses, such as schools, nursing homes, private parks and religious facilities may also locate in this designation. • Density - 3-6 units/acre (Low-Density Residential) • Height - 1-2 stories • Lot Area - 6,000-14,000 sq. ft. per unit VISUAL EXAMPLE LOT PATTERN LAND USE MIX Residential • Single-Family • Other Low-Density Residential uses Public/institutional • Schools Recreational • Parks/Playgrounds Open Space • Sensitive Habitat 2018 Correlating Zoning DistrictZONING INFORMATION 2018 Correlating Zoning District R-A Residential Amenities District R-1 Single-Family Residence District CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (E) R-1: Single Family Residence District City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 89 (E) R-1: Single Fa mily Residence District Section 3.4 (E) R-1 Single Family Residence District The purpose of the "R-1" single family district is to provide for low density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. Maximum Density through PUD or Performance Standards = 8,712 sq. ft. per unit (5.0 units per gross acre) Base Density = 14,000 sq ft per unit (3.1 units per gross acre) Base Lot Area • Minimum = 10,000 sq ft. • Average = 12,000 sq ft (at least 40% of lots created through subdivision shall exceed 12,000 sq ft in size) Base Lot Width • Minimum = 70 ft. • Average = 80 ft. (at least 40% of lots created through subdivision shall exceed 80 ft in width) Typical R-1 Building Types Typical R-1 Lot Configuration CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (E) R-1: Single Family Residence District Page 90 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 3-5: R-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRED YARDS (in feet) Max Height (stories / feet) Minimum Floor Areas (sq ft) Minimum Building Width (ft) Minimum Roof Pitch & Soffit (vertical rise/ horizontal run) Front Interior Side [1] Street Side Rear [3] Single Family Building 30 10 [2] 20 30 2.5 stories 35 feet 1,050 foundation/ 2,000 finishable [4] 24 5” / 12” no minimum soffit [1]: For interior lots in R-1 and R-A districts, an attached accessory structure may be allowed to meet a 6’ setback, provided that the sum of both side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet. [2]: Interior side yard setbacks for single family homes on lots of record with a lot width 66 feet or less in the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello shall be at least six (6) feet. [3]: The required rear yard shall consist of a space at least 30-feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands, ponds, or slopes greater than 12 percent. [4]: Finishable square footage is exclusive of attached accessory space. [5]: Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature, provided no such exempted roof areas shall comprise any more than 20% of the total horizontal roof area of a single family structure as measured from a bird’s-eye plan view. Accessory Structures An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the R-1 district. See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. The minimum floor area for all attached accessory structures shall be 550 sq. ft. See footnote [1] above as related to setbacks for attached accessory structures on interior lots. Other Regulations to Consult (not all inclusive) Section 3.3, Common District Requirements Section 3.4(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts Section 4.11, Building Materials Section 4.8, Off-Street Parking Section 4.1, Landscaping and Screening Standards CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (F) R-2: Single and Two Family Residence District City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 91 Typical R-2 Lot Configuration (F) R-2: Single and Two Fami ly Residence District Section 3.4 (F) R-2 Single and Two-Family Residence District The purpose of the "R-2" single and two-family residential district is to provide for low to moderate density one and two unit dwellings and directly related complementary uses. Maximum Density through PUD or Performance Standards = 5,445 sq. ft. per unit (8.0 units per gross acre) Base Density Unit Type Minimum Lot Area/Unit Base Density Single Family 10,000 square feet 4.3 units/acre Duplex/Two-Family 7,000 square feet 6.2 units/acre Townhome * 7,000 square feet 6.2 units/acre Multi-Family (3-4 units) * 10,000 sq ft for 1st unit + 4,000 sq ft for each additional unit 5.9 – 6.7 units/acre * By Conditional Use Permit Only Minimum Lot Width R-2 District Original Plat Lot Width 80 feet 66 feet Typical R-2 Building Types CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (F) R-2: Single and Two Family Residence District Page 92 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 3-6: R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRED YARDS (in feet) Max Height (stories / feet) Minimum Floor Areas (sq ft) [3] Minimum Finished Floor Areas (sq ft) [3] Minimum Building Width (ft) Minimum Roof Pitch & Soffit (vertical rise/ horizontal run) Front [1] Interior Side Street Side Rear Single Family 30 10 [2] 20 30 2.5 stories 35 feet 1,050 foundation 1,800 finishable [3] Minimum finished square footage must be equivalent to the principal use unit foundation size 24 5” / 12” No minimum soffit Duplex 30 10 [2] 20 30 2.5 stories 35 feet 1,050 foundation 1,400 finishable 24 Townhouse Multi Family Building 30 10 20 30 2.5 stories 35 feet 24 [1]: For the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello, where adjacent structures (excluding accessory buildings within same block) have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only one (1) adjacent structure, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of the adjacent structure. [2]: Interior side yard setbacks for single family homes on lots of record with a lot width 66 feet or less in the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello shall be at least six (6) feet. [3]: Finishable and finished square footage is exclusive of attached garage space [4]: Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature, provided no such exempted roof areas shall comprise any more than 20% of the total horizontal roof area of a structure as measured from a bird’s eye plan view. Accessory Structures An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the R-2 district. See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. The minimum floor area for all attached garages shall be 450 sq. ft. No portion of any attached garage may be more than 10 feet closer to the street that the principal structure. Except for single family buildings, any driveway leading directly to an attached garage may not exceed 18’ in width at the front yard property line Other Regulations to Consult (not all inclusive) Section 3.3, Common District Requirements Section 3.4(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts Section 4.11, Building Materials Section 4.8, Off-Street Parking Section 4.1, Landscaping and Screening Standards CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (G) T-N: Traditional Neighborhood Residence District City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 93 (G) T-N: Traditi onal Neighborhood Residence District Section 3.4 (G) T-N Traditional Neighborhood Residence District The purpose of the "T-N" traditional neighborhood residential district is to provide for medium density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. Maximum Density through PUD or Performance Standards = 5445 sq. ft. per unit (8.0 units per gross acre) Base Density = 10,000 sq ft per unit (4.4 units per gross acre) Base Lot Area • Minimum = 7,500 sq ft. Base Lot Width • Minimum = 45 ft. • Maximum at the street = 65 ft. Typical T-N Building Types Typical T-N Lot Configuration CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (G) T-N: Traditional Neighborhood Residence District Page 94 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 3-7: T-N DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRED YARDS (in feet) Max Height (stories / feet) Minimum Floor Areas (sq ft) Minimum Building Width (ft) Minimum Roof Pitch & Soffit (vertical rise/ horizontal run) Front [1] Interior Side Street Side Rear Single Family Front Load 25 6 25 20 2.5 stories 35 feet 1,050 foundation 2000 finishable / [2] 24 5” / 12” No minimum soffit Single Family Rear Load 15 6 15 25 [1]: The maximum front yard shall be 30 feet for front load homes and 25 feet for rear load homes. [2]: Finishable square footage is exclusive of attached accessory space. Accessory Structures An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the T-N district. See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. The minimum floor area for all attached accessory structures shall be 480 sq. ft. For front-loaded attached accessory structures, no portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal use (including porch). No private driveway leading to an accessory structure may exceed 18’ in width at the front yard property line. Other Regulations to Consult (not all inclusive) Section 3.3, Common District Requirements Section 3.4(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts Section 4.11, Building Materials Section 4.8, Off-Street Parking Section 4.1, Landscaping and Screening Standards Rear Load Example Front Load Example