Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 01-06-2009AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 6th, 2009 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC 5:00 PM Joint City CounciUPlanning Commission workshop review of Chapter 3A, Signs. • • 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 5th, 2008 and December 2°d, 2008. 3. Citizen Comments 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of the final plat of St. Henry's Catholic Church ls` Addition. 6. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Kjellberg Estates. Applicant: Ocello, LLC 7. Consideration of amendment to Chapter 14B (Central Community District) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as related to the re-assignment of design review in conformance with the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello 8. Consideration of amendment to Chapter 6 of the Monticello Subdivision Code as related to Parks, Open Space and Public Use. (REMOVED) Applicant: City of Monticello 9. Consideration to review and recommend appointments for expiring Planning Commission Terms. 10. Consideration to complete an annual review of the 2008 City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 11. Consideration to call for a public hearing on the Monticello Transportation Plan. 12. Community Development Director's Update. 13. Adjourn. • MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 5th, 2008 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison: Staff: Call to order. Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Lloyd Hilgart Susie Wojchouski Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and noted the absence of Commissioner Hilgart. • 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 7th, 2008. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 7TH, 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Citizen Comments NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda. Commissioner Gabler requested that Grittman provide clarification on signage for non-profits under item 6. Chairman Dragsten asked that the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan be placed on the January 2009 Planning Commission agenda. Public Hearing -Consideration to review a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development to allow Conditional Use Permits for Auto Repair Maior and Minor and Onen and Outdoor Service and Sale. Applicant: Sisu Automotive Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report, explaining that the applicant is seeking Conditional Use Permits for Auto Repair and Open & Outdoor Service and Sale to validate the existing auto repair activity on the site, and to provide for future auto sales as an accessory activity. Planning Commission Minutes -11/05/08 Grittman reported that Automobile Repair -Major/Minor is allowed by Conditional Use • Permit according to conditions listed within the zoning ordinance and noted within the staff report. The applicant meets each of the listed conditions. Grittman noted that the applicant is an existing business in an existing building which has had previous site plan and building approval. As such, there would not appear to be any site planning issues related to the occupancy of the property. Specifically, the previous approval for Planned Unit Development included a detailed review of buffer yard requirements required between residential and industrial properties. A buffer yard landscaping plan was required for the site at that time and has been implemented as required. Planning staff is unaware of any separate code violations on the site at this time. As such, the CUP for Auto Repair Major/Minor appears to be appropriate for the site. Grittman stated that as noted in the applicant's application, a sign may be proposed at a future date. The specific sign suggested appears that it may not fit within the requirements of the sign regulations. However, the property owner will need to obtain approval for a Comprehensive Sign Plan that addresses signage for the entire building area. This issue can be addressed at any time prior to when the property owner and the tenant wish to proceed with a new sign. With regard to auto sales, Grittman stated that the applicant also complies with the CUP language of the zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes to reserve 5 of the existing parking spaces in the parking area north of their tenant space for the storage/display of automobiles that they are in the process of repairing and selling. The parking area is paved, and there are no residential areas in proximity to this location. The applicants state that their business practice is to acquire automobiles for buyers on an order basis, repair them, then transfer them to the buyer. As such, Grittman explained that there should be only limited need for the storage area. While the auto sales area will consume parking space on the property, Grittman indicated that there appears to be more than adequate parking supply in the development. In addition, there is a large paved area to the. south of the building that could be utilized for additional parking if the need were identified. Thus, it does not appear that parking should be impacted by the proposed sales/storage area. It should be noted that for the most part, the building itself screens the outdoor storage area proposed from the residential uses to the south. Grittman did note to the Commission that the site is intended to accommodate the limited flow of industrial traffic only, not retail traffic. As such, the CUP considered as part of this application appears to be appropriate based on the nature of the applicant's business - custom orders, rather than general market sales. The CUP should be limited to this level to avoid conflicts created between retail and industrial traffic patterns. Planning Commission Minutes -11/05/08 With those notations, Grittman stated that staff recommends approval of the CUPS. Commissioner Gabler inquired if the environmental impacts of this type of use had been considered for the structure. Grittman responded that those items had been addressed at the time of building permit. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Derek Hokkenen, 210 Dundas Road, addressed the Commission as applicant and owner of Sisu Automotive. Commissioner Spartz clarified that Sisu would pull the appropriate permits for signage at the necessary time. Hokkenen indicated that they would do so. Gabler inquired whether there would be any need to expand the sales area in the future. Hokkenen indicated that they intend to purchase and fix vehicles based on orders. As such, there would be only very limited need to park vehicles for any length of time, which is accounted for in the five spaces. Commissioner Dragsten inquired whether Hokkenen was aware of the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. Hokkenen indicated his intent to comply with the listed conditions. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP FOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR MAJOR/MINOR, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, AND THE APPLICANT'S OPERATION APPEARS TO MEET THE STANDARDS AS DEVELOPED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP FOR OPEN & OUTDOOR SERVICE & SALES, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE NATURE OF THE APPLICANT'S BUSINESS OPERATION WILL NOT LIKELY CREATE NEGATIVE TRAFFIC OR OTHER IMPACTS ON THE INDUSTRIAL AREA IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. A CONDITION MAY BE CONSIDERED RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OPERATION AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: a. THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS A SALES OPERATION THAT RELIES ON PRE-ORDERED VEHICLES, AND DOES NOT MAINTAIN A GENERAL SALES LOT FOR BROWSING CUSTOMERS. b. NO MORE THAN FIVE VEHICLES MAYBE STORED FOR SALE OUTSIDE ON THE PROPERTY AT ANY ONE TIME. c. IF MORE THAN FIVE VEHICLES ARE STORED OUTSIDE FOR SALE, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SEEK AN AMENDMENT TO THE OUTDOOR SALES CUP. Planning Commission Minutes - 11/05/08 d. IF PARKING SUPPLY BECOMES AN ISSUE, BASED ON INFORMATION FROM STAFF, BUILDING OWNER, OR OTHER TENANTS, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SEEK AN AMENDMENT TO THE CUP TO ACCOMMODATE AN ALTERNATIVE SALES. e. ANY LIGHTING IS SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 6. Consideration to review for discussion and direction the first draft of an amendment to Chapter 3 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance re~ulatin~ Signs. Planner Grittman referred to the cover memo highlighting the primary changes between proposed draft ordinance and the current ordinance, reviewing Planning Commission's objectives and public comment. Grittman stated that the sign ordinance would become a separate chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, rather than a chapter included in the ordinance itself. This makes the document itself more self-contained so that those looking for it can find it easily. The intent of the revision is also to make the ordinance more readable and user-friendly for property owners and staff and Commission. Grittman stated that in terms of the structure, the proposed ordinance now includes a set of definitions, a purpose statement, a listing or permitted and prohibited signs. Then two sets of regulation, those for residential, and those for commercial industrial. Then finally, there are some special designation areas, for example for the CCD. Grittman opened the discussion to the Commissioner's questions. Commissioner Voight inquired about the definition of abandoned signs. Gabler noted that it seemed to be a new item. Voight asked for clarification on the last statement. Grittman stated that any sign on a premise that no longer identifies the current occupant doesn't give it special rights, despite a prior approval. The sign still has to identify the existing occupant. Gabler asked for the definition to be made clearer. Grittman stated that the purpose related to state law for non-conforming uses and structures, it puts the burden on the property owner to remove the sign or to make it complaint. Voight referred to the definition of "flashing sign". He stated that perhaps this definition is not specific enough. He noted this definition becomes a judgement call. Grittman responded that this language comes from the electronic sign industry itself. This language has been reviewed by industry representatives themselves, so it should withstand challenge. Gabler noted that in some ways, this is similar to a dynamic display. The Commission began to review the document by page. Gabler asked about the "public health, safety and welfare" clause. Grittman stated that a court, in determining why a City can regulate, is looking for a basis for application. Planning Commission Minutes - 11/05/08 Grittman stated that it is a re-statement of the City's authority to zone as a legal responsibility. Gabler requested that "banners" be added to the temporary sign definition. She also noted that searchlights is also missing. Grittman noted that inflatable devices was listed elsewhere in the ordinance. Gabler asked if the definition for "commercial speech" is a required definition. Grittman noted it as an important distinction between commercial and political speech. Gabler also noted that she would like to see the freeway bonus district included in the ordinance. A brief discussion regarding monument signage was held, confirming the differences between free-standing signs, monument signs and pylon signs and the height of monument signs. Schumann noted that as the Commission finishes refining the ordinance standards, staff will add diagrams and tables to aid in clarification, as well. Voight sought clarification on the difference between sandwich boards versus temporary signs. Grittman noted that sandwich boards would be allowed only during hours of business and would be an additional allowance to those for temporary signs. It was clarified that sandwich boards within the CCD require a permit due to their likely location along the boulevard. Chairman Dragsten noted that changes had been made to clarify property for sale or lease signage. The Commissioners agreed that an 8' x 8' sign seemed large enough for visibility, but perhaps allowing additional signs based on front footage would be worthwhile. Gabler inquired whether the non-profits fit under the temporary signage clause. Grittman re-iterated that the City could not regulate speech. For example, although the City could expand the allowance to 60 days with the intent to add the 20 day for non-profit use, the City can't specifically regulate that the 20 days be used for only non-profits. Voight commented that he had advocated temporary signs by building versus tenant. He inquired if instead the sandwich board provision was added to meet that need. Grittman concurred, noting that for multi-tenant buildings allowing temporary signs per tenant could result in a "permanent temporary signage". The draft ordinance also gives an incentive by allowing a "free" message board if the property does not utilize temporary signage. Dragsten noted that a provision to allow temporary signs on public property would help serve the non-profit use. The City has the discretion to set policy for this purpose. The Commissioners discussed the time allotments for temporary signage. Grittman responded that an allowance for new businesses would be added to the ordinance. Voight Planning Commission Minutes - 11/05/08 inquired if 40 days was still an appropriate amount. The Commissioners agreed that was a reasonable amount of time. Voight indicated that the area calculation would be a good location for an illustration. Dragsten inquired about the landscaping requirements for free standing signage. Grittman clarified that directional signage and informational signage would not need landscaping plans. Voight inquired about regulations relating to window signage in terms of what is included in the current ordinance. Voight also asked if this is another area where the CCD maybe different. Grittman stated that the purpose of this ordinance is to avoid businesses using all of their windows as signs instead of windows. Voight asked if we calculate window signs based on the same area formula applied to other signage. Grittman stated that in his experience, this clause doesn't get enforced a great deal, it is more a reason approach. He noted that this is a relatively common ordinance statement. Dragsten suggested that perhaps examples should be provided for this type of use. Gabler asked if the CCD would have its own guidelines or these ordinances would be applied across the board. She noted that if the provisions specific to the CCD conflict with this ordinance, there should be some kind of reconciliation between the two. Grittman stated that he would note that comment to staff. Gabler inquired if someone who removes a sign needs a permit to put back the same sign. Grittman stated that all signs have to be consistent with the sign plan. Grittman stated that the exception is for maintenance. A sign permit may be required, but not required to become conforming if currently non-conforming. Gabler asked that the State non- conforming rules clause be addressed. Grittman stated that could be added - it would apply to all signage. Grittman noted that with continued revisions and illustrations, this would become clearer. Voight commented on time and temperature signs, whether they are necessary. Grittman noted that this is included because of some provisions of State law, which have their own class of rights. The Commission then discussed dynamic displays at some length. Gabler inquired if buffer zones would be required for these types of signs. Gabler asked if there is any incentive for commercial businesses not to use dynamic signs. Grittman stated that it is most likely that the signs will not be able to be located facing residential properties. Voight commented that perhaps limiting hours of operation maybe what is needed. Voight pointed out that it was previously noted that scrolling would be allowed. Voight also inquired about the meaning of the two minute change. The message has to remain for two minutes. Voight commented that two minutes maybe excessively long. We want these signs to meet their full potential. Grittman noted that a single sign is not the issue, the problem is when multiple flashing signs appear in a corridor, and also so that a single message appears at one time. The Commissioners agreed on the 2 minutes as a starting point. Planning Commission Minutes -11/05/08 The Commission then discussed billboards and other off-premise signage and re-affirmed that they should be prohibited as non-conforming signage. Voight confirmed that height of signage would be measured from crown of adjacent street. Grittman confirmed that gauge is included within the definitions section. Voight asked if the City was going to stick with the area and height assigned within the Freeway Bonus District at 400 square feet and 50' in height. The Commissioners did note those are rather large and high signs. Grittman did note that those dimensions are only applicable to large shopping centers. Going back to temporary signs, the Commission agreed to allow 50 days of temporary signage in PS Districts. Grittman explained that this will be revised and brought back to the Commission. 7. Adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. • Recorder • • Commissioners Council Liaison: Staff: Call to order. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 6:00 PM Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Susie Wojchouski Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a full quorum of the Commission. • 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 5th, 2008. Schumann indicated that the November 5th, 2008 minutes would be provided at the regular January meeting. 3. Citizen Comments NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda• Schumann added items for discussion of DAT, Bertram Chain of Lakes project, Foreclosure Recovery Process. 5. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a variance to Chapter 3 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating R-2A Design Standards. Applicant: Ejimadu, Evanistu Community Development Director Schumann presented the report for the item, explaining that Mr. Evanistu is requesting that the Planning Commission consider a variance from the City's required design standards and setback related to an existing residential property located at Lot 17, Block 1 of Carlisle Village 5th Addition. • Schumann explained that at the time Carlisle Village was platted, two residential properties existed on the site, including the subject property. These properties became existing lawful non-conforming uses within their respective zoning districts. So although some aspects of the homes did not comply with the new layer of applicable zoning code, Schumann stated that they were allowed to continue in their current use and state until such time that substantive modifications are made to each site. The approved Planning Commission Minutes -12/02/08 development plans and agreement for the site did not specifically exempt the two existing properties from the applicable zoning standards. This lot falls under the R-2A portion of the development. Schumann stated that Mr. Ejimadu is seeking to renovate the existing property, making both interior and exterior modifications. The detached garage that existed on the site has been removed. At this time, Mr. Ejimadu is seeking to construct an attached garage on the south side of the home, in what is now the front yard. Commission will note that as a result of the platting of Carlisle Village, the side and front yards of the Lot 17, Block 1 property shifted. The side yard of this property is now in effect the front yard. As such, the addition of the attached accessory structure would require that the applicant meet the design standard, landscaping and setback provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Schumann reviewed the provision, stating that Section 3-2[B] requires that no portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal single family use. In this case, the applicant is seeking to position the garage on the southern front corner of the existing home. The interior layout of the home makes this point the most logical, as placing the garage at the northern end of the home would have the entry point of the garage leading directly into bedroom areas. Additionally, the garage could not be shifted completely to the east, as the proposed accessory structure dimensions, at 22" x 24", would not fit the current lot dimensions and configuration. Schumann stated that in considering a requests for variance, the Planning Commission is required to make a finding ofnon-economic hardship. Variances maybe granted in circumstances where the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and of record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the , parcel or lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue hardship upon the owner of such lot or parcel that the owner of another lot or parcel within the same district would not have if he were to develop his lot or parcel in a manner proposed by the applicant. Additionally, the Commission must find that the variance will not "Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this ordinance." Schumann stated that in this case, the platting of the property resulted in shifting of lot configuration, which may make the location of an attached accessory structure in accordance with ordinance requirements unreasonable. The Commission will want to consider whether variance to the other two code provision for landscaping and facade improvements are acceptable in light of the homes pre- existence within the plat. Commissioner Dragsten opened the public hearing. • 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08 Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Hilgart inquired how the new garage would be position. Schumann illustrated the proposed configuration on the lot survey. Commissioner Spartz noted that landscaping work had been completed on the site. Spartz inquired whether adjacent neighbors had been made aware of the variance request. Schumann responded that they are noticed, as required. Spartz stated that due to the quality of the exterior and landscaping of the surrounding homes, he would have a hard time relaxing landscaping and exterior design standards, but could support the setback variance. Hilgart stated that he would like to have seen a blueprint of how the garage attaches to the home. Dragsten noted that it does appear that they will meet the side setbacks. Hilgart indicated that he would like the siding to match the home. Wojchouski inquired if they are aware that they need to put in a solid driveway. Schumann stated that they had not discussed that. However, Mr. Anderson would most likely speak with them about that. Grittman noted that there are probably some items that they cannot meet in the R-2A, such as roof pitch. The intent of the motion then would be to consider only non- structural changes. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE CHAPTER 3 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING R-2A DESIGN STANDARDS AS RELATED TO GARAGE SETBACK, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PLATTING OF THE PROPERTY CREATED A SITUATION IN WHICH COMPLIANCE WITH TERM5 OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN EXCEPTIONAL DIFFICULTIES WHEN UTILIZING THE PARCEL OR LOT IN A MANNER CUSTOMARY AND LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SAID LOT OR PARCEL IS LOCATED BASED ON A CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE TO INCLUDE R-2A DESIGN STANDARDS EXCEPT AS APPLICABLE TO STRUCTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 6. Consideration to adopt the 2008 Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment. Schumann presented information related to the completion of the 2008 Natural Resource Inventory. The Natural Resource Inventory identifies existing natural resources within a given area, in this case the planning area and some strategic locations within the City. Then those resources are inventoried for quality and community importance. The NRUA was completed in order to help support and achieve the goals of the 2008 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08 Comprehensive Plan. The scope area does go beyond the Orderly Annexation area, because natural resources of significant importance go beyond those political boundaries. Schumann reviewed the final inventory documents, which establish a baseline for the inventory, including an pre-settlement vegetation and aggregate resources map. She explained that WSB & Associates then inventoried natural resources using the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System. From there, a community meeting was held to help determine places that the community felt should be included in field research. Field research included those locations, as well as places that scored high based on MLCCS and Element Occurrence Rankings for ecological significance. Schumann noted that the preservation and conservation of agriculture came out high in the first public meeting. As a result of the inventory and field work, the following resources were produced: an MLCCS map that illustrates Level 1 cover, Areas of High Quality Natural Areas, Areas of Cultural and Ecological Importance. Schumann noted that this study has yielded information on little-known high quality natural areas, two of which are in the Bertram Chain of Lakes Area. Another document that resulted from the NRUA was a conceptual greenway corridor map, which does not provide a specific alignment, but rather suggests a general route, which may connect through development, or use existing powerline or conservation easements. Schumann explained that another piece of this project was the GIS component. All of the results of the inventory and assessment have been added as layers of information into the existing GIS system. Staff has received a training on this information and mapping. Each of these maps can be layered to help make land use decisions. Schumann noted that this is a planning tool. While it doesn't prescribe specific action, it does make recommendations for future planning utilizing the information. For example, the NRI/A notes the community's focus on preservation of the Monte Club Hill as a natural amenity. The NRUA's MLCCS evaluation notes this area as having been impacted by invasive species, so a restoration and remediation plan is recommended strategy. Another recommendation is to continue educational programming for natural resources, whether on existing trails, or at locations such as the Bertram Chain of Lakes. Schumann also explained that additional resources, including suggested ordinance updates and management plan examples would be added as appendix documents. Spartz asked for an example where something may be proposed, but by which the NRUA or Comprehensive Plan would not support. Schumann cited the platting proposed in the Ditch 33 area. As the Ditch 33 area was noted as a culturally important resource, the Commission can now view development proposals in that area with the NRUA information as a resource for where trails or parks should be, or how wetlands could be restored. Spartz asked if ordinances are required to make those decisions possible. Schumann stated that the NRUA allows the City to work with the developer on the best development scenario for natural resource incorporation; ordinances would strengthen that capability. Voight inquired if sample ordinances could then mandate what can and cannot be disturbed. Schumann stated that future ordinance provisions can be as restrictive or non-restrictive as the City desires. Voight stated that he would like a map that overlays all of the information 4 Planning Commission Minutes -12/02/08 together to summarize what was found. Dragsten asked if the City is going to look at implementing recommendations now, or as development occurs. Schumann stated that her recommendation would be to complete the desired items with upcoming planning efforts, rather than to wait. This is so that development actually occurs in accordance with City objectives. Dragsten asked about how the NRUA impacts private property owners, for example with diseased trees or invasive species. Schumann stated that the focus would probably be on those areas deemed of highest quality, and many of these are held publicly or are owned by single large entities that the City can work with. Dragsten inquired if this would be sent to private landowners. Schumann stated that it would be made available on the website. In regard to invasive species, staff can certainly go through this document with individual landowners, if they wish. Dragsten noted that the Township has prided itself on farmland, but this document seems to indicates that the number of acres of farmland within the MOAA is only approximately 15%. Dragsten inquired about Pelican Lake in terms of the planning. Schumann indicated that much information n those planning efforts is available through Ducks Unlimited, US Fish & Wildlife and Wright County. Schumann stated that a management plan has been approved for the area. Hilgart asked if the NRI/A resulted in possible changes to previously approved plans. Schumann stated that for the majority of circumstances, that is not the case. However, she noted the Ditch 33 area again as an area that the City may look at differently due to this process. Schumann also noted that tree preservation will probably occur in a much different way in the future. However, in many circumstances, the NRUA illustrates that greenfield development can occur just as it would have previously. Dragsten noted that a copy of this should be made available to the Parks Commission. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GABLER TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 2008 NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 7. Consideration to review for discussion and direction the second draft of an amendment to Chapter 3 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating Signs and to set a date for a ioint Planning Commission and City Council workshop. Planner Grittman stated that revisions since the last Commission meeting had been incorporated into this version of the draft. Grittman reviewed the changes in summary. The Commission discussed a determination for ordinance purposes on monument height. The Commissioners agreed on a maximum sign height for monuments of 14'. 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08 Grittman reported that for signs for properties for sale or lease, an addition has been made for allowances for additional signage for every 1000' of frontage. The clause on sandwich boards was also clarified based on Commission's previous comments. A section detailing non- conformities has also been added to clarify how existing non-conforming signs will be addressed. Grittman reported that a number of changes had been made to the temporary sign section based on previous comments, as well. An allowance for temporary signs in the PS District was added, allowing for 50 days of use. The Commission reviewed whether 50 days would be enough time. The consensus was to leave it at 50 days. Wojchouski commented on the allowance for new business, stating that the clause seems difficult to find. Grittman noted that the title could be changed to aid in use. Wojchouski inquired if language relating to the fact that these temporary signs have to be located on their property is included. Grittman stated that it is within the code in multiple locations. He noted that he would highlight those locations. Grittman explained that landscaping around free-standing signs was a subject of discussion at the previous meeting. In response, a clarification had been made that a landscape plan would be required generally, and in that way Commission could compare overall. Dragsten noted that the Commission had also wanted the monument signs to be consistent in material to the building. Grittman stated that there are materials requirements listed in this revision. h i b ut t e on, The code indicated that area of window signage is not included in signage calculat code does set a maximum area for window signage. Schumann noted that regulation of window signage is an addition to the code and that a business cannot get a permit to exceed the 25% specified. It was clarified that area of changeable copy is counted against total areas, except where someone has gone through the process of eliminating their option of temporary signage. A provision prohibiting dynamic signs in yards or on walls adjacent to residential properties has been added. Grittman also reviewed the time period decided on by the Commission as related to changing of dynamic sign messages. The Commission had another discussion regarding the types of motion and timing. Wojchouski inquired about what happens if the sign technology does not allow for this type of movement or timing restriction. Grittman stated that where NAC has worked with these provisions, that has not been a problem. Extending the time allowance is not an issue. Voight asked if existing signs have messages which violate this provision in terms of timing and motion are grandfathered in. Grittman responded that each new message is in fact a new sign. 'The new regulations are therefore enforceable. Grittman noted that the Freeway Corridor had been defined in the definition section of the ordinance. Dragsten inquired if the monument height should be in this part of the ordinance, as well. Crrittman stated that it could. 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08 • Wojchouski and Dragsten commented that format changes should be made to make the ordinance more readable. Schumann noted that the proposal for the complete revision of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that the new ordinance would be dynamic, allowing for hyperlinks, diagrams, call-outs, etc. So, the ordinance would be structured to achieve what Wojchouski and Dragsten are referring to. Dragsten asked if hours of operation need to be included with dynamic signs. Grittman responded that the solution Commission had come to was the clause related to facing residential properties. Schumann inquired if the freeway diagram would be included. Grittman stated that it could be inserted within the definition. Gabler inquired whether a decision was made to rewrite the CCD sign provisions, or to integrate them here. Grittman stated that a business downtown would still need to review those first, then apply this code. However, with the proposed ordinance update, the Commission would have an opportunity to re-think those provisions in relationship to this code. Anderson inquired how height of signs would be determined. Grittman responded that the height would be measured from the adjacent street from which a business gains their principal exposure. Schumann asked the Commission to set a date for the joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop on the ordinance revisions. The Commission agreed that holding the workshop at the next regular meeting would be acceptable. 8. Consideration to review for comment a Request for Proposal for the Comprehensive Revision of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Community Development Director Schumann reviewed the Request for Proposal document. Schumann stated that there are numerous reasons to support a complete revision of the current code. First, while the comprehensive plan presents the framework for land use, it is the City's codes and ordinances which control actual development. State law stipulates that zoning regulations are a critical tool for implementing the Comprehensive Plan. In fact, outside of the seven-county metropolitan area, zoning regulations control land use. As such, the Comprehensive Plan cites that "A priority should be given to the review and updating of zoning regulations.". In addition to the need for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Schumann noted that the Planning Commission and Council have often struggled with the outdated ordinance, and have recommended amendments to make the document a more useful tool for the public. 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08 At this time, Schumann stated that it is requested that the City move forward with the process of completing a comprehensive update of the current zoning ordinance. Staff has prepared the RFP document for Commission's review and comment. Schumann reviewed the "Considerations" portion of the RFP, which are items which the consultant will need to address in the ordinance update, and the development of a detailed scope of work and plan for public involvement. Schumann explained that the Scope of work includes five main components, including the development of an ordinance framework, development of ordinance language, statute and case law compatibility analysis, incorporation ofcross-reference markers and construction of web compatibility, and a public and policymaker process. Schumann indicated that staff is prepared to issue the request immediately, pending Planning Commission's comments on the RFP. Dragsten inquired about the case law component. Schumann clarified that this would be a comparison of Monticello's codes to case law and State statute. Spartz inquired if growth projections would be a part of the zoning revisions. Schumann stated that the ordinance will not address growth projections, but rather the provisions for design standards could have the impact of limiting growth by the standards the City applies. Spartz commented that the growth objectives of the City perhaps could have been addressed more comprehensively within the Comp Plan. Schumann noted that at some point the Commission will be confronted with the issue of the actual application of its goals for higher end housing and amenities to development proposals which do not meet those criteria. Those decisions will be difficult given the slow economic climate. Wojchouski inquired if the Building Department will be the main contact for this project. Schumann responded it would be herself, but all City departments will be involved. However, the Building Department will be involved in the actual involvement. Wojchouski inquired if there is an estimated cost for the project. Schumann indicated that she had funding assigned in both 2008 and 2009. She noted that the consultant will have to have awell-thought out plan and budget, given constraints. Wojchouski noted that sometimes staff are leaned on too much in these type of projects. Grittman commented that the addition of a formal revision of the Zoning Map would be a worthwhile addition, as changes based on the language would be likely. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE PROCEEDING WITH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08 9. Transportation Plan Update, Design Advisorv Team Update, Bertram Chain of Lakes Update • and Foreclosure Recover~pdate. Schumann reported that it is expected that the draft Transportation Plan will come before the Commission at a public hearing in February, allowing time to meet with Big Lake and Becker representatives with regard to regional transportation planning. A public forum had been held to present the main concepts of the plan. Schumann noted that the Highway 25 corridor study would be presented separately. Schumann stated that the City Council requested that the Design Advisory Team and Planning Commission consider collapsing DAT's review responsibility to Planning Commission due to overlap in responsibilities and to avoid duplication or slowdowns. Gabler inquired whether the Commission should add another member to assist with those items. Schumann stated that the Commission could consider that with the amendment. Schumann indicated that the City had held a public information workshop regarding the Bertram Chain of Lakes, which was well-attended. The City and County continue to move forward in their efforts to purchase the property for a future regional park. The presentation made at the workshop is available online and is running on cable access. Schumann reported that staff are working hard at foreclosure prevention and recovery measures, including work on a federal grant through Minnesota Housing and setting up networking connections with local lenders and realtors for resources and program opportunities. Schumann explained the difficulty in trying to keep tabs on foreclosures, due to the varying stages and facets of the process. More information on prevention and recovery efforts will be provided as programs develop. Chairman Dragsten noted that the Commission will also need to handle expiring Commission terms in January. 10. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Recorder • 9 i Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 5. Consideration of a request for approval of the final plat of St. Henry's Catholic Church lg` • Addition. (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission is asked to approve the final plat of St. Henry's Catholic Church 1 S` Addition. The approval is a housekeeping item related to the 2004 CSAH 18/I-94 Interchange and 7~' Street projects. As Commission may recall, the interchange project required the realignment and completion of West 7a` Street. The plat included here represents the current alignment and reconfiguration of adjacent lots. The actual recording of the final plat document has been delayed until this point due to the intensive review process on the plat. The plat fully conforms to ordinance requirements and all other vacations and approvals relating to the plat were received previously. By ordinance, the Planning Commission is required only to review and approve preliminary plat. However, as this final plat represents a different lot and ROW configuration from the preliminary plat (which was approved in 1997), the Planning Commission is asked to consider its formal approval. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the final plat of St. Henry's Catholic Church 1 S` Addition, based on a finding that the plat is consistent with Monticello Zoning Ordinance requirements. • 2. Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the final plat. SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Image of Plat Location B. Final Plat • `}CL h a-�� .n� .JIM �, i.� �` 7�I'*i �� 1L• �' � D ..�. .. 'ems -• - w qwtyy .7#` fc ,4 ,..,•i�w. '� 1 ., fir` _r �aa,` f., !: ,, } lk \V ` �, I `y: 4 .- • IIS f d1 �� .�, #44, �� ti�..tl' Si ./.•SII,✓•-$ L 'l 1i. � � ,f� ...ice„ � � t i�.i-..r..L��i• � 5 E�� «: 'I. � ,t'I*3...� r ��� I !••� � �,±: /s. A!?• -� � 1� r j ,•�."��`" `�^ �fr� VJ • � !:� r ' • � •. ...r►�„` a �w�" ,���� R kap (D ti m,. 471,.„ r. , a •`f•..- ���y.� 7 `int' r ' f Ir .a,..- A - •R` ` 41, •tet � � �- _ ,.a,�wnay��ic......_. _ , � •"a��9 ,+� p ` �P mai /jr�* 00 or r i ALf ' � '� P 1'f •S a- ' I I • • c 9 N S joy nON _ v ~~ m a~ ~ e v Sn ~r ~3 ~ z ----'~__~ ~^ s g m or~'° oZ o S° a'm °~c.m aS~ ? F1.Qmm r ,a~m~ ~~~~ Z p ~~~ m n y ;' ~~: ~ / ^ ~"i ~ o A~ O 2 ~ mo q - ~ y~iC ~/ ~ ~;~~ s~g% D ~ ~'m m~~ Si5_o`6 `eY 6'~ q~o~ ' / y' III \ m n'o s m ~ $ 4 ~ ~ ~^ m' ~' m m m N / ~@Ei ~ n ~xm _ y_.m SSap ~~~ / RaIII ~ g m~ S x mz ue_g a s ~~ / c~^/ I~ ~ mmm ~ s saw m~~° =a ~ sm~ I I I ~I '~ ~,oQ= ~ n~' al_°c A Ym66 ~ ~ mil / I!~-~ :. ~ '~ °~ ~~DDm m <~ ~~x omen m~ m gWc it r ~~ Zy~ G ~ ^_~ m O $ Qm r ~x O__Ny If rI IiI ~~~ i ~~ 3 d^2 w~S ~'.-NI ~o ~ ~I ~. I~ .~ ~ I ° c g m Z = " Z m m N ~'i, I - IIII ~~+~\ I ~^ 25n a<N mn~ i< S ono ' ~'•~ I \\\ ~~ ~ , i , I o \a t ~ ~~ ~ I °o I o ~ ~, I ~r~~ \\~~~~ ~ I V 2 n ~ ~ - ~m o m 'm ~ ~ m a ~ ;~ ~ q ~ ~ \\ I 3 ~ 2 o m ~ p " ~ - o €~`t> ,.. \ ICI sal ~ - a o 0 oa =d~m~ a ~' i.7b I I = z N -mm m €mI ia;=. '`'p\\; I ail ~ m ~z A~°yBS~ I~~ ~ o d Cpl ',~` ~•'~~,~° ~ gal _ o ~ a8~~=_ •~J 3n :. i ., \ a~ III Sul ~ ~ amm,°~9 ~I Oy ` 9J '~ ~•., s~ '~. W \ ? j ~ ~ ~ ~ g N F ~ a s m a ~ I N VF •\t. !~\ "I o ,o: mom"-p°Q'C/n ~__ '~~ b y~' I -- c ~£ m~'gmnmca ~~ ~~ ~cS.V,'us M0.F1 ~.t] S ~ - K m ~ ~ z m '-~~ LOT a. - ------- a - m ~ ~ ~ y j ~ _ ...v. .....' ~. CHURCN OF ST IIEyRY ~ R ~ ~ z i ~~ ~ g~~ ~ d ~~ - -;--- m ~ o b 4R•o ~ ~ ~ ~~~° o n o n- n s,-, op f z n 8~ n 3n~ a ~~ .~ ~ - .D~ ~~~ 9 ~ n AA N ~.~~ __.._ / m s 8 ~ a a ~~ y~y g m"s y~ F m ~_ ~b° °c ~~O cZ, 3 p 1 3 ~ ~ c Z' A ~ O •2 A x 3 F x r n i x O m QnS w m >- ~ a~ a~ sx gmc i f -= ~ ~ F sg a ,~ o ~ z a o a ~i ni H o g n 8 g - msw ,m°pm z g m'~ ? $'Nti ti N ~ ~ ? eg s ~ ~, "mZ ~p~Z c ~ 5 ~- ~ a ; m ~ Igm " ~m~ ~ St g q $ y ~ 3y sG ~ Ig~ ~ S ~ ~~> $o o• 3 g 5 ~ Im y {i ~" 7~ g~y o~~s E i o 8?, ~ ~ 8 ~ n~ EC a. ~ ~~ ~~§s P ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ m __ A ~ ~ ~ ~ aa 9 s§~ ~ ~i ; gym, ~ ~~ ~ p gm S~ ~~b 1f ~ ~ ~ ; ~ g $ 9 8 ~ ~ T~: ~ !~ ~sT I8~°~^s m p ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ m 5d Q Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 6. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Conditional Use. Permit for a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Kjellberg Estates, a 372- unit mixed-residential development. Applicant: Ocello, LLC (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND On September 6th, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a concept stage planned unit development request for the proposed Kjellberg Estates project, submitted by Ocello, LLC. The City Council approved the concept stage PUD on September 12th, 2005. The Concept Stage PUD approved for the Kjellberg Estates project is a 372-unit mixed residential development project adjacent to the Kjellberg West homes property and the Jefferson Commons commercial district. The project is proposed to consist of both single-family uses and a mix of townhome styles. The Planning Commission and City Council's approval of the request was conditioned on a number of items, which were required to be addressed with any development stage application. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for PUD would have expired on September 12th, 2006. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. In January of 2008, the Planning Commission granted cone-year extension of the CUP, after allowing a continuation of extension upon formal notification. The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference. In considering the request for extension, Commission should consider the surrounding land use context of the proposed plan, and the objectives outlined within the recently approved 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The Commission should also evaluate the type of residential uses proposed adjacent to Jefferson Commons in light of recent conflicts between residential and commercial land uses in that area. While the plan proposed in 2005 may no longer meet the step-up housing objectives of the City, it maybe that the concept plan is suitable, given the constraints presented by the surrounding uses. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend extension of the September 12th, 2005 Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Kjellberg Estates to a date to be specified by the Commission, with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. • Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the September 12th, 2005 Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for • Kjellberg Estates, based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff does not have a specific recommendation for either the approval or denial of the extension. Given the current market constraints, the Commission may view an extension as an appropriate measure. However, the adoption of the updated comprehensive plan may suggest that a reevaluation of the unit mix, style and density is appropriate. While a conceptual stage approval grants no development rights, it does infer that the general pattern of development is acceptable. If the Commission chooses to recommend denial of the extension, and the Council concurs, the applicant has the opportunity to immediately re-apply with a new concept plan. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Applicant Extension Request Exhibit B: Concept Stage PUD Plan documents • Exhibit C: Staff Report for September 6th, 2005 Exhibit D: Planning Commission minutes of September 6th, 2005 Exhibit E: City Council minutes of September 12th, 2005 C7 2 (k~ : ~ ~`~ ~ r~ THE L:~,P~~~ ~~~r~!P,! I`~ 1 5 December 12, 2008 Ms. Angela Schumann City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362-8831 RE Ocello, LLC, Request for Extension, Concept Stage Planned Unit Development, Kjellberg Estates Housing Development, Monticello, Minnesota Dear Ms. Schumann: On behalf of Ocello, LLC, we respectfully requ evelo ment k~own asbKjellbeogcept Stage Planned Unit Development, a housing d p Estates. Current market conditions are well document{ at th ~ thme~ tWhen market olnditions date for moving forward with the developmen improve to a degree that would indicate absorption of the proposed product types, it is intended that the development will move forward proportionately. Access to the proposed development is to be via Reodf e~ Lneeded tolprovide right/of- School Boulevard. Ocello, LLC does not own the p p Y way for that access. It is our understanding that d ovCne ~ in order to facilitate'the n of the necessary right-of-way required, from the Ian required access. Thank you for handling this requested extension. truly yours, Charles C. Pfeffer, Jr. Shawn Weinand cc. Pfeffer Company, Inc. 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 101 • Maple Grove, MN 55369-5 X87 763.425.2930 • FAX 7<3.425.2823 • pfefrercn@aol.com • www.pfefJerco.com www.TheLandSpecialists.com • HI ♦ w _ • •f r _ Mot � "��.• t � _ Si '`'- f >.- - - + ti � i ffky__Y. « •. t a' • 14 IL Af - !t r _:► • . • '2�\..0.. . ' a. fid _ }� 1 -'r _ sj `,� SIF' J } =�� •i` ,�• ` i s � �' , • �?, �� �� '� ' � 7 " r f - ' •'� � • moi. r 5 � .7 �-•� - t , � •, . t : � � T .fit , 4� _ ZI 4141 IT le 1 .a•4 , d F • ��-...444& t ~ ,, � �^ . .r}.vQ�; - .. .. .e -• -� Via. .� a:. •-._ '��'1+t ♦ �•-; Sr r� •- l tM • a - • t r �R 4 X t . • a _ ,� • F� � � y_, � � j!i I. %• 1� R. � _.. r �_f. may• ,.w f R " F.+4 �' +� +• , * 'liitr r4 r s •+ '`£ s% A p .•A.ti * • . ' y § F - c t � - .b ..•. � J �r 1 L.�s� �,,,,• � s -� � rr s � ... + R _i J •1'� [7� � J p. ,-''•' � � s.�, �.._ ..:a".. .� �1 a' n -� . •� J � I. y.�� �• �.' �" • �� : r l i .s'. Sar, s Irt.. , '•'� I-1 •. i aril `,,, ~r,."+i _too JW + Zug � yet � _.� • � _ _ .. _ _ �� _ � �i � w s � `� + . Ilk Alt w h ' ,. ^( _ - 1 • ' _ w.lv � •fib. My� rt _. - 1_-.. - g• It „. • 9,4 t (' �( � ,. ••.[tom _ y \\ J. 1/ 1 A. J +� d 6 461 1. • Premier IN I '•� t ♦. \ .. Bank I _ Ak rt t : ,i +c• '•� ' `. p. � 'pry • 1 1� a '� .•,. 'F °! e�_,�iol• ,1• �• _ _ ,.---"'���� x,� � �,,,..-'".. �\, \. • �. t °,_ ..yy. A , �.� :�,,>-rF a ��' t �0 � I �`.,.,.a t „-, � .,.'tea ` �,E M moi,. '`�`•, {!! y/... 7. '.w'•LC .r »a _ ,.�..., ¢f [i ♦ f comme,a 1 i l /iiHH91t IIIN ll 4 , ,: • ~ �'' Comeroi r lr I�eaMx- y 1• .- ), ^e, - j -- / Nr_ +. � � _ � glllIU111illiirranrauuern i .♦ ,. tip. ° . , t , _.., ° . } F ,,, s ! � `Si - .�..,,,.~ - :� ; 'r 11 ; i 7, - ;, �„ �., r - •�- �` `y + � _ { a. '"' '•ft!^.ACP �tt. ,,�. rO.ERR.a7N ,✓' �• � J 4- 0' CLINE 444 u I v e � �:i _ .., .•>%.., �F' _ "+-. ,,,,,rRR;.....i 1 *^ : .r� ttt,: �`• .f 100r n4 Fig R--f =•-•. f' t • Y f / :- t +,a » `� �"•,, . r +., , � s s•' 7 : "ro-- 41, ,*. n :t {` � ?s� �` 5� AS 1, f OnL4 W5 PA ' n� aoslcasrT[ enter_ M ' 1 4 AOp lebe . _ Theater ) __. ` ,tip✓ _•`"�' t rf T t � � __ N .�, ' }� � T s,�, �• � j" -. �7�/ d/s ✓ Jt .,;,•,.. °•y,. ..., �, ��, -.« t ..�• a." _.__� �i e. � � .•S".: .. 34F 53RFET ♦ Strip `F. r I �•��mF , 10 .1 x f . Commercial ♦ �OQID • W f I! `y,J r -- _ -; -- Waterark Tower f Ride \,ter ry 3 R ..• �- � ^ � t! \4-0cello ,,`� • > , ` '° j �-- (±19.7 AC.) ' ME `tle �� v.. ' � F '� �♦�`O� % �Y i F . � 'f .may ® �� • ,:i•,..-...- � `•, y� f � `\�� ° xr. � ,. a� � ®� n it u m m ary ` t-- -�► , O r -- Building Foot Print Unit Type Unit Count ` i i• �'� _� �j4r .� and Lots Single Family 61 FR Quads 24 Units r• , EMSix Units 42 Units � 1 �I Iq , , - Eight Units 144 Units ' _.. , - r _ . _ € '}-� 2 Story Row 62 Units .,+ ,� X ' ,.• F t .; i Kms, E i i 1 Row Town Homes 39 Units xL, _ Total 372 Lots/Units Density ( U/Ac. +69 Q A c.) 54 U A '..• n R R r t r' S K "'�" ; r .' � � -F-' ••- �-- ,4dditipng / INodific7aHans TO fC�erg }Gell berg West Property gine To Inchxle. (_49.0 AG.) �. so tax2a c,�r�e8 In sir Building 2. Serpi-Trailer Truck Marwerin0 Area f Behind Me RShWW BuRding- 3.Total Number of Gareges = z 70 -1 axW (7 -10 stall Garages) Engineering • Planning • Surveying i McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. t 14807 28th Avenue North . Suite 140 Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447 phone 76JI476-6010 - fax 763/476-8532 Client Ocello LLC Monticello, MN Project PUD Residential Transition Plan Monticello, MN Sheet Title Concept Plan S I hereby certify that this plan was prTared by me or under my direct supervision and that I mn a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature Name Date License Designed miG Checked Drown RG Approved Date 8/3/05 i t Revisions No. Date By Remarks Sheet Revision 1 1 KFRA FILE NO.: 14136 cw." ,$j{ � r z ( � { E , .i.` i0 � , < �i� I ��-' yJ y \ /•� I, � ,:. � ! 'AL i , i` • RS , : i < f € ! r 1 t� j "'n�'i• `, °16 ` l� . \ ! J G*4 `�•. + .V• i� .•gA191 i.tR'J%WPAl•tj %r -L- • Na -I • 't S * s r 2 � i .- .; a .. < R� y ., �. � � a• r �� xzex er `l 1 + Premie• �R j� • `�\ `\ t -"' \ - I � r / i s r Exi i r ` Ni ♦ i GWlDf4 i a ��-,t. ' �.3�" i, cL d'_ �� • F-_ B�yn�i .• „`7C t �i � r .,, -' .. .i` .S S „�.. / -.,tk/� r- ` ,,K? �'.. �S > ij _ --N� �\\ �`� • �J 1 r. �'...._ .i / ..-.-3 r r u s„ e +:.'r JYS,re', ' `. y 3 !: ,` J� \ \ •% // 7 r. • rr \ r , _ .: i !•• / Al i /- � .. ,. ' , - 's S•-5 � . S•.`j ...��` r ''s _ � , ��, � ,I ., r - .tom •y.. \ T `- f T � !!- .._ ,'� ,' r -,, Yj / (�, \ ,fit`• , J $ �, - i - r- _ `� �r Owl't •'' .A �L..,1\ ,"y� yi.-o •�' -� ,.Y; s- \ A r area ,.i- ' -+•. • ,•� .?� =:.. ( � `t ti-.'?--, i '-- ! � , � •,' Vit' r -i l }} i' ♦ j t� , Y • ^ ,a' '9, `^c�jorin --.'4 ;i. ' y - - 'q„�.Xp • > t 1 ,•i ,,, . -- � + r • ••. .... '1SC `�. `\ � ate. , ? 1 ! n ' / rr Commercia r Y J r m t 'S r ` mercl - I• `1 z!' 4' 4° J/ fIO `�� � 7€r 4 ! 4_ .�r� �i ;'- $ `y_3M, '.•r] li��� '_"'.rte.° __ y-'�^'., .: � iii Y � Py.i_ �'� � 4 " t � ♦�,ir � <7 � ��is t >ik at ��� �,{ " # x, � � ai �"" '�,0.� Apt •a c:• $ i� � ,� ka •� �i`� ,or oil as IF 11 a ■t a�: to � as �.c; �' � wig 112 19 L ! si � il�ili hili `s � �• tilt C J - e ` asA�x • -� Ittii •tttt !,t Ar ? i �g ago■ -A +� BMW a` � �►. $ � Nor r fiilr r 7 t2...•� . 7 r �; p .fit � ' , :♦r � , �•,.. -� - .mow.—.. � # _ -r - ., .•>4-, • +PSC �" \i ' t:77 x € 1 V i r x 13 r ���� ' ,,>✓`/,4�° r. � ,? tl T• / Is ,• t • r �, 1 9. .. 5 A L ,• .r._ 000• ��� 4- E 7�1 �� ' A €t• t c4 t y r 'f � •' � i : i�� F / �• AR�t d;-..a.l.E • - c n CV frR (±49.0 Ac.) `�� � 7€r 4 ! 4_ .�r� �i ;'- $ `y_3M, '.•r] li��� '_"'.rte.° __ y-'�^'., .: � iii Y � Py.i_ �'� � 4 " t � ♦�,ir � <7 � ��is t >ik at ��� �,{ " # x, � � ai �"" '�,0.� Apt •a c:• $ i� � ,� ka •� �i`� ,or oil as IF 11 a ■t a�: to � as �.c; �' � wig 112 19 L ! si � il�ili hili `s � �• tilt C J - e ` asA�x • -� Ittii •tttt !,t Ar ? i �g ago■ -A +� BMW a` � �►. $ � Nor r fiilr r ¢ � (� i � ,... f e ` � -i �i-w�,P.i ,�, .a •4'A, ~til , S • hj e �f ip \, .,. iuAgf •� t ,r, , 4,� 1' L1} ® ,V tiM, /r `/ '-•• 46 4A Y Y •�f 1 a71x`"^1-{e �,.r,� tl,-��. ` t,. � �7_••r�„,1 ' `-•n #G .- 1 i� T�°o.4.}w ..> * V �4'tE tf ,�, 4'„�1r ,.+�N.� ., a� /'t`S,♦�.. ',�y�4y_N,.`• w,.g•�,,��f-Qfg.,� 1.ay.-i. ,•'!.`a+'r. •, , 1.bt*.,rf{f. tyy.. Ai ,�r "�R•.-:. fl"l',;i..g��+ {,O�l_- t t �:}j•r"^r„ PIr, •�», , 4'"�•'i•lPc$._*{�f-'. i '' - am��",w♦ a.`n m�,� `, =”aof' (r/o 1•''j , �Q •• 't b`,_.� e `.I. '-�1i.t,`'Z:>. ��i>:= '� .•. �s19.f, �,• �� ' ;�,�i'�•SlYS1LLS%ii Yftt' /♦ • ' ',�1 r '�1, -.,.� 'gs' s 'r�',/� JP.,',• •,F" - t f;f �'Fc w a - , '�y- ,.,_.i`':,a_rj +, ./ - •• ` .n,.e K, ,•..,' 'ai,} `�..1,•2."' n.y'al'.�o_.rfi..:.•. (t•�.-�1r�•'•'`" r .2 It• .�, ,c.�? w'a, .if�•1 rp1 '-.1�? �F '��E'I �. -, x• f�esr.`". a�+�`•"Ly. ."`.r�. ! J :', �«y ✓` ,• �te-.�'lijl ""�.�•.., -- ;F•�"`� +�"B� lha�a}• }'1I ^4k - a•ir. S •'Z'>k1`i�4+aE�i'n 4 !1' 'r dp �_„j`ITa�n�` • ,' -y ..1„i....�r./'.`.P'f^-..�`....�.%.�.” r.� .�f.P.i+��•`", : '"�'ll�"!M7�I •p . , `aw-i... ■wttd _f •t ,, .ye l�.• ` =sAte} +�....,. ,_-f,•.4r xi I Rank Q46V IL COM ial Commerd LlYe _ •enter ---- >103T, . ` ^Ni�1��' 1fl„siJ�!�.!.,.'i~\ I�!l�ii—`M`��,:1_\�\1•}./N� 1 �p ` � i. 1C Theater C Theater ornmer lY"'Om %Water !ower a Cec =19.7 Ac.) '/l /Unit bummary IBM Foot nt Unit Building e Unit Count gr CMBingle Family 61 Lots, ' /yF�r f -.-.p.-, r `q1�,,•' I1 : _ � ,r�_. _, �._ ff'`,` ��ri �,� .� , '_ .",�«•.-t.,t _.. �..tom.�_`._.. . •jj J�.•--.:`�-=�_'."-.-'""' �y Quads 24 Units T 6 _1 V SIX Units 42 Units ETEIEight Units 144 Units L Story Row 62 Units Raw Town Homes 39 Units 372 Lots/UnitsTotal Density �69 0 Ac.) 5.4 U/A0. _0000, 0 .a ..^'`` \-- Additions Modifications TO !!berg lgell West Property Line To Include: {±4g� C-) ,ws ? 1.60101AW Guages In six Bldl� 2. Semi -Trailer ruck Manuvering ` '°t • ¢ Behind the 'Sheher” Building. 1 ! 3.Totai Number of Garages = t 7 - IONW (7 10 Stall ) Planning Commission Agenda - 9/06/0 10. Public Hearina• Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Sta6e Planned Unit Development for amulti- and single-family residential development. Applicant: Ocello, LLC. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Ocello, LLC. has requested Concept Stage PUD approval of a mixed residential use development upon an approximate 68 acre site located south of School Boulevard and west of State Highway 25. The subject site is presently zoned A-O, Agricultural Open Space. The proposal includes a mixture of single family residential lots and townhomes totaling 372 units. This results in an approximate residential density of ~.5 dwelling units per acre. Planned Unit Development. The processing of a planned unit development (PUD) is necessary to accommodate the pi°oposed mixture of uses and multiple buildings upon the subject property. In considering requests for planned unit development, it is important that the City apply the pui°pose of the Planned Unit Development approach -allowing flexibility Isom certain zoning standards to achieve a higher quality project than what would otherwise be achieved through conventional zoning. Examples of quantifiable PUD design attributes are superior building quality and extraordinary landscaping details. Whether or not the purpose of PUD has been achieved with this particular project will become more evident as more detailed project information is submitted. Land Uses. As previously indicated, the development proposal calls for a mixture of residential units including standard single family lots and townhomes. The following is a breakdown of the various proposed land uses: Unit T e/Use Lots or Units Single Family Residential 61 Quadraminiums 24 Six Units 42 Eight Units 144 Two-Story Row Homes 62 Row Townhomes 39 Total 372 Planning Commission Agenda - 9/06/05 The City's land use guide plan shows commercial uses in the area between the westerly extension of School Boulevard and the manufactured home park. Medium- density residential uses are desi~~nated for the balance of the site. To accommodate medium density residential uses north of the manufactured home park, a Comprehensive Plan amendment may need to be pursued, depending on the Planning Commission's evaluation of this concept as to consistency with the land use guide plan. The inclusion of medium density residential uses north of the manufactured home park relates directly to the City's immediate desire to extend School Boulevard to the west. The applicant maintains that demand for commercial uses in such area presently does not exist and may not exist for another five years. A decision as to whether medium density residential uses north of the manufactured home part: are appropriate is considered a policy matter to he determined by City Officials. Provided City officials find the proposed medium density residential uses north of the manufactured home park to be acceptable, the proposed allocation and arrangement of land uses is considered generally compatible with the area. The following comments are however, offered: A street extension to the south (which ultimately will connect to State Highway 25) should be provided. Considering that large lot single family uses exist south of the subject site, some changes to the land use arrangement in the southern area should be considered as a result of such change. 2. Additional setback area for buffering/landscaping should be provided along rear yards which abut the manufactured home park and School Boulevard. To the extent possible, changes in land use should occtrr along rear lot lines. With this in mind, it is preferable to have the single family homes in the southwest area of the site "face" single family homes (thereby creating a neighborhood of sorts). Thus, consideration should be given to converting the quadraminiLU7~ units in the southwest corner of the site to single family residential lots. Quad units may be relocated to other areas. The "back-to- back" townhouse design has raised issues of building design and limitations on interior unit natural lighting. This style of building will be carefully examined when building plans become available. 4. Recognizing the reduction in density resulting from the suggested conversion of townhomes to single family homes in the southwest corner of the site, consideration be given to providing some medium density uses directly west of the proposed "pond amenity". 5. Intended use of the open spaces and "pond amenity" should be clarified. Planning Commission Agenda - 9/06/05 Zoning. As part of future processing. the site should be rezoned from A-O, M Agricultural Open Space to the various residential zoning districts which correspond to the use locations depicted on the concept plan. Access. Primary access to the site is proposed via a westerly extension of School Boulevard (a collector street). A filture street extension opportunity has been provided to the west. As previously indicated, a future extension to the south which ultimately connects to State Highway 25 should be provided. The acceptability of the access points should be subject comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Streets /Circulation. The proposed development includes variety of features which influence site circulation. These include limited site access (along School Boulevard and Redford Lane), the manufactured home park and future commercial development to the east. Recognizing the existence of these activities, awell-conceived plan for site circulation is both very important and very challenging. As previously indicated, a street extension to the south (which ultimately wil] connect to State Highway 25) should be provided. Some concern also exists in regard to the proposed jogged intersection along Redford Lane in the western area of the site. A reconfigured, four way intersection should be provided in this area. The majority of townhome dwellings appear to be served by private streets, many of which have "dead-end" configurations. To the extent possible, dead-end streets and parking areas should be avoided. Some question exists in regard to an apparent turn around area within the manufactured home park. Such turn arow~d area encroaches into the eastern boundary of two of the six-plex buildings and presents some setback and buffering concerns. Consideration should be given to utilizing such feature as an opportunity for emergency vehicle access to the manufactured home park. This issue should be subject to further comment by the Fire Marshal. Lots. Specific lot size information has not been provided. As a condition of PUD Development Stage approval, all lots should be provided lot and block numbers and satisfy the minimum dimensional requirements of the applicable zoning district. Redford Lane is a designated collector street. Thus, direct lot access to such street should be avoided. In the west-central area of the site (north of Redford Lane), three single family lots are provided access to such street. These lots should be reconfigured. • Planning Commission Agenda - 9/0610 Park Issues. The ordinance states that one acre of park land should be dedicated for each 75 persons in a subdivision. To estimate the population, a household size of 3.5 • persons per unit for single fan7ily homes and 2.5 traits for attached housing is used. Using -this formula, a total of 28.8 acres of park land should be dedicated as calculated below: Unit Type Number Of Persons Per Total Acres Required Units Household Persons (1 per 7~ persons) Single family 61 3.5 per trait 213.5 2~9 Attached Housing 3 I 1 2.5 per unit 777.5 10.4 (Townhomes) Total I' ~~ As shown on the concept plan, a "pond amenity" and a number of smaller ``open spaces" have been proposed. It is not clear if such areas are intended for use as public park or private open space. This should be clarified. To be noted is that the "pond amenity" previously served as sewage lagoons for the manufactured home park. It is assumed some improvements to such area are proposed. This should also be clarified. Issues related to park land dedication should be subject tocon~ment and recommendation by the Park Commission. Trails. No trailways are illustrated on the concept plan. It is anticipated that a sidewalk will be provided along the southern extension of Redford Lane. Trail-related issues should be subject to comment by the Park Commission. Setbacks. While the PUD may allow interior setback f]exibilities, periphery structure setback requirements of the base district are considered applicable. Interior setbacks of approximately 70 feet are proposed between the proposed eight unit buildings. The City has commonly applied a 78 foot separation, based on recent experience with similar projects.(to provide for vehicular circulation and unit driveways). Plan. details for all townhome buildings will need to be submitted as part of the PUD development Plan stage. Building Architecture /Design. As a PUD, the City has the ability to impose design related conditions. As part of the PUD Development Stage submission, building elevations of the various townhome building types (excepting those upon the single family lots) should be provided. • 4 Planning Commission. Agenda - 9/06/0 Building design issues have focused on varying roofline heights, varying front S building lines, and avoiding garage-front buildings that emphasize the garage doors from the street. Off-Street Parking. Considering the proposed residential density, it is considered advantageous to include some visitor parking areas. Generally speaking, a visitor parking supply of one half stalls per dwelling unit is considered desirable for townhome developments. This translates to a total of l 6 visitor stalls for the proposed development. Because visitor parking is not a requirement of the ordinance however, this issue (the number of required spaces) is considered a City policy matter and should be subject to recommendation by the Planning Commission and a determination by the City Council. Landscaping. As a condition of Development Stage PUD approval, a landscape plan must be submitted. Such plan should indicate the location, size and variety of all site plantings. Specific landscaping should be provided in the following areas: • The street median feature at the intersection of Redford Lane and School Boulevard. • Within the rear yards of lots abuttin~~ School Boulevard and the manufactw~ed home park. • Within the townhome building lots. signage. Details regarding site signage have yet to be submitted. As a condition of Development Stage PUD approval, all site signage must comply with the applicable requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Grading; Drainage and Utilities. As part of the Development Stage PUD, a grading and drainage plan and a utility plan must be submitted. Such plans will be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Design Alternative. To illustrate some of the design recommendations cited previously, a design alternative has been prepared. The alternative is intended simply as a tool to be referenced in the preparation of an improved site design. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage PUD 1. Motion to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage PUD based on the comments from the staff report for the September 6, Planning Commission Agenda - 9/06/OS ?005 Planning Commission meeting, based on the finding that the Concept Stage PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage PUD based on a finding that the submission of additional plans is necessary to comply with the reduirements of the City, (and/or) Motion to recommend denial of the Condition Use Permit for Concept Stage PUD, based on a finding that the concept stage PUD is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission should select the latter option if commercial uses are appropriate for a portion of this site.. 3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage PUD subject to submission of revised plans consistent with approved conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding review, the proposed mixed residential use development is considered to be a potentially acceptable layout. The City should initially provide comment on the acceptability of the land use pattern (including the number of townhouses), and secondarily, on the density of the project. Provided the concerns cited within this report can be satisfactorily addressed, our office believes various proposed uses can compatibly exist upon the subject property. It is therefore recommended that the following items be addressed as part of~ the forthcoming Development Stage PUD submission: 1. An application for a rezoning of the property, consistent with the proposed uses, be submitted. 2. A street extension to the south (which ultimately will connect to State Highway 25) be provided. 3. The jogged intersection along Redford Lane (in the western area of the site) be reconfigured into a four way intersection. 4. Additional setback area for buffering/landscaping be provided along rear yards which abut the manufactured home park and School Boulevard. To the extent possible, changes in land use should occur along rear lot lines. Thus, consideration be given to converting the quadraminium units in the southwest corner of the site to single family residential lots. C7 6 Planning Commission Agenda - 9/06/0 6. Consideration be given to providing some medium density uses directly west of the proposed "pond amenity". 7. Intended use of the open spaces and "pond amenity" be clarified. 8. The acceptability of the proposed access points shall be subject comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 9. To the extent possible, dead-end private streets and parking areas be avoided. 10. Consideration be given to utilizing manufactured home park turn around area (along the east boundary of the subject site) as an opportunity for emergency velvcle access to the manufactured home park. This issue should be subject to fiuther comment by the Fire Marshal. 1 1. As a condition of PUD Development Stage approval, al] lots should be provided lot and block numbers and satisfy the minimum dimensional requirements of the applicable zoning district. 12. Direct single family lot access to Redford Lane be prohibited. l 3. Park and trail related issues be subject to comment and recommendation by the Parl: Commission. 14. City Officials provide comment and recommendation in regard for the desire for designated visitor parking stalls. 15. As a condition of Development Stage PUD approval, a landscape plan he submitted. Such plan shall indicate the location, size and variety of all site plantings. Specific landscaping should be provided in the following areas: A. The street median feature at the intersection of Redford Lane and School Boulevard. B. Within the rear yards of lots abutting School Boulevard and the manufactured home park. C. Within the townhome building lots. 16. All site signage comply with the applicable requirements of the Sign Ordinance. l 7. As part of the Development Stage PUD, a grading and drainage plan and a utility plan be submitted. Such plans will be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. • Planning Commission Agenda - 9/06105 SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Aerial Image Exhibit B: Applicant Narrative Exhibit C: Site Plan Exhibit D: Site Plan Alternative Exhibit E: City Long Range Land Use Guide Plan • .7 Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY COMMISSION HILGART TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE CUP FOR CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED SITE. 1. The applicant shall provide proof that there will be no substantial conflict in the operating hours of the buildings who are proposing to share parking facilities. 2. All parties involved in the joint parking agreement shall execute a contract approved by the City Attorney and filed with the County Recorder. 3. Applicant shall propose an alternate parking lot configuration for the new building that would provide better circulation and drainage, subject to City staff review and approval. 4. The landscape plan must be revised to show the required number of plantings for the overall site as well as the residential bufferyard, subject to City staff s review and approval. 5. The applicant must submit plans showing the proposed locations and dimensions of any outdoor storage, if any, as well as the location and screening materials for trash enclosures, subject to City staff approval. 6, Prior to consideration of a final plat, a lighting plan must be submitted compliant with regulations outlined in Section 3-2.H of the Zoning Ordinance. ~. The applicant shall submit a signage plan compliant with Section 3-9.E.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. g. All grading, drainage and utilities plans and easements are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 9. Recommendations of other City Staff, Planning Commission and/or City Council. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Public Hearing Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development fora 372 unit multi- and single-family res~dent~al development Applicant• Ocello, LLC O'Neill reviewed the staff report, noting the site location near Jefferson Commons, between commercial and residential property. O'Neill explained that a small piece of the site is designated within the guide plan as commercial. O'Neill noted that the boundaries of the comp plan guide map are not necessarily strict zoning boundaries. However, the Commission will need to determine if the proposed use is consistent with the comp plan. Mike Gair, engineer for MFRA, addressed the Commission representing applicant Ocello, LLC. Gair stated that this plan represents a transition from residential uses within the proposed Poplar Hill development, to commercial and trailer park uses. Gair recognized that the current applicant is for concept review, with more steps to follow. They have also incorporated the 2100 feet of frontage along trailer park, and provided open space and park under the power line area. Gair 12 Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05 stated that the site presents a complex set of conditions. He commented that the concept attempts to achieve and accommodate these conditions, including existing and proposed development and stated that the applicant believe they've offered a reasonable transition. Gair indicated that the applicant has been working with the adjacent property owner, in arriving at this plan and gaining his support in moving this project forward. The plan represents 5.5 units per acre, overall, including 62 single family units. Gair recognized that the the staff report noted that subsequent review will require additional plans and a more sophisticated design for the roadways. Frie asked if this project is contingent upon the construction of School Boulevard through this area. Gair stated that this project becomes an economic factor in paying for School Boulevard. Posusta confirmed that School Boulevard is going to be put in through Weinand's property. Frie asked about a timeline for School Boulevard. Gair stated that it would be constructed through this site in October of 2005. Gair discussed the old sewage pools, which have been approved for development by MPCA. The applicant's plan has them developed as storm water ponding for the area. Gair concluded by reviewing some of the 17 development stage conditions outlined within the staff report. Gair stated that there is a solid rational for the shown transitions of land use. The applicant is providing guidelines for buffering, both along the trailer park and School Boulevard. The City's transportation plans are also being accommodated. O'Neill agreed that Gair had addressed a number of the issues outlined by Grittman. However, one of staff's primary concerns was that the plan could be modified to have like homes to like homes, with transitions between uses made in rear yards. Other items that will need to be addressed at the next review stage are ample buffering, design of townhomes on the perimeter, and the realignment of Redford Lane. Shawn Weinand, property owner and applicant, made himself available for questions. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Shannon Dobbick, 3692 Redford Lane, spoke to the Commission. Dobbick indicated that the reason she and her husband had purchased their lot along Redford was because it was not a through street. In talking with neighbors, Dobbick and others are concerned that this will be a through street with a connection to School Boulevard. Dobbick noted the number of children in the neighborhood and stated that she would rather the street go south. Mike Sullivan, 3554 Redford Lane, addressed the Commission. He noted that he is the last lot on the current cul-de-sac. He stated that he would like to keep it as a cul-de-sac. He stated that he is also worried about if the road continues and connects to School Blvd. Dobbick indicated his concern about property values in light of this proposal. Weinand noted that Redford Land was always designed to be a through street; the cul-de-sac was temporary. He explained that it will provide an alternative route to Chelsea and School. He stated that he doesn't know if anything can be done about the alignment of Redford, as it was known that Redford would be a through street. To answer questions regarding dollar values, he noted that they had developed Groveland 1-4, which he believed to be nice developments. Weinand stated that he can't say we'll bring high-end housing, but that they will provide a transition to the adjacent high-end housing. He noted that they are still working with builders. Weinand stated that at this point, they are trying to get a layout and density established that will allow them to move forward to product type. 13 Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05 Frie asked Weinand to comment on whether he is receptive to the street extension to the • south. Weinand indicated that he is. Kimberly Cahill, 3676 Redford Lane, spoke to the Commission, stating that she had purchased her lot because of the location and cul-de-sac. She stated that she had no idea it was a temporary cul-de-sac. Cahill stated that her concern is the through traffic on Redford. Frie stated that regardless of what happens with this proposal, Redford was intended to go through. He encouraged residents to keep track of this proposal in that regard. Cory Kirk, 3712 Redford, also addressed the Commission on the issue of traffic, which is his main concern. He stated that there are always a lot of people out and about in the neighborhood. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Hilgart asked O'Neill what the maximum units per acre is when designated medium density. O'Neill stated that it is typically somewhere between 8-12 units per acre. Weinand stated that at the time Chelsea Road was put into the Groveland area, a site they owned was designated as medium density. At that time, they were encouraged to change that property to commercial. It was discussed at that time, that this area would instead take the place of that residential. Weinand expressed his opinion this area is not particularly conducive to commercial. Weinand stated that he had committed to School Boulevard with. the idea that this site would be looked at for some density. Weinand again noted all the site constraints, and stated that given those, this would still be anice-looking project. Hilgart asked how long the trailer park would remain. Weinand stated that the more value is created around the park, the sooner it will become of value to sell. In the distant future, it will be replaced with developments of this nature. O'Neill confirmed Weinand's recollection of the residential and commercial sites, stating that could have been followed up with a comp plan change at that time, but it may be better to deal with it now. Frie asked if the subject site needs to be annexed. O'Neill confirmed that id does. Hilgart stated that it is nice to see a development come in with a lower density than what would be allowed. Weinand indicated that staff had provided some direction in that regard and a decision had also been made on what was sellable. Dragsten stated that in terms of commercial and residential uses, he doesn't know if this is the best use of this site. He doesn't know if changing to residential is the best use of the property. Dragsten agreed with Grittman's idea of back to back units and the elimination of private roads. He recommended additional park areas and trail connections with the proposed number of units. Dragsten also expressed concern over the size and design of units, indicating that these should not be starter units. Frie asked if the Parks Commission had reviewed the plan. O'Neill stated it is a condition of approval for moving forward to development stage. Frie asked what a quadriminium is. Weinand stated it would be a 4-plea. Spartz stated that he likes the recommendation on the southern access to Highway 25 and Grittman's suggestion on the unit arrangement. Suchy asked for proposed lot sizes. Gair stated that they are about 140' x 80', the other tier is 125' x 60' or 120' x 60'. Suchy asked if they would be opposed to Grittman's design. 14 Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05 Weinand stated that they would rather have a full neighborhood along pond, with a softer transition between three and four units and the six and eights. He indicated that they don't think it's as nice of a transition. Suchy stated she would also like to see more park land. Weinand noted the green space near the pond and along School Boulevard. Weinand thinks the pond will be nicer amenity. He also noted the wetland complex and Poplar Hill park. Suchy stated that she also likes the recommended access onto 25. Weinand stated that they are opposed to an emergency entrance into the park, as they feel it will create problems. Frie noted the Parks Commission recommendation and the requirement for 13.3 acres of dedication. Frie asked if the City wants the 1.3.3 acres of park full dedication. Dragsten and Suchy stated that Parks Commission should comment on the issue. Frie noted the purpose of a PUD, which is to provide flexibility in exchange for a development of superior quality. The attributes that Planning Commission will look at in particular are superior building quality and landscaping. Weinand stated that they can provide that as long as it is not out of context for the location of this project. Frie stated that his attitude on townhomes is that the City's current ratio of single family to townhomes is unbalanced. He also noted the required plans for development stage approval. Posusta addressed the Redford Lane resident comments. He stated that he doesn't believe that people will use Redford as a short cut; they will use School Boulevard instead. Posusta stated that he takes offense that the City would make the developer dedicate parkland when there are 40 acres next door. Posusta stated that this is the developer's land and money. Additionally, the City will have to maintain it and take care of it. Posusta indicated that he agreed with Weinand that there should not be a connection to the mobile home park. It will create issues with both sides. Posusta asked Weinand if he is aware of what the areas shown as pond were previously used for. Weinand stated that Bret Weiss has provided a letter from MPCA regarding soils. The MPCA had cleared the area for development and Weinand noted that they could put units there, but he believes the ponds create a nice dimension. Posusta stated he doesn't see any drive areas into the quads. Gair replied that there is a drive-aisle between the buildings. Posusta asked if there is adequate parking. Gair confirmed. Posusta commented that the fire department would review this plan for any issues. Posusta stated that the unit number is a bit high; it should be scaled back and the lot size should be increased. He asked if the lot sizes are similar to Groveland. Weinand stated that there are some 60' lots in Groveland. Weinand responded that for a transitional area, it is difficult to get larger lots. He noted he has to also achieve a certain density to afford the assessment for School Boulevard. They also tried to keep all unit access off Redford Lane. Weinand reported that he also worked with Kjellberg to obtain as much land as possible. He noted that the medium density would also allow much more density, which they have given up to get the single family transition. Weinand stated that he is trying to get a consensus on whether this is a desirable project that can move forward. Posusta asked if these are all City streets. Weinand confirmed and stated that the interior . streets are driveways, the balance are 60' streets right of way. 15 Planning Commission Minutes 9/6/05 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT STAGE PUD BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGTSEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Public Hearing Consideration of a Request for a Preliminary Plat for the Monticello Travel Center 2°d Addition• Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage Planned Umt Development to Allow aDrive-in Convenience Food Establishment Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store Car Wash Joint Parking and Drives Open and Outdoor Storage, and a Retail Commercial Development and a Variance to Parking Requirements in the B-3 Zoning District Applicant' IRET Properties O'Neill reviewed the staff report for the application, stating that the applicants are seeking a development stage PUD, preliminary plat and related variance request. In outlining the comments from the report, O'Neill noted the relationship of the Oakwood access alignments with the McDonald's site. The developer has worked through these options and this plan represents the best alternative. O'Neill stated that the one minor problem on the site from a staff perspective is parking. The parking is sufficient for the Holiday and Wendy's PUD, however more is supplied on the Holiday side than the Wendy's side, which staff believes may pose a problem for users. As part of the PUD, O'Neill explained that the Commission can grant approval of cross-parking as long as it is functional. In terms of consistency with the original concept stage PUD for this part of the site, O'Neill noted that this plan does incorporate the central through drive. The request for preliminary plat is needed to simplify the land sale for the Wendy's site. O'Neill explained that the applicants are also seeking to purchase additional Cedar Street right-of--way. The right-of way on Highway 25 is public land, and might be in control of the state. As far as access, there is a right turn in only at the access point closest to Highway 25 and full movement access across from McDonald's. O'Neill indicated that Exhibit Z outlines additional concerns, including the need for a complete sign package. O'Neill cited that as critical, as there is currently no cohesive sign. package that detail the entire PUD. Staff would recommend approval subject to the sign package coming back to the Commission. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. A representative for IRET Properties, made himself available for questions from the Commission. He explained that Holiday and Wendy's also had representation to answer more specific questions. The IRET representative stated that they had been working with the City to make the whole block as a unit. Victor Sacco, Holiday Companies, reviewed the items listed in Exhibit Z. Specifically, Sacco asked the Commission to consider the removal of item 3, which requires the construction of future parking at an earlier time. Sacco stated that this is not possible as the applicant doesn't S own that property. Sacco stated that they have accommodated Wendy's employee parking behind Holiday. He noted that Wendy's has also reduced the size of their building to increase there parking. 16 Council Minutes - 9/12/05 #SH Ocello PUD Residential Development: Tom Perrault stated he pulled this item because of the 13.3 acres of proposed park land dedication which he felt was too much land. He felt the developer should have a cash in lieu of land dedication noting that the City was getting ballfields with the Insignia Development. A cash dedication would allow the developer to use the land for additional housing units. Brian Stumpf stated he thought the City s goal was to reduce the number of townhome units. The proposed development would consist of 372 housing units of which 61 would be single family lots. He also asked about access to TH 25. Bret Weiss indicated that there will be an access point at the Featherstone development that will tie into a frontage road. The Kjellberg access will no longer exist. The frontage road is being proposed for 2009. Wayne Mayer said if the number of townhomes proposed are allowed to go in then he disagreed with Councilmember Perrault about the need for park land. Glen Posusta stated he didn't have a problem with the park land, he personally would rather have the developer keep the park land, construct the park and maintain the park rather than having the City owning it and maintaining it. Shawn Weinand addressed the green space stating that a 6 '/z acre parcel tuider the power line is being used for ponding and that there are some additional green areas located within the plat. They are not asking that the 13.3 acres of park be taken from the green space. They would be willing to accept a cash park dedication. He also spoke about the layout of the lots and stated the plan they presented provided a better transition from single family to high density. He also stated that based on the comprehensive plan, their development is on the low side as far as density. He felt their layout provided a nice interface into the Insignia project. Clint Herbst stated that while the Council was nervous about the density proposed by the development assurances that the housing would be high quality upscale would dissuade some of their fears. Glen Posusta asked if the developer could give any assurance that the 8-plexes would not become rental units. Shawn Weinand stated that while it was not the intent of the developer for this to become a rental project, he could not give assurances that these units would not be rental. He added that the developer is making a major commitment to funding of School Boulevard so he would like to see the density of units retained. He noted that being located adjacent to a mobile home park and the water tower is not necessarily .conducive to marketing of the site. Wayne Mayer stated his concern is the number of units and the ratio of multi-family units to single family units. He stated the under the old comprehensive plan this may have met the requirement but he is still concerned about the ratio of townhomes to single family lots. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT STAGE PUD FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BY OCELLO, LLC. BASED ON COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. GLEN POSUSTA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH WAYNE MAYER AND TOM PERRAULT VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 7 Planning Commission Agenda -1 /06/09 • 7. Public Hearing: Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 14B (Central Community District) of the Monticello ZOning Ordinance as related to the re-assignment of design review in conformance with the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Design Advisory Team was established to assist in reviewing projects proposed in the City's Central Community District (CCD) for consistency with the Downtown Revitalization Plan. The DAT served as an advisory board to City staff, the Planning Commission and City Council. Due to the lack of projects needing review by the DAT, City staff has been asked to draft an ordinance amendment which eliminates the DAT and shifts those responsibilities to staff and the Planning Commission. It is hoped that the current members of the DAT will still serve the City in a design review capacity by conducting an analysis of the existing Downtown area as action plans are developed for the Downtown. The attached ordinance amendment has deleted all references to the DAT. To ensure compliance with the Downtown Revitalization Plan, design review for projects in the CCD will be conducted by City staff for permitted uses and the Planning Commission for Conditional Uses, Interim Uses and Variances. Design review for permitted uses in the CCD will conducted by staff concurrent with general site and building plan review. Design review for all other uses will be conducted by the Planning Commission as they review the associated applications. For Conditional Uses, Interim Uses and Variances, the City Council will give final approval of the application based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. Any appeals to design review decisions will be handled similar to all other application appeals, as outlined in Chapter 23 of the Zoning Ordinance. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Amendment to the CCD Zoning District restructuring the Design Review responsibilities. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment Chapter 14B (Central Community District) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as proposed. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment Chapter 14B (Central Community District) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. • Planning Commission Agenda -1/06/09 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval the proposed amendment. The role of DAT has changed over time, and with the changes in redevelopment activity in the CCD, the design review role can be more efficiently handled within the other zoning review process without adding the DAT step. DAT members have had some discussions as to shifting their role to other projects, rather than disbanding altogether. SUPPORTING DATA A. Proposed Ordinance Amendment • • CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE N0.2009 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE "CCD" CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT SECTION OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD (DAT) THE MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS: Section 1. The following provisions of Section 14B-5 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to read as follows: 14B-5: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are allowed as conditional uses in the "CCD" district (requires a conditional use permit based upon the procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance): [A] Hotels, subject to the following conditions: 1. The rinci al buildin lot covera e is no less than fift 50 ercent of p P g g Y( )P the property, exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use or other outdoor public spaces. 2. The building, site, and signage meets the standards for the "CCD" district, and design review n a.,;~,,,.,. T°..,,, is conducted by the Planning Commission. 3. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [B] Motor fuel station, auto repair-minor, and tire and battery stores and service, as allowed in the "B-4" district, and subject to the following additional conditions: The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along the property. 2. No more than two (2) curb cuts of twenty-four (24) feet in width or less shall be permitted. 3. Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the City for use in public areas of the "CCD" district. 4. The building, site, and signage meets the standards for the "CCD" district, and design review ~~„r^~~~' ~~ M-~M*°~'~~~ *'~° ''°~~^~°*°a T'°~~^~ n a..;~^^,'T'°,,,,., is conducted by the Planning Commission. 5. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [C] Residential dwellings on the ground floor, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed site for residential use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. 2. The proposed site does not interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian traffic in the "CCD" district. Density for ground floor residential units shall not exceed one unit per 9,000 square feet of lot area, exclusive of land area utilized by, or required for, permitted uses on the property. [D] Drive-in and convenience food establishments as allowed in the "B-3" district, and subject to following additional conditions: 1. The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along the property. 2. No more than two (2) curb cuts of twenty-four (24) feet in width or less shall be permitted. 3. Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the City for use in public areas of the "CCD" district. 4. The building, site, and signage meets the standards for the "CCD" district, and design review ° ~~' ~ ~*°a ~.., +''° a°°~^^~~+°'' T'°~~~ ~~~~~e~ is conducted by the Planning Commission. 5. Drive through facilities comply with the requirements of Subdivision 14B-5 [E] of this chapter. 6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [E] Drive through windows accessory to other principal uses in the "CCD" district, subject to the following conditions: 1. Service through drive-through facilities is accessory to interior on-site, or sit-down, service within the same building. 2. Drive-through lanes are designed to avoid disruption of pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow, both on- and off- site. 3. Landscaping and other site improvements are included which screen automobile stacking space from the public street. 4. The principal building occupies no less than forty (40) percent of the property, exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use or other outdoor public spaces. 5. The building, site, and signage meets the standards for the "CCD" district, and design review ~ ~~' ~ ~*°~"~~~ *'~° a°~~~~*°a T'°~~~ ^ a..;~°n~ T°~~ is conducted by the Planning Commission. 6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [F] Animal pet clinics, as allowed in the "B-3" district. [G] Day-care centers, as allowed in the "B-3" district. [H] Shopping centers, provided that the proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [I] Buildings of a height greater than the maximum building height as allowed in Subdivision 14B-6 [D] of this chapter. [J] Planned unit development (PUD) subject to the provisions of Chapter 20 of this ordinance, and provided that the proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [K] Car Wash, provided that: 1. The car wash building and the principal building must meet the architectural requirements .CCD and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission. 2. The automobile stacking space area is screened from abutting property, both residential and commercial. L~ 3. Noise generated by the use, including vacuums, is mitigated by location or architectural features from adjoining or nearby residential uses and pedestrian or outdoor commercial activities. Doors of car wash must be closed during drying operation. Mechanical interlock between door and dryer must be employed to assure compliance. 4. Lighting on the site is consistent with the City's themed lighting style, whether freestanding or wall-mounted. 5. Signage meets the requirements of the CCD zoning district and-the is reviewed by the Planning Commission. 6. Drive through traffic does not interfere with pedestrian routes around and/or through the property. 7. A minimum of five stacking spaces for car wash customers is provided that avoids interference with other traffic on the site. 8. Site landscaping is provided to mitigate the amount of concrete and/or asphalt surfacing. The use of alternative paving surfaces is encouraged. 9. Measures are taken to avoid freezing and icing from washed vehicles prior to exiting the site to the public street. 10. All other applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance are considered and met. • Section 2. The following provisions of Section 14B-6 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to read as follows: 14B-6: LOT AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS: The following requirements shall apply to all properties in the "CCD" district: [A] Minimum Lot Area: None [B] Minimum Lot Width: None [C] Residential Density: One dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area for permitted residential uses. The number of dwelling units maybe increased by up to twenty-five (25) percent over the permitted density for projects which provide at least half of the required parking underground or in above-grade structures such as ramps or decks (including covered at-grade parking areas). [D] Building Height: The following height limitations shall apply to all buildings in the "CCD" district: 1. Minimum Height: Fifteen (15) feet. 2. Maximum Height: Thirty Five (35) feet, or three (3) stories, which ever is greater. [E] Setbacks: Building setback minimums and maximums shall reflect the recommendations for the use and location as listed in the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Where setbacks as discussed in the Downtown Revitalization Plan are not listed or appropriate, there shall be no building setbacks required. In such cases, there shall be no parking allowed in the areas between the front building line and the public street. [F] Site Improvements: All areas of a parcel within the "CCD" district shall be subject to the applicable recommendations of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Site improvements shall be reviewed for compliance by tl~ " a.,; °^~ ~ T°~m City staff and/or the Planning Commission together with other design elements, including architecture and signage. [G] Parking: 1. Supply: Property owners shall comply with the parking supply requirements as listed in Subdivision 3-5 [H] of this ordinance. However, property owners maybe granted flexibility from a portion of their required parking supply under the following conditions: a. Where the City finds that there will be adequate opportunity to provide public parking in vicinity of the subject property, and at the City's option, the owner shall pay into a "CCD" Parking Fund an amount as established by City Council Resolution. Said fund shall be used for the acquisition, construction, and/or maintenance of publicly-owned parking in the "CCD" district. (#535, 10/9/00) b. The City may, in addition to, or as an alternative to, the option listed in Subdivision 14B-6 [G] 1 a, and at the discretion of the City, the City may offer the property owner the opportunity to choose to supply parking at a rate which is sixty (60) percent of the requirement listed in Subdivision 3-5 [H], provided that the owner grants an easement to the public for automobile parking use over the subject area. The owner shall retain responsibility for maintenance of said parking area. (#355, 10/9/00) 2. Location: Parking shall not be located on a parcel between the front building line of the principal building and the public street, except where expressly provided for by the City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission. [H] Signs: The following requirements shall apply to all sign displays and construction in the "CCD" district: 1. Signs shall comply with the Monticello Building Codes and Zoning Ordinances relating to signs, including special allowances which maybe made for the "CCD" district. 2. All signs in the "CCD" district shall receive review and approval from *~°'-`°~~~ ^ ,1,,;~°rT~ T°.,,,, City staff and/or the Planning Commission. a. Signs in compliance with applicable ordinances: For signs which meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances and the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan, such review shall be given the weight of an administrative determination. Appeal of a determination by +"° T~°~~°~ ^ ,1,,;°^nr T°~City staff and/or the Planning Commission shall be as provided for in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. b. Signs not in compliance with applicable ordinances: Signs which do not meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances shall require review by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, as provided for in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, following T'°~~°~ ^,1,.;°^n~'T°°mCity staff and/or Planning Commission review and recommendation. Section 3. The following provisions of Section 14B-7 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to read as follows: 14B-7: DESIGN REVIEW: All development and redevelopment projects in the "CCD" district shall be subject to design review for compliance with the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. This subdivision identifies the process and application of design review recommendations. ~A~ Tt1 r•+ r ,,;1 ~l,.,ll a°~:,.,,,,+° ., n°~;,,,, n ,1,.;~,,,.,, Tom lr~ n T~ +„ c µ+ pProjects within the "CCD" which propose new or altered buildings, site improvements, or signs shall be reviewed for compliance with the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Site improvements shall include parking lots, landscaping projects (other than direct replacement of existing landscaping), walkways and open space plazas, or other outdoor projects affecting the visual impact of a site. Bl City staff shall review shall conduct the design review for permitted uses and_the Planning Commission shall conduct design review for Conditional Uses, Interim Uses and variances. Desi:;n review for Conditional Uses, Interim Uses and Variance shall follow the procedures and process outlined in Chapter 22 and 23 of this Ordinance. 1 Dl 1, it 1, 1, '+tCY~-tl7znL T ^~z-rz vrTE'~'r~v-riv icT:re hcci?r:T~d°cirC?7 'j3-j3rivrt$-1-~~z^~TZircet-i~Ti•• ^ •, •, •,1;~..,,,+ ~b..,ll ~„1„~,;+ ~+ 1°~~+ r_;_ 161 s2tS-O -pi-t'H~9~i nevi rz me°ct~i`• "L,,,11 L.° .,.~.~ ~@-tl~e p~ , A~ i ,~ ~1. Submitted plans shall be sufficiently detailed to identify proposed materials, colors, locations, and any other factors relating to the visual impact of the proposal. Such plans may include: Site Plans, Floor Plans, Building Elevations, Rendered Drawings,. Materials Samples, and other appropriate submissions. 2 TT,° Tl A T ~l,.,ll ,- ,-,ll°,- ;+~ .7°.,;~;.,.., f r „ ,.,1 .,r .i°,-,;.,1 .,~., ~„1..v.;++°.a / . 1 lllJ 1JZ Z 1 e °~ t a~~tt ~ ~t~ T, ~ 'r~ z ~ ~~l ~ ~ es~en e e~epe e - e i ~ ° ~l gs z Yv + .~ 1; .~ ~e~~'ei T T ci° + +~ Tl A T T•, vl ° ~ r cir t ~~ P°171-.°~°i-r c~acs ~ (~~ ,~ ~PFnr ~ `~Eti~6i~6'i~- t~ '~~ ~ e T . [ 7., ~~~ n~ i t ~6~6~rttYO~H~- ~°Tau~ t ~e~~C'~-E~~ ^ -' ~ ~t ° ~-•,,,~•° " ~v~S-iiv Yie 1;^ t r v "l Pc iSi6ii k~ ~-~C2E1~2 i~1 , .1°°,~.°.1 .°.1 i~6ir~r r c-& r c {~C] Appeals: ;YYCµIT°~°„ .,,1,.°,.~° a°,,;~;°., °~+,,° n A T ,,., .> 1,° ,.,,,,a° +° +~,° prspe~,=e;~~e~~rth~.~"-di~ai~-aAppeals shall be governed by the process and requirements listed in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. ~D Status of~4-'F CCD desi review Ddecisions: Desi review decisions e€~l~e [ ] ~ ~ DA=1=shall be treated as follows: Permitted Uses which comply with all building code and zoning ordinance standards: Ddecisions shall be advisory to the Building Official. 2. Conditional and Interim Uses and Variances: Ddecisions shall be °„ +>1° ~+„+„~ °~,,,1,,.,;„;~+,.,,+:,.° a°+°,..,,;.,,,+;°,1~ +° reviewed he ~~'~~~'*°'' +° +''° the Planning Commission ~ r ~ °1~~~~°~ and included in its recommendation to the City Council. 3 T T~°~ D °.,,,°~+;,.,.~ A7.,,-:.,,,.,°~• Tl A T .1°..;~;.,.,~ ~L,.,11 l.° .. ,~, +1,° ~+.,+„~ ~,~ /. VJVJ 1\V~A~i . ° ucllu , V V 1111111 J ° ~. 1 1 Vt/V Ju1J Tv ° ~,Ff;.,;.,1 °,-,+;+;°~• Tl A T ~7°~;~;,...~ ~l,.,ll L,° .. ~;.a°,-°.1 ~,,.,1 „1.;°..+ +., +1,° ~~ •i Section 4. publication. MOTION BY: SECOND BY: ALL IN FAVOR: THOSE OPPOSED: This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and ADOPTED this Monticello. day of 2009 by the City Council of the City of CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Clint Herbst, Mayor Attest: Dawn Grossinger, City Clerk • Planning Commission Agenda -1/06/09 . 8. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance relating to park dedication requirements. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REMOVED. It is recommended that the Commission move to open and continue the hearing on this item. • Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 9. Consideration to review and recommend for the exairing terms of Planning Commissioners. (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Deputy City Clerk has indicated that the terms of Commissioners Dragsten, Spartz and Voight are due to expire. The Commission is asked to consider additional terms for the Commissioners, if desired, or consider the process for interview and appointment of Commissioners to fill vacant positions. Planning Commissioners serve three year terms by ordinance. Recommendations on term appointments will be provided to the City Council for their January 12th meeting. L` Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 10. Consideration to complete an annual review of the 2008 City of Monticello • Comprehensive Plan. (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission is asked to complete an annual review of the adopted 2008 City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and to provide recommendations for amendment, if desired. The comprehensive plan states that an annual review of the Comprehensive Plan "keeps an active and current focus on achieving the vision for Monticello and the use of the Comprehensive Plan." To aid the Commission in this review, staff has included both excerpts of the Plan (the full document is available online Under the Planning Department of the City's website), and an analysis of the major concepts of the Plan. Obviously, the Commission's comments are not limited to these excerpts or statements, but rather these broad policies are the representative direction of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, a discussion of these items is a critical component of the annual review. Although the Planning Commission's focus will likely be on the policies of Land Use, a review of the "Economic Development" and "Parks" chapters is also warranted at this time. Additionally, the Economic Development Authority and Industrial & Economic Development Committee will be asked to review Chapter 4, "Economic Development", and to comment generally on the "Places to Work" portion of the Land Use Chapter. The Parks Commission will be asked to review Chapter 5 "Parks" and to comment on the "Greenways" and "Places to Recreate" segment of the Land Use chapter. The Commission should be aware that significant alterations to the Plan require formal amendment, which requires asuper-majority of the City Council for adoption. ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK Annual Updates 1. Development trends and projects from the current years. The development of this Comprehensive Plan occurred over a two year period. As such, the Comprehensive Plan anticipates both the impacts of rapid growth, and considers a more cautious approach to development. Amore measured approach to growth was implemented in the Plan due to both the economic slowdown and to the City's land-use goal of providing move-up housing options. Even with a more cautious approach, the pace of development illustrated by the growth projections within the Land Use Chapter may require update through a more • comprehensive analysis, which is described within the "Annual Updates" section. Should Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 Commission which to proceed with this adjustment, a formal recommendation in this regard should be made. • It should be noted that a number of undeveloped residential and commercial projects received approvals for conditional use permits or platting prior to the adoption of the plan. Although some of those approvals have since lapsed (Hidden Forest, Jefferson at Monticello), the Commission is charged with reviewing any extension of previous approvals through the scope of this Comprehensive Plan. 2. Summary of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. To date, no amendments have been proposed. 3. Discussion of current development issues and implications for the Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned, the Comprehensive Plan did anticipate a slower growth progression over the near term. However, the Commission should consider the likeliness of a scenario by which development begins to increase in pace and by which the City is presented with development proposals which do not meet stated Comprehensive Plan objectives. These may include proposals which do not provide move-up housing opportunities or accommodate conservation design principles in areas with significant natural resources. How will the City balance the need and desire for development with those objectives? se Controls • Modifying Land U The Comprehensive Plan clearly cites that for Monticello, zoning regulations are the critical tool for achieving the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. A comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance has been planned since the adoption of the Plan. While consistency between the plan and the ordinances is required by State Statute, it also supports practical application of the Comprehensive Plan policies. Without an ordinance supporting the Plan, the City is unable achieve Comp Plan objectives. For example, the Comprehensive Plan does not regulate residential land use by density. The Plan instead only guides locations broadly for residential uses, then further defines the type and character of residential development through goal statements. The zoning ordinance would support move up housing objectives by clearly refining zoning districts and design standards within those districts. In short, in order to achieve the Comprehensive Plan's land use policies, the Zoning Ordinance language must be revised in support of these statements. A formal finding related to this priority maybe presented to the City Council as part of 2009 priority setting, if the Commission so desires. Next Steps • 2 Planning Commission Agenda - O1 /06/09 • Updating of the Zoning Ordinance is noted again within this portion of the Framework. Also recommended are updates to the Subdivision Regulations and Park Dedication Ordinance. Further refinements to the Subdivision Ordinance may be made in conjunction with the ordinance, or taken separately. The Planning Commission is considering an update to the Park Dedication ordinance as part of the January agenda. Other recommended actions: Natural Resource Inventory This recommended next step is complete and the final inventory document is being prepared. Full copies will be provided to all Commissioners, and a digital version will be posted online. Transportation Plan A draft of the plan was received by staff on 12/29/08. After a staff mark-up, a revised draft will be provided to the Planning Commission on January 16th, 2009. Planning Commission is asked to call for a public hearing on the plan for the regular February meeting. Downtown While the Comprehensive Plan did not specifically find that the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan requires a complete revision, it did find that significant attention be given to reviewing the plan and developing prioritized action plans for downtown. To date, no action has been taken in regard to this initiative. In reviewing the Land Use chapter's goal statements specific to downtown, the Commission may wish to make a formal recommendation in this area. Financial Management Plan Finance Director Tom Kelly has been preparing the foundational documents for a financial management plan. Among these is a Capital Improvement Plan, which details major capital improvement projects (from land purchase to road projects) through 2013. These documents will be reviewed and presented to policy-makers over the next few months. The EDA has also directed the completion of an analysis of all active TIF districts. This information will be used to foster or incentivize growth in TIF districts, and to de-certify districts as needed. CHAPTER 3: LAND USE Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 Future Growth . This segment of the Land Use chapter details the importance and impacts of future growth. As noted within the Framework Chapter, a frequent review of the stated growth projections is important in maintaining the balance between growth pressure and Comprehensive Plan policy. Again, as part of its annual review, the Commission may choose to direct a more in-depth analysis of the growth trends and projections illustrated in the plan, especially in light of the potential for continued weak economic conditions. The Commission may also choose to reaffirm or adjust the policy statements below: 1. The City will consistently review recent development trends and update growth projections to serve as a basis for public and private planning. 2. Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth will occur within the boundaries of the current municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation area. 3. Future development should be guided to locations that utilize existing infrastructure and locations that facilitate the construction of street and utility systems that meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate action by Monticello to annex or extend utility systems to property immediately north of the Mississippi River. Development in this area will place additional traffic on STH 25 (particularly in the Downtown area) and channel investment away from other parts of the City, especially the Downtown. Land Uses In terms of Land Use classifications, the Comprehensive Plan outlines a set of objectives and/or policies for both the type of land use, and for the area in which that land use occurs. In considering future development, the City will use both of these to evaluate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Places to Live Objectives 1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages of a person's life-cycle (see below). 2. Support development in areas that best matches the overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a sense of connection to the community and inspire sustained investment. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain the quality and integrity of existing neighborhoods by encouraging the maintenance of 4 Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 property and reinvestment into the existing housing stock. Changes in housing type • should be allowed only to facilitate necessary redevelopment. 4. Create neighborhoods that allow residents to maintain a connection to the natural environment and open spaces. 5. Seek quality over quantity in residential growth. Achieving the objectives for quality housing and neighborhoods may reduce the overall rate of growth.. 6. Reserve areas with high amenities for "move up" housing as desired in the vision statement. These amenities may include forested areas, wetland complexes, adjacency to parks and greenways. Policies 1. Neighborhoods should incorporate the natural characteristics of the setting. Trees, terrain, drainageways, and other natural features provide character to neighborhoods. 2. Housing should be oriented to the local street, minimizing access and noise conflicts with collector streets. 3. The City will use public improvements to enhance the appearance and character of a neighborhood. Some examples of improvements that define an area include streets with curb and gutter, trees in the public boulevard, street lighting systems, and storm water ponding. 4. Sidewalks, trails, and bikeways will connect the neighborhood to other parts of the community. 5. Every neighborhood should have reasonable access to a public park as a place for residents to gather and play. Safe Places Policies Recognizing the community's stated priority to create safe neighborhoods, the Comprehensive Plan specifically included a set of policy statements for residential uses as related to this goal. 1. The City will encourage existing neighborhoods and develop new neighborhoods where people are involved in the community, interact with their neighbors and support each other. 2. The City will design, build and maintain a system of streets that collects traffic from neighborhoods, allows movement within Monticello to jobs, shopping and other destinations and minimizes traffic that "cuts through" neighborhoods on local streets seeking other destinations. 3. The City will provide, directly or by contract, services needed to protect people and property. • 5 Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 4. The City will support the Land Use Plan with a water supply that provides clean water at pressures needed to support fire suppression. 5. The City will protect the natural environment by requiring new development to connect to the sanitary sewer system and by adequately treating all municipal wastewater. 6. The City will provide water that is safe to drink by protecting water supply sources. Places to Work/Economic Development Objectives 1. Expanding and diversifying the property tax base. 2. Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for people to work and live in Monticello. 3. Promoting wage levels that provide incomes needed to purchase decent housing, support local businesses and support local government services. 4. Take advantage of opportunities to attract corporate headquarters/campuses and businesses that specialize in biosciences and technology businesses in Monticello. 5. Encouraging the retention and expansion of existing Policies 1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to designate and preserve a supply of land for Places to Work that meets current and future needs. 2. Consistent with the vision for the future of Monticello, the Land Use Plan promotes the establishment of business campus settings that provide a high level of amenities, including architectural controls, landscaping, preservation of natural features, storage enclosed within buildings, and other features. The zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and other land use controls will also be used to create and maintain the desired business campus settings. 3. Places to Work supports the City's desire to attract businesses oriented to bioscience, technology, research and development, corporate headquarters, business office, wholesale showrooms, and related uses. 4. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that Places to Work should provide locations for other general industrial development in the areas of manufacturing, processing, warehousing, distribution and related businesses. 5. Places to Work may include non-industrial businesses that provide necessary support to the underlying development objectives of this land use. Examples of supporting land uses include lodging, office supplies and repair services. • 6 Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 Policies (from the Economic Development Chapter) • 1. The Cit must use the Com rehensive Plan to rovide ade uate locations for future Y p p q job-producing development (Places to Work). 2. The City should adhere to the Comprehensive Plan to encourage stable business setting and promote investment and expansion of facilities. 3. The City should coordinate utility planning and manage other development to ensure that expansion areas are capable of supporting new development in a timely manner. 4. The City should evaluate the need and feasibility of additional city-owned business parks as a means of attracting the desired businesses. Places to Shop Policies 1. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to attract and retain businesses that provide goods and services needed by Monticello residents. 2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the opportunity for commercial development that serves a broader region. Places to Shop with a regional orientation should be located where the traffic does not disadvantage travel within Monticello. 3. Commercial development will be used to expand and diversify the local property tax base and as an element of a diverse supply of local jobs. 4. Places to Shop will be located on property with access to the street capacity needed to support traffic from these businesses. 5. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of parking that makes it convenient to obtain the goods and services. 6. Building materials, facades and signage should combine with public improvements to create an attractive setting. 7. Site design must give consideration to defining edges and providing buffering or separation between the commercial parcel and adjacent residential uses. Downtown Policies 1. Downtown is a special and unique part of Monticello. It merits particular attention in the Comprehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve community plans and objectives. 2. Downtown is intended to be an inter-connected and supportive collection of land uses. The primary function of Downtown is as a commercial district. Other land uses should support and enhance the overall objectives for Downtown. 7 Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 3. Wherever possible, street fronts should be reserved for businesses. 4. Housing in the downtown can facilitate necessary redevelopment and bring potential • customers directly into the area. Housing maybe free-standing or in shared buildings with street level commercial uses. 5. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To the degree possible, unique public facilities (such as the Community Center, the Library and the Post Office) should be located in the Downtown area as a means to bring people into the Downtown. 6. Downtown should emphasize connections with the Mississippi River that are accessible by the public. 7. Downtown should be apedestrian-oriented place in a manner that cannot be matched by other commercial districts. 8. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free parking for customers distributed throughout the area. 9. The City will facilitate private investment in Downtown and, if necessary, use its redevelopment powers to remove barriers to desired private investment. Strategies 1. The Downtown land use area should be an area running from the River to 7th Street. It is bound on the east by Cedar Street and on the west by Locust Street. 2. Land use in the Downtown should be a mix of retail, service, office, civic and residential development. Although an industrial land use, Cargill Kitchen Solutions is an important and ongoing part of Downtown. Change in land use should only occur if Cargill Kitchen Solutions decides to leave this location. At such time, it would be desired not to perpetuate industrial use at this location. 3. With continued traffic along Highway 25, it is essential to work to establish a strong link along Walnut Street between the Community Center, businesses on Broadway and the River. The objective is to establish strong connections between all of the factors that attract people to the Downtown. 4. To help move towards the creation of a new "main street" all new development on Walnut Street should have storefronts oriented to Walnut Street. This development maybe single story commercial or multi-level mixed use. 5. Orienting storefronts to Walnut Street is only one element of making the street more attractive for pedestrians. The City should also explore other ways to improve the pedestrian and bicycle experience along Walnut Street. 6. It is essential not to allow Walnut Street to become a bypass route for Highway 25. As congestion increases on Highway 25, there is an impetus to seek other routes. Walnut Street is an attractive cut-through option. 'Th e orientation of buildings, on- street parking, boulevard trees, and curb "bump outs" are examples of means to calm • traffic and discourage cut-through movements. 8 Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 7. Housing is intended to supplement and support, but not replace, commercial • development in the Downtown. All housing in the Downtown area (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) should be multiple family housing. Land is a limited commodity in the Downtown and should not be consumed by single-story housing. Housing should only be allowed above street level on Broadway and Walnut Street. Housing should be encouraged on the edges of the Downtown, in locations needing redevelopment and not viable for commercial uses. 8. The Downtown benefits from strong connections with adjacent neighborhoods. These neighborhoods provide an important customer base for Downtown businesses. A vibrant Downtown enhances these areas as places to live. Improved pedestrian connections, particularly across Highway 25, are needed to strengthen and maintain these connections. Existing crossing points Broadway and 7th Street should be enhanced. 9. Downtown would benefit-from stronger connections with the riverfront. Downtown is one of the few locations in Monticello that allows meaningful public access to the Mississippi River. This asset should be enhanced as a means of attracting people to Downtown. West Bridge Park lies in the Downtown area, but does not feel like an active part of Downtown. One possible improvement is a connection with Walnut Street. Currently, Walnut Street terminates south of River Street and is separated by a grade change. The potential for trail and/or street connection should be evaluated. Community events and activities in West Bridge Park also build the connection between the community, Downtown and the River. 10. Access to the Downtown would be improved by making trail and/or bike lane improvements along River Street to provide another means of reaching Downtown and take advantage of the controlled intersection with Highway 25. Mixed Use Policies 1. Development should not have direct access to Broadway Street. Access should come from side streets. 2. Non-residential development should be limited to small retail, service and office businesses. The scale, character and site design should be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. All non-residential development will be oriented to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River Street. 4. Commercial development compatible with the Downtown should be encouraged to locate there. 5. More intense housing and commercial uses maybe allowed if directly related to the hospital. r~ 9 Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 Places to Recreate/Parks Policies rom the Parks chapter) • 1. Neighborhood parks are essential elements of Monticello neighborhoods. Neighborhood parks are intended to be two to six acres in size. 2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks a service area of one mile or less for a neighborhood park. This service area must account for barriers created by natural and man-made features. The goal is to have a neighborhood park within walking or biking distance of every home. 3. There is a clear nexus between development and the need for additional parks. The City will use the park dedication powers convey by State Law to acquire land (or cash) to implement this Plan. The City will require the dedication of desirable locations for parks in all new subdivisions, unless the subdivision is adequately served by an existing (or planned) neighborhood park. Land received by the City through park dedication must have the capacity for park use. Dedicated land should not be encumbered by steep slopes, poor soils, utility easements and other impediments to intended park uses. 4. Parks should be connected by trails and sidewalks to provide walking and biking access for both neighborhoods and the broader community. 5. The development, improvement and maintenance of the park system requires careful financial planning. With park dedication providing a key resource, this planning must be tied to ongoing projections of future growth. Th is planning should work to ensure that funding plans for the acquisition and development of the regional park do not deplete funding for the rest of the system. 6. Timely development of neighborhood parks is essential. Funding of the park system should provide for both acquisition and timely development of neighborhood parks. This objective may require new financial strategies. Finance tools such as special assessments and housing improvement areas would allow a park to be built at the outset of residential construction. 7. Planning for neighborhood parks should also consider the needs of rural residential subdivisions. A less dense development pattern does not remove the need for neighborhood parks, but may alter the service area and location. Places for Community and Urban Reserve No specific objectives or policy statements were made for these land use classifications. However, the Comprehensive Plan text does discuss opportunities and considerations for each. • 10 Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 Greenway Throu the ado tion of the Natural Resource Invento and Assessment, the Cit re- ~ p rY Y affirmed the concept of greenway corridors. Although their final alignment and configuration will be determined by the pattern of actual development, the NRUA does provide a concept which links those places the community holds as valuable, those of high ecological significance, and other factors such as existing powerline corridors and conservations easements. Policies 1. To provide (where possible) a continuous green corridor connecting large community parks and open spaces to neighborhoods, shopping areas, schools and places to work. 2. To connect people to significant places. 3. To protect the community's natural resources (trees, ponds, wetlands, slopes, etc). 4. To create environmentally sensitive development and design. 5. To provide opportunities for corridors for wildlife movement and ecological connections between natural areas. Northwest Area 1. Encourage development in this part of the community to utilize infrastructure investments and to provide the capacity to develop in high amenity areas. 2. Provide for a variety of housing alternatives based on the natural features and the surrounding land uses. Areas with high natural amenities or proximity to the planned regional park should be reserved for move up housing. 3. Expansion of existing Places to Work in a manner that creates more "head of household" jobs. 4. Preserve and promote public use of natural areas, including the establishment of greenway corridors. 5. Identify and preserve key street corridors. 6. Preserve areas for future Places to Shop and Places to Work around a future highway interchange, if such an interchange proves viable. South Central Area 1. It helps to facilitate the expansion of the sanitary sewer system in conjunction with the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue. This sanitary sewer capacity is needed to support future industrial growth area along Highway 25. 2. These areas encourage growth in areas that could use the new eastern interchange • with I-94 rather than Highway 25. 11 Planning Commission Agenda- 01/06/09 3. These areas provide appropriate locations for continued growth in entry-level single family homes and medium density housing types. These Places to Live are important • elements of maintaining an adequately diverse housing stock. 4. Orderly expansion to the south moves development towards area of higher natural amenity. Areas along the southern edge of the Orderly Annexation Area provide another location for potential "move up" housing. East Area The Comprehensive Plan places greater priority on growth to the west and south. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In terms of process, the Commission may choose to recommend any and all proposed amendments as part of one motion, or individually by Chapter or sub-section. Additionally, the Commission may make a formal motion regarding other recommendations related to the plan, such as the noted re-analysis of growth projections. These directives do not require amendments to the plan, but rather support the current contents. STAFF RECOMMENDATION With less than one year since the adoption of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that the document continues to accurately represent the goals and objectives outlined by the City. Many of these objectives have yet to be tested by actual development proposals. At this time, staff has not cited any recommended amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff does believe that the following action steps warrant formal direction from the Planning Commission: 1. Action to proceed with a more detailed analysis of growth trends. 2. Action to proceed with a revision to the Zoning Ordinance in support of achieving Comp Plan objectives. 3. Fostering of a local downtown-based group of stakeholders to develop an action plan for the downtown, as described within the Comprehensive Plan. SUPPORTING DATA A. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1: Framework B. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3: Land Use For the full version of the Comprehensive Plan, please visit www.ci.monticello.mn.us. Click on "City Departments ", then "Community Development ", "Planning ", and then 2008 Comprehensive Plan. 12 Monticello is fortunate to possess many assets, including a beautiful setting an excellent location, and a rich heritage. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to use, preserve and enhance these assets in building a great place to live, work, shop and play. Monticello offers housing choices that fit all stages of a person's life. Exist- ing neighborhoods are the foundation of the community. The Plan seeks to promote pride in property that results in maintenance and reinvestment to sustain these great places to live. Looking to 2030, Monticello seeks to expand the supply of "move up" housing that allows people to upgrade their home without leaving the community. As the population ages, the elderly will be drawn to Monticello because of the housing and health care options. Monticello provides the types and quality ofservices and amenities required to attract and keep people in Monticello. Key among these factors are: ► An excellent public education system. ► Access to a wide range of quality health care services. ► An unequaled system of parks, trails and recreation facilities including the unique assets of the Monticello Community Center, the Mississippi River and continued focus on the potential conversion of YMCA Camp Manitou into a regional park. ► A downtown area that combines a successful commercial district, com- munity identity and heritage with connection to the Mississippi River. ► A thriving place of commerce that provides needed goods and services through businesses that are engaged in the civic life of Monticello. Monticello seeks a wide range of employment opportunities with a growing emphasis on jobs at higher wage levels that allow more people to live and work in Monticello. Through a combination of location and community characteristics, Monti- cello has the opportunity to become an important regional center for jobs, shopping and health care between the Twin Cities and St. Cloud. Monticello seeks to seize this opportunity in a manner that benefits the community. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Planning Framework 1 1-1 Monticello's population will continue to become more diverse. This diversity will be seen in age, race, culture and wealth. The Plan must be flexible enough to re- spond to change while remaining true to core values and qualities. Monticello must be a safe place to live, work, shop, and travel. Monticello has a beautiful natural environment. The Plan seeks to use the environment as a catalyst for de- velopment whilepreserving natural assetsforpublic use and future generations. All actions should work to make Monticello sustainable socially, economically and environmentally. Steps taken today also look to providing resources to maintain and enhance Monticello in the future. This statement describes the vision for the future of Monticello. It describes the fundamental qualities and principles aspired to by the Monticello community. It is a snapshot of how Monticello should look, feel and function in the future. The vision provides the basic framework for planning and decision-making by pre- senting a benchmark against which future actions can be measured. When faced with a decision that will affect the community's future, decision -makers can ask how the potential results might fit with and move the community towards the vision for the future as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Monticello has created and adopted this Comprehen- sive Plan as a means for realizing this vision. Overview of the Plan Role of the Plan The Comprehensive Plan is a tool for guiding the growth, redevelopment and improvement of Monti- cello. The traditional view of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on land use. The Land Use Plan describes the The Comprehensive Plan has far broader implications for shaping the character of the community and the quality of life in Monticello. ► The Plan seeks to create and sustain the elements that define the character, heritage and identity of the place that is Monticello. ► The Plan influences the economic health of the community. The Plan seeks to attract new in- vestment and guide it to proper locations in the community. The Plan protects the investment in existing properties by promoting strong residential neighborhoods and business districts. ► The Plan shapes the future of municipal govern- ment. Public improvements are needed to facilitate and sustain development. The form of develop- ment influences the character of the local popula- tion and the demand for public services. The 2008 Update The 2008 Comprehensive Plan updates the previous Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City in 1996. The ongoing growth and development creates the need to update the Comprehensive Plan. It is essential to look back and evaluate how Monticello has grown and to consider the opportunities and challenges that lie in the future. An important catalyst for this update to the Comprehensive Plan was the 2005 Orderly An- nexation Agreement with Monticello Township. The Agreement creates the means for the orderly expansion of the City and the protection of the surrounding rural area. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan provides the tools for achieving these objectives. While the 2008 Comprehensive Plan continues direc- tions and policies set by prior planning, it is more than a refreshening of the document. The framework for the comprehensive plan has been restructured. The 1996 Plan contained three chapters: Inventory, Goals and Policies, and Development Framework. The 1996 Plan also includes appendices with Inventory Data and use of property within Monticello. It reinforces desir- Tactics Report. able land use patterns, identifies places where change is needed and sets the form and location of land for future growth. The vision for Monticello is more, however, than a rational pattern of development. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan consists of a series of interrelated chapters. These chapters work collectively to create a plan for the future of Monticello. The chap- ters of the Comprehensive Plan include: 1-2 1 Planning Framework City of Monticello ► Planning Framework ► Community Context ► Land Use ► Economic Development IN, Parks ► Transportation and Utility System Plans This structure reorganizes the Comprehensive Plan into a more conventional and usable format. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on May 12, 2008. Organization of the Plan Planning Framework describes how the Comprehensive Plan should be used to achieve Monticello's vision and goals for the future. Using the Comprehensive Plan requires an understand- ing of the Community Context that shapes plans and policies for Monticello. The 2008 update of the Com- prehensive Plan was not created in a vacuum. Input from the public was a critical source of information and guidance. The Plan draws on a wide range of informa- tion that describes the Monticello of today and forces that will influence the future. The Land Use chapter seeks to guide the use of land in order to realize the Vision for the future of Monticello. It forms the practical foundation of the Comprehensive Plan. Land use patterns define community identity. The organization of residential, business, and public land uses influence how people live, work and play in Monticello. The Land Use chapter promotes strong residential neighborhoods, a flourishing industrial base, a vibrant downtown core, focused commercial areas, and numerous recreational opportunities. In a perfect world, the market would operate within this land use framework and meet the development needs of the community. Unfortunately, certain community objectives may not be met relying solely on land use regulations and market forces. The other chapters of the Comprehensive Plan address areas of public policy and action that work with the land use plan to achieve the overall community objectives set forth in the vision. Another critical area of city involvement is economic development. Creating jobs and expanding the tax base are important elements of Monticello's vision. The Economic Development chapter describes goals and strategies beyond the management of land use. Parks and trails are excellent examples of how municipal investments enhance the quality of life in Monticello. Parks provide places for the community to gather and play. They also provide a means for protecting natural features, open spaces, and other aspects of Monticello's rural heritage. A system of trails connects the commu- nity and allows for safe movement outside of our cars. The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes Monticello's plan to maintain, expand and enhance the system of parks, trails, recreational facilities and open space. It becomes a new chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. In the 1996 Plan, parks and trails are addressed in the Development Framework. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan envisions that other city policy plans will be distilled to form new chapters in the Plan. Transportation is an example of a municipal function that should be supported by a chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. There are significant interrela- tionships between land use and transportation. Streets provide the initial capacity for land to develop. Land use produces the vehicle trips that determine roadway use and operations. Future street function and charac- ter influence land uses adjacent to and served by street corridors. A draft Transportation Plan was completed in 2006. It is the intention of the City to review the draft Transportation Plan in light of the land use changes in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The adopted Transpor- tation Plan creates the information needed to create a Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. It is not recommended that the Transportation Plan be adopted in its entirety as a chapter of the Comprehen- sive Plan. Rather, the Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan should be a separate document that includes the key transportation plans and poli- cies that need the support of the Comprehensive Plan and the coordination with other Plan chapters. This approach does not encumber the technical and other policy data in the Transportation Plan with the legal standing of a municipal comprehensive plan. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Planning Framework 1 1-3 This approach should also be applied to other aspects of municipal government that play a role in implementing the Comprehensive Plan. Areas to consider for addi- tional chapters in the Comprehensive Plan include: ► Sanitary sewer ► Water supply ► Surface water management ► Natural resources ► Housing Appendix A summarizes the public input collected dur- ing the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan. Authority to Plan The power to create and employ a comprehensive plan comes from State Law. Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.351 to 462.364 contains the planning powers granted to Minnesota cities. Specifically, M.S. Section 462.353, Subd. 1 authorizes the City to "carry on comprehensive municipal planning activities for guiding the future development and improvement of the municipality and may prepare, adopt and amend a comprehensive municipal plan and implement such plan by ordinance and other official actions." This Plan is created and adopted under this statutory authority. For reference, portions of State Law (2006) related to the Comprehensive Plan are included in Appendix A. The Comprehensive Plan lays the foundation for land use management and control. The City has adopted zoning and subdivision regulations to implement the Plan. These regulations describe the limitations and procedures for the use of land in Monticello. Using the Plan The Comprehensive Plan is the most important tool for guiding the future of Monticello, but the plans, goals, and policies contained within can only be achieved if the Plan is used. The purpose of this section is to pro- vide guidance on using the Comprehensive Plan. Adopting the Plan The process for adopting the Comprehensive Plan begins with the Planning Commission. State Law requires that the Planning Commission hold at least one public hearing on the proposed Plan. After public comments are received, the final document is prepared and presented to the Planning Commission for recom- mendation to the City Council. The Plan is adopted by resolution of the City Council that requires approval of two-thirds of all of its members. Amending the Plan The Comprehensive Plan tries to anticipate the future of Monticello. Some conditions will be addressed by the Plan; other changes may be unexpected or even beyond the scope of the Plan. Responding to these changes may require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan should not be amended capriciously. The care that was given to the creation of this plan must also be applied to any amendment. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may take several forms: ► Changes in the map or categories of the Land Use element. ► Changes in other elements of the Plan. ► Plans and other studies that become part of the Comprehensive Plan. ► Updating of entire sections of the Plan. ► Addition of new chapters as needed to accomplish the goals and policies of this Plan. ► Revisions related to major geographic sections of the community. Amendments to the Plan may originate from the Plan- ning Commission, City Council or another party with a vested interest in affected property. Adoption of amendments, however, can only be accomplished by City Council resolution. All amendments are subject to the same public hearing and two-thirds vote require- ments as the adoption of the original plan. Council initiated amendments, however, may not be adopted until the Council has received a recommendation from the Planning Commission, or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of submission to the Planning Commission. 1-4 1 Planning Framework City of Monticello Annual Updates A strategy for keeping the Comprehensive Plan up to date and relevant is through an annual review of the Plan and development trends. This annual review could include: ► Development trends and projects from the current years. ► Summary of amendments to Comprehensive Plan. ► Discussion of current development issues and im- plications for the Comprehensive Plan. This approach keeps an active and current focus on achieving the vision for Monticello and the use of the Comprehensive Plan. Updating growth projections is an important part of an annual review. The City should lead an annual and collaborative approach to updating these projections. An annual update should be based on a discussion among key stakeholders including the City, developers, the business community and the School District. This approach ensures that the projections are based on the best possible information and that all stakeholders are using common assumptions about future growth. Another benefit of this approach is an ongoing forum for the discussion of recent trends and the future of Monticello. Modifying land Use Controls State Law requires that the Comprehensive Plan contain guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls necessary to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consis- tent with the Land Use Chapter. Official controls may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps. Zoning Regulations State Lawviews zoning regulations as a critical tool for implementing the Comprehensive Plan. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356 states: "...the planning agency [Planning Commission] shall study and propose to the governing body [City Coun- cil] reasonable and practicable means for putting the plan or sections of the plan into effect. Subject to the limitations of the following sections, such means include, but are not limited to, zoning regulations, for the subdivision of land, an official map..." The City has adopted zoning regulations (Title 10 of the City Code) for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. The application of zoning districts and the specific regulations must support the objectives of the Com- prehensive Plan. Adopting an updated Comprehensive Plan should immediately be followed by a review and modification of the zoning ordinance. In a broad sense, this review of the zoning ordinance should examine the following items: ► The regulations for each zoning district should be reviewed to determine if they fit with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning districts should be examined in relationship to land use designations. Changes in zoning districts will be needed to match zoning with land use. One of the policy decisions the City will need to make is how to implement the land use plan through the zoning district designations. In the Twin Cities metropolitan area, State Law (the Metropolitan Land Planning Act - Minnesota Statutes, Section 473) mandates consistency between the land use plan and zoning regulations. Out- side of the metropolitan area, there is not a statutory requirement for consistency. While the goal should be a clear and strong connection between the land use plan and zoning, Monticello has flexibility on how and when to make changes. Strategies include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: ► Keep current zoning in place until such time as the use terminates or redevelopment is initiated. ► Rezone property to a zoning district compatible with a land use plan category. ► Develop an interim strategy to address current use situations as they relate to long term objectives. 2008 Comprehensive Pian Planning Framework 1 1-5 It is essential, however, to remember that zoning regula- tions control the use of land. If Monticello chooses a strategy that does not immediately create consistency, then the City must have a clear strategy for when changes are made. Nonconforming Uses Changes in zoning districts may create nonconform- ing uses. Such uses occur when the existing land use is not allowed within the zoning district. In most cases, when these situations arise as the result of a new Comprehensive Plan, the goal is not to influence an im- mediate change in property use. Instead, the objective is to guide future investments to achieve the outcomes desired by the Comprehensive Plan. Nonconforming uses are controlled by Section 9.15 of the City Code. A review of the zoning regulations will provide the context for an evaluation of the noncon- forming provisions. This evaluation, in turn, may point to Ordinance changes that will assist in the reasonable transition of nonconforming land uses. Subdivision Regulations While the land use plan has direct implications for zon- ing, the Comprehensive Plan does not have comparable effects on the land subdivision and platting regulations. Changes in these regulations are not required for the immediate adoption of the Plan, but are recommended in order to incorporate some of the concepts discussed in the Plan. Project Evaluation In adopting the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Mon- ticello makes a commitment to use the Plan as a means of evaluating a variety of private and public projects. This evaluation requires using a series of questions to consider the merits of a project: ► Is the project consistent with the land use plan? A negative answer to one or more of these questions may illustrate flaws in the proposed project. These flaws may be fundamental and require denial of the project, but modifications to the project that bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan may be possible. Negative answers to the questions listed above might, however, point to a need to amend the Plan (see Amending the Plan). In such situations in which a noncompliant project underscores a potential flaw in the Plan, then the project should be approved and an effort to properly amend the Plan should be initiated. Repeated failures to amend the Plan in order to allow worthy projects to move forward will eventually render the Comprehensive Plan useless. What is a Project? To apply this process, it is helpful to define a "project! This definition has both practical and legal consider- ations. For the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, the following items are considered projects: ► Platting of land for private development ► Rezoning of property ► Acquisition and disposition of public lands ► Construction of public improvements ► Provision of financial assistance to private devel- opment The discussion that follows examines each type of project in greater detail. Platting The Land Platting and Subdivision Regulations of the City Code do not require consistency with the Compre- hensive Plan as a prerequisite for approving a prelimi- nary and final plat. The regulations do tie back to the Comprehensive Plan for certain aspects of subdivision design, such as streets and parks. Rezoning Rezoning that changes the use of a parcel should not ► Does the project move Monticello towards its vi- be undertaken without corresponding changes to the sion for the future? Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan ► Is the project consistent with the policies contained in the Plan? and the zoning regulations act in concert to manage land use. The zoning regulations do not specifically require the City Council or Planning Commission to 1-6 1 Planning Framework City of Monticello consider relevant provisions of the Comprehensive Plan as part of the review of proposed amendments to zoning regulations. Acquisition and Disposition of Public Lands According to State Law (M.S. Section 462.356, Subd. 2), publicly owned land within the City cannot be ac- quired or disposed of until the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and reported in writing to the City Council as to the compliance of the proposed action with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote, dispense with this requirement when it finds that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property has no relation- ship to the Comprehensive Plan. Construction of Public Improvements The Comprehensive Plan guides capital improvements by all political subdivisions. No capital improvements shall be authorized by the City (and its subordinate units) or any other political subdivision having jurisdic- tion within Monticello until the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and reported in writing to the City Council as to the compliance of the proposed action with the Comprehensive Plan (M.S. Section 462.356, Subd. 2). As with land transactions, this requirement can be dispensed by Council resolution if the capital improvement has no relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. Provision of Financial Assistance Tax increment financing is the only finance tool for- mally tied to the Comprehensive Plan. State Law requires that the City find that a TIF plan conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. As a matter of policy, similar evaluation should apply to other forms of public financial assistance. In agreeing to provide financial as- sistance to private development, it is reasonable that the City Council determines that the development furthers the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Next Steps Updating the Comprehensive Plan is one step in the ongoing process of guiding development and public investments. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a series of next steps in this process. Zoning Ordinance A priority should be given to the review and updating of zoning regulations. The vision and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will not be achieved unless zoning regulations are aligned with the Plan. Outside of the seven -county metropolitan area, zoning regulations control the use of land, regardless of their consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Subdivision Regulations Subdivision regulations are another important land use management tool for the City. These regulations should be reviewed to identify and adopt changes that enhance the ability to implement the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the review of the subdivision regulations should focus on compliance with current State Law, support for zoning regulations, protection of natural resources, and dedication of park land. Park Dedication Ordinance The statutory power to require the dedication of park land is an essential tool for implementing the Compre- hensive Plan. The park dedication ordinance should be updated to provide consistency with the Comprehen- sive Plan and compliance with current State Law. Natural Resources Inventory A natural resources inventory (NRI) would identify the type, location and significance of natural features in Monticello and the orderly annexation area. Informa- tion from a NRI is invaluable in: ► Identifying areas of environmental significance that need public protection. ► Coordinating development proposals with the natural environment. ► Planning for a greenway system around Monti- cello. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Planning Framework 1 1-7 Transportation Plan An updated Transportation Plan has remained in draft form pending completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. The draft plan should be reviewed to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and adopted. A summary of the adopted Transportation Plan should be added as a chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan highlights several important transportation initiatives for continued planning. They include: ► Evaluating of the feasibility of a new west inter- change with I-94. ► Ongoing management and mitigation of traffic on TH 25 between I-94 and the River. ► Planning for the construction of the Fallon Avenue Bridge, the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the related expansion of municipal utility systems. ► Coordinating development projects to protect future collector street corridors. ► Evaluating transit opportunities to maximize the use of the Northstar project and other transit op- portunities. ► Ensuring that pedestrian facilities are provided throughout the City and across major transporta- tion corridors. ► Coordinating with regional transportation ef- forts. Downtown The process of updating the Comprehensive Plan did not discover an immediate need for another Down- town planning project. Instead, the Downtown area of Monticello requires ongoing public attention and development assistance in the form of: ► Inventory of actions that could be taken to enhance the Downtown. ► Prioritization of these actions. ► Creation of an annual "action plan" that lists of objectives for 2008, allocates needed resources and assigns roles and responsibilities. ► Study of traffic and movement issues in the Down- town area and the creation of a plan to resolve these issues. ► Establishment of a process that brings together Downtown stakeholders to review results of the past year and to set the action plan for the coming year. Financial Management Plan The Comprehensive Plan has many financial implica- tions. The creation and use of a financial management plan will help to identify, prioritize and fund the ac- tions needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan. A financial management plan will be a tool to ensure that available financial resources are used in the most effective manner. It also encourages actions that are financially sustainable. 1-8 1 Planning framework City of Monticello The future vision for Monticello provides the foundation for the Compre- hensive Plan (the vision statement appears in Chapter 1). The Land Use Plan, in turn, provides the framework for how land will be used to help achieve the future vision for Monticello. The Land Use Plan seeks to rein- force desirable land use patterns, identify places where change is needed and guide the form and location of future growth. The Land Use Plan for Monticello was shaped by a variety of factors, including: ► Community input gathered through public workshops and Task Force discussions. ► The existing built and natural environment in Monticello. ► The vision for Monticello's future. ► Factors described in the Community Context chapter of the Plan. ► Systems plans for transportation, sanitary sewer and water supply. This represents a departure in form from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The 1996 Plan included the land use plan as part of a broader Develop- ment Framework section. The 1996 Plan described Monticello's land use plan by general district of the community as a means of attending to the unique issues in each district. The 2008 Update of the Comprehensive Plan establishes a separate land use chapter consisting of the following components: ► A section on Future Growth describes the implications of future resi- dent growth and the amount of growth anticipated by the Plan. ► The Land Use Plan Man (see Figure 3-2) shows the land uses assigned to each parcel of land. ► Land Use Categories further explain the Land Use Plan by describing the land uses depicted in the Map. This section includes land use poli- cies describe the objectives that Monticello seeks to achieve through the implementation of the Land Use Plan and the supporting elements of the Comprehensive Plan. ► Focus Areas provide a more detailed discussion of characteristics, goals and policies for key areas of the community. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-1 Future Growth In looking to the future, Monticello must not just con- sider the qualities of the future community, but also the nature of growth. Assumptions about the amount and pace of future growth are important parts of the foundation for the Comprehensive Plan. Growth has several important implications for the Comprehensive Plan: ► Growth projections are used to plan for the capacity of municipal utility systems. ► Growth projections are used to create and manage finance plans for capital improvements. ► The school system uses growth projections to forecast enrollments and to plan for programs and facilities. ► Market studies use growth projections to analyze the potential for locating or expanding businesses in Monticello. ► The characteristics of growth influence the amount of land needed to support this development. ► Growth adds trips to the local street system. ► Assumptions about growth influence the policies and actions needed to implement the Compre- hensive Plan. For these reasons, it is essential that the Comprehensive Plan state assumptions of the nature of future growth. A challenge in forecasting future residential develop- ment is that the Comprehensive Plan influences, but does not control, the factors that determine where people live. These factors include: ► Quality of life. ► Access to employment. ► Availability of desired housing and neighborhood options. ► Affordability. ► Competition from other places in the region. Given these uncertainties, the Comprehensive Plan seeks a balance between optimism and prudence. For many reasons, the Plan should not significantly understate the growth potential of Monticello. The balancing force lies with the implications of assuming more growth than is reasonable. The chart in Figure 3-1 shows the projection of future residential growth assumed in the Comprehensive Plan. Figure 3-1: Growth Trends and Projections 300 356 9 250 200 tActual 150 —E -Projected 100 » 50 0 ,y0 .1, .LO ,ti0 �O .t0 .v0 ti ,y0 ry0 10 _ 333 3 3 61 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 130 „a 0 >a 50 0 30 3-2 1 The projections assumes that the rate of growth slowly rises over the next five years and continues at a level of 190 units per year from 2012 to 2020. This amount falls below the 229 units/year average for 2001 through 2005. This rate of growth is intended to reflect several factors. Monticello will remain a desirable place to live, attract- ing both builders and residents. Housing market condi- tions will improve from the weaknesses experienced in 2006 and 2007. A combination of market conditions, local policy objectives, and changing demographics may reduce the potential for achieving and sustain- ing higher rates of residential growth. Slower future growth reflects the belief that achieving the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular seeking more move up housing, will result in less development than in previous years. Growth Policies 1. The City will consistently review recent develop- ment trends and update growth projections to serve as a basis for public and private planning. 2. Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth will occur within the boundaries of the current municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation Area. Land Use City of Monticello I Future development should be guided to locations that utilize existing infrastructure and locations that facilitate the construction of street and utility systems that meet the objectives of the Compre- hensive Plan. 4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate action by Monticello to annex or extend utility systems to property immediately north of the Mississippi Riv- er. Development in this area will place additional traffic on STH 25 (particularly in the Downtown area) and channel investment away from other parts of the City, especially the Downtown. Land Use Plan Map The Land Use Plan Map (shown in Figure 3-2) shows the desired land use for all property in Monticello and the Orderly Annexation Area The land use plan de- picted in this map builds on the previous community planning in Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan uses the Land Use Plan to define the broad land use patterns in Monticello. The Land Use Plan seeks to: ► Organize the community in a sustainable man- ner. ► Make efficient use of municipal utility systems and facilitate the orderly and financially feasible expan- sion of these systems. ► Provide the capacity for the type of growth desired by the community. The Land Use Plan Map is only one piece of the land use plan for Monticello. The other parts of the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan work with this map to explain the intent and objectives for future land use. Further, this map lays the foundation for land use controls that are used by the City to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Categories The Land Use Plan Map uses a set of specific categories to guide land use in Monticello. One element missing from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan was a description of the land use categories shown in the Land Use Plan. The ability to use the Comprehensive Plan as an effec- tive land use management tool requires a definition of each land use. These definitions provide a common understanding of the basic characteristics of each cat- egory used in the Land Use Plan. The 1996 Plan relies on three basic categories of private land use: residential, commercial and industrial. Each of these categories is further divided into subcategories that distinguish between the character, type and inten- sity of development desired in different locations. The 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan uses a dif- ferent approach to achieve similar land use patterns. The Land Use Plan map depicts series of "places" for private development: Places to Live, Places to Shop, Places to Work, and Downtown. This approach is based on the following rationale: ► These broad categories more clearly illustrate the pattern of development and the plan for future growth. ► Although residential land uses vary by type and density, they share many public objectives. ► This approach makes a more enduring compre- hensive plan. The Plan can guide an area for the appropriate land use without the need to predict future community needs and market forces. ► The Plan relies on policies, land use regulations, performance standards and public actions to pro- vide a more detailed guide for land use and devel- opment. This approach conveys more flexibility and control to the City Council and the Planning Commission. Role of Zoning Regulations Zoning regulations play a critical role in implementing land use plans in Monticello. State Law gives zoning regulations priority over theComprehensive Plan. If land uses are different, zoning regulations control the use of land. Zoning regulations are particularly important in the application of the land use categories in the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The "places to" land use categories set forth a broad and flexible land use pattern for Monticello. Zoning regulations (and other land usecontrols) will be used to determinethe appropriate location for each form of development and other regulations on the use of land, consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-3 Figure 3-2: Land Use Plan Map 3-4 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-3: Land Use Plan - Places to Live The remainder of this section describes the categories used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail. Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create and sustain quality places for people to live in Monticello (see Figure 3-3). This category designates areas where housing is the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a homogenous commodity or that any type of housing is desirable or allowed in any location. When someone says "house" the most common image is a single family detached dwelling. This housing style is characterized by several features. There is a one-to- one relationship between house and parcel of land - the housing unit is located on a single parcel. The house is not physically attached to another housing unit. The housing is designed for occupancy by a single family unit. The typical neighborhood in Monticello is made up exclusively of single family detached homes. The primary variables become the design of the sub- division, the size of the lot and the size and style of the dwelling. Many older neighborhoods in Monticello (north of Interstate 94) were built on a traditional grid street system. Over the past thirty years, development patterns have moved to a new suburban curvilinear 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-5 to s ' tC — \, t I 1 so 1 I I Lake s ;rI 4 1 I 1 1_ A 025 Qm 4a' 3MD T.3GeWOe CafW0.'. ,.s. � " �. The remainder of this section describes the categories used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail. Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create and sustain quality places for people to live in Monticello (see Figure 3-3). This category designates areas where housing is the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a homogenous commodity or that any type of housing is desirable or allowed in any location. When someone says "house" the most common image is a single family detached dwelling. This housing style is characterized by several features. There is a one-to- one relationship between house and parcel of land - the housing unit is located on a single parcel. The house is not physically attached to another housing unit. The housing is designed for occupancy by a single family unit. The typical neighborhood in Monticello is made up exclusively of single family detached homes. The primary variables become the design of the sub- division, the size of the lot and the size and style of the dwelling. Many older neighborhoods in Monticello (north of Interstate 94) were built on a traditional grid street system. Over the past thirty years, development patterns have moved to a new suburban curvilinear 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-5 pattern, characterized by curvilinear street layout with the use of cul-de-sacs. A variety of factors, including consumer preference and housing cost, have increased the construction of attached housing in recent years. Duplexes, twin homes quads and townhomes are common examples of this housing style. Although the specific form changes, Higher density residential land uses should be located where the setting can accommodate the taller buildings and additional traffic. Policies - Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the following objectives for residential land use in Monticello: there are several common characteristics. Each hous- 1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages ing unit is designed for occupancy by a single family. of a person's life -cycle (see below). The housing units are physically attached to each other 2. Support development in areas that best matches the in a horizontal orientation. overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Places to Live will include some neighborhoods de- signed to offer a mixture of housing types and densities. Mixed residential neighborhoods create a pattern of that combines single-family detached housing with a mixture of attached housing types. Using good design and planning, these mixed residential neighborhoods can achieve a higher density without compromising the overall integrity of the low-density residential pat- tern. This integration strengthens neighborhoods by increas- ing housing choice and affordability beyond what is possible by today's rules and regulations. It also avoids large and separate concentrations of attached housing. It enhances opportunities to organize development in a manner that preserves natural features. A complete housing stock includes higher density residential areas that consist of multi -family housing types such as apartments and condominiums. In the near term, the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate expanding the existing supply of higher density hous- ing. It is likely that Monticello will need additional higher density housing to: ► Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging population. ► Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in other appropriate locations of the community. ► Provide housing needed to attract the work force required to achieve economic development goals of the City. 3. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a sense of connection to the community and inspire sus- tained investment. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain the quality and integrity of existing neighborhoods by encouraging the maintenance of property and reinvestment into the existing housing stock. Changes in housing type should be allowed only to facilitate necessary redevelopment. 4. Create neighborhoods that allow residents to maintain a connection to the natural environment and open spaces. 5. Seek quality over quantity in residential growth. Achieving the objectives for quality housing and neighborhoods may reduce the overall rate of growth. 6. Reserve areas with high amenities for "move up" housing as desired in the vision statement. These amenities may include forested areas, wetland complexes, adjacency to parks and greenways. Some of the City's policy objectives require further explanation. Life Cycle Housing Housing is not a simple "one size fits all" commodity. Monticello's housing stock varies by type, age, style and price. The Community Context chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes the characteristics of the housing stock based on the 2000 Census and recent building permit trends. The concept of life cycle housing recognizes that hous- ing needs change over the course of a person's life (see Figure 3-4). Young adults may not have the income capacity to own the typical single family home. This 3-6 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-4: Life Cycle of Housing Supply segment of the population often seeks rental housing. Families move through different sizes, styles and prices of housing as family size and income changes over time. With aging, people may desire smaller homes with less maintenance. Eventually, the elderly transition to hous- ing associated with options for direct care. As noted in the Vision Statement, Monticello's population will continue to become more diverse. This diversity will be seen in age, race, culture and wealth. These factors will influence the housing needs of Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes these differences and seeks to create a balanced housing supply that encourages people to move to and stay in Monticello. This balance may not be achieved solely by market forces guided by this Land Use Plan. Actions by the City may be needed to promote the creation of housing in underserved segments of the market. Neighborhood Design A priority for the community is diversification of the housing stock by providing more "move up" housing. In this context, the term "move up" housing refers to larger homes with more amenities in structure and setting. This type of housing may not be exclusively single-family detached or low density. Attached forms of housing with medium or high densities may meet the objectives for move up housing in the appropriate loca- tions. In this way, the objectives for move up housing and life cycle housing are compatible and supportive. While every community wants a high quality housing stock, this issue has particular importance in Mon- ticello. It is a key to retaining population. Without a broader variety of housing options, families may encouraged to leave Monticello to meet their need for a larger home. It is a factor in economic development. One facet of attracting and retaining professional jobs is to provide desirable housing alternatives. It must be recognized that creating move up housing requires more than policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for achiev- ing the desired results. The desired outcomes require private investment. This investment occurs when demand exists or the City can provide an incentive to attract investment. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-7 Part of attracting move up housing comes from cre- ating great neighborhoods — places that will attract and sustain the housing options sought by the City. Neighborhoods are the building block of Places to Live in Monticello. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to create and maintain attractive, safe and functional neighborhoods. The following policies help to achieve this objective: 1. Neighborhoods should incorporate the natural characteristics of the setting. Trees, terrain, drainageways, and other natural features provide character to neighborhoods. 2. Housing should be oriented to the local street, minimizing access and noise conflicts with collec- tor streets. 3. The City will use public improvements to enhance the appearance and character of a neighborhood. Some examples of improvements that define an area include streets with curb and gutter, trees in the public boulevard, street lighting systems, and storm water ponding. 4. Sidewalks, trails, and bikeways will connect the neighborhood to other parts of the community. 5. Every neighborhood should have reasonable access to a public park as a place for residents to gather and play. All of these elements work together to create a desirable and sustainable place to live. Balancing the Built and Natural Environments The natural amenities of the growth areas (west and south) in Monticello should serve as a catalyst for residential development. The proposed regional park (YMCA property) offers the dual assets of natural fea- tures and recreational opportunities. Lakes, wetlands and other natural amenities exist throughout the or- derly annexation area. Studies have shown that parks and open space have a positive economic effect on adjacent development. An article published by the National Park and Recreation Association states that "recent analyses suggest that open spaces may have substantial positive impacts on surrounding property values and hence, the property tax base, providing open space advocates with con- I Figure 3-5: Relationship Between Development and Natural Features - Parkway Figure 3-6: Relationship Between Development and Natural Features - Trail Corridor r vincing arguments in favor of open space designation and preservation." Balancing the built and natural environments should provide a catalyst to the types of development desired by the City and in the expansion of the property tax base. In attempting to meet residential development objec- tives, the City should not lose sight of long-term public benefit from access to these same natural areas. The original development of Monticello provides an ex- cellent illustration. The majority of the riverfront in Monticello is controlled by private property. Public access to the River comes at points provided by public parks. 3-8 1 Land Use City of Monticello vincing arguments in favor of open space designation and preservation." Balancing the built and natural environments should provide a catalyst to the types of development desired by the City and in the expansion of the property tax base. In attempting to meet residential development objec- tives, the City should not lose sight of long-term public benefit from access to these same natural areas. The original development of Monticello provides an ex- cellent illustration. The majority of the riverfront in Monticello is controlled by private property. Public access to the River comes at points provided by public parks. 3-8 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-7: Example of Conservation Design Development A well known example of balancing public use with private development is the Minneapolis chain of lakes and Minnehaha Creek. Public streets (parkways) and trails separate neighborhoods from the natural features, preserving public use and access. These neighbor- hoods are some of the most desirable in the region, demonstrating that public use and private benefit are not mutually exclusive. The figures below show two options for integrating housing, natural features and public use. Figure 3-5 is the parkway concept. An attractive street forms the edge between the park (or natural area) and the hous- ing. A multi -use trail follows the street while homes face the street and draw on the attractiveness of both the parkway and the natural amenities. The alternative is to use a trail corridor to provide public access to these areas (see Figure 3-6). The trail follows the edge of the natural area. Access to the trail between lots should come at reasonable intervals. There are a variety of real world examples of how Min- nesota cities have used conservation design strategies to promote high quality development and preserve the natural environment. The illustrations in Figure 3-7 shows elements of the Chevalle development in Chaska. Using open space design and rural residential cluster development techniques, HKGi's concept plan provides for a variety of housing options while preserving a ma- jority of the area as permanent open space, including public and common open spaces. Amenities would include access to protected open spaces (lakeshore, woods, meadows, pastures, wetlands), walking/biking trails, equestrian trails and facilities, common outdoor structures and an environmental learning center. The experience of other cities and developments can guide future planning and decision making in Monticello. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-9 Attractive Places Attractive physical appearance is one of the most common attributes of Places to Live in Monticello. Attractiveness is a combination of design, construc- tion and maintenance. These characteristics apply to buildings and sites. Attractiveness is relevant for both private and public property. Attractiveness reflects individual pride in property as well as an overall sense of community quality. The City may use a variety of regulatory tools to influ- ence the potential for attractive neighborhoods: ► Building codes and additional regulations to pro- mote quality construction. ► Subdivision regulations control the initial configu- ration of lots. ► Zoning regulations establish limitations on the size of lots, placement of the house on a lot, relationship of structure size to lot area, and building height. ► Nuisance ordinances enable the City to prevent and correct undesirable uses of property. ► Other City regulations control other ancillary uses of residential property. Maintenance of property is a factor in sustaining quality neighborhoods. The tenure (form of ownership) influ- ences the responsibility for housing maintenance. The owner -occupant of a single family detached home is solely responsible for the maintenance of building and grounds. If this same home is rented, maintenance responsibilities are often shared between tenant and owner. This relationship may include a third party property manager retained by the owner to perform maintenance duties. Owners of attached housing may act collectively through a homeowner's association. In multiple family rental housing, the tenants have no direct responsibility for property maintenance. This discussion does not imply a preference, but is intended solely to highlight the differences. This understanding becomes relevant when public action is needed to ad- dress a failure of the private maintenance approach. Nuisance ordinances are one tool used by the City to address failures in private maintenance and use of property. Economics also influences property maintenance. The greater the portion of income devoted to basic housing costs (mortgage/rent, taxes, utilities), the less money available for maintenance activities. Maintenance can be deferred, but not avoided. If left unchecked, this cycle of avoided maintenance produces negative effects. Safe Places Safety is frequently identified as the most desired characteristic of Places to Live. Several aspects of the Comprehensive Plan and city government influence safe neighborhoods. 1. The City will encourage existing neighborhoods and develop new neighborhoods where people are involved in the community, interact with their neighbors and support each other. 2. The City will design, build and maintain a system of streets that collects traffic from neighborhoods, allows movement within Monticello to jobs, shop- ping and other destinations and minimizes traffic that "cuts through" neighborhoods on local streets seeking other destinations. 3. The City will provide, directly or by contract, ser- vices needed to protect people and property. 4. The City will support the Land Use Plan with a water supply that provides clean water at pressures needed to support fire suppression. 5. The City will protect the natural environment by requiring new development to connect to the sanitary sewer system and by adequately treating all municipal wastewater. 6. The City will provide water that is safe to drink by protecting water supply sources. Places to Work This land use is primarily intended for industrial de- velopment. Places to Work seeks to provide locations for the retention, expansion and creation of businesses that provide jobs for Monticello residents and expan- sion and diversification of the property tax base. In order to be a center of employment with a wide range of job opportunities, it is critical that Monticello preserve sufficient land for Places to Work over the next twenty-five years. These land uses can be one of 3-10 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-8: Land Use Plan - Places to Work Lek# E i 4. 0 025 05 t of Ma 312W North t Lek# E i 4. 0 025 05 t of Ma 312W the most challenging to locate because of its need for convenient transportation access and influence on surrounding land uses. In planning for future Places to Work, the Comprehensive Plan considers the goals of the community; what type of industrial development is sought; and what factors should be considered when locating an industrial land use. In planning for sustaining existing businesses and at- tracting new development, it is necessary to understand why Places to Work are important to Monticello. The objectives for this land use include: ► Expanding and diversifying the property tax base ► Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for people to work and live in Monticello. ► Promoting wage levels that provide incomes need- ed to purchase decent housing, support local busi- nesses and support local government services. ► Take advantage of opportunities to attract corpo- rate headquarters/campuses and businesses that specialize in biosciences and technology. ► Encouraging the retention and expansion of exist- ing businesses in Monticello. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-11 4 the most challenging to locate because of its need for convenient transportation access and influence on surrounding land uses. In planning for future Places to Work, the Comprehensive Plan considers the goals of the community; what type of industrial development is sought; and what factors should be considered when locating an industrial land use. In planning for sustaining existing businesses and at- tracting new development, it is necessary to understand why Places to Work are important to Monticello. The objectives for this land use include: ► Expanding and diversifying the property tax base ► Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for people to work and live in Monticello. ► Promoting wage levels that provide incomes need- ed to purchase decent housing, support local busi- nesses and support local government services. ► Take advantage of opportunities to attract corpo- rate headquarters/campuses and businesses that specialize in biosciences and technology. ► Encouraging the retention and expansion of exist- ing businesses in Monticello. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-11 Figure 3-9: Land Use Plan - Places to Shop r w • , r t ------------ .. NZ Ioww i 0- 024 0.5 1 AW nasoecc �munx,snr,�saaecacoetnr "� s _,.cam,:tvwaaeA,. wlnbi, Policies — Places to Work 1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to des- ignate and preserve a supply of land for Places to Work that meets current and future needs. 2. Consistent with the vision for the future of Mon- ticello, the Land Use Plan promotes the establish- ment of business campus settings that provide a high level of amenities, including architectural controls, landscaping, preservation of natural features, storage enclosed within buildings, and other features. The zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and other land use controls will also be used to create and maintain the desired business campus settings. 3. Places to Work supports the City's desire to attract businesses oriented to bioscience, technology, re- search and development, corporate headquarters, business office, wholesale showrooms, and related uses. 4. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that Places to Work should provide locations for other general industrial development in the areas of manufacturing, processing, warehousing, distribu- tion and related businesses. 5. Places to Work may include non -industrial busi- nesses that provide necessary support to the un- derlying development objectives of this land use. Examples of supporting land uses include lodging, office supplies and repair services. 3-12 1 Land Use City of Monticello Additional public objectives and strategies for Places to Work can be found in the Economic Development chapter. Places to Shop Places to Shop designate locations that are or can be developed with businesses involved with the sale of goods and services. Places to Shop may include offices for service businesses. Places to Shop guides land uses that are both local and regional in nature. Policies - Places to Shop In guiding land uses for Places to Shop, the Compre- hensive Plan seeks to: 1. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to attract and retain businesses that provide goods and services needed by Monticello residents. fie Comprehensive Plan describes issues, plans and policies related to the Downtown in several sections ofthe Plan. Downtown Downtown is a unique commercial district that is part of Monticello's heritage and identity. It is, however, no 2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the op- longer possible for downtown to be Monticello's cen- portunity for commercial development that serves tral business district. The mass of current and future a broader region. Places to Shop with a regional orientation should be located where the traffic does not disadvantage travel within Monticello. 3. Commercial development will be used to expand and diversify the local property tax base and as an element of a diverse supply of local jobs. 4. Places to Shop will be located on property with ac- cess to the street capacity needed to support traffic from these businesses. 5. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of parking that makes it convenient to obtain the goods and services. 6. Building materials, facades and signage should combine with public improvements to create an attractive setting. 7. Site design must give consideration to defining edg- es and providing buffering or separation between the commercial parcel and adjacent residential uses. These policies help to create sustainable locations for Places to Shop in a manner that enhances Monticello. commercial development south of Interstate 94 along TH 25 and in east Monticello along interstate 94 have replaced the downtown area as primary shopping dis- tricts. The future success of downtown requires it to be a place unlike any other in Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the vision and objectives described in the 1997 Downtown and Riverfront Plan. Downtown is intended to be a mix of inter -related and mutually supportive land uses. Businesses involved with the sale of goods and services should be the focus of Downtown land use. Residential development facilities reinvestment and places poten- tial customers in the Downtown area. Civic uses draw in people from across the community. During the planning process, the potential for allowing commercial activity to extend easterly out of the Down- town along Broadway was discussed. The Compre- hensive Plan consciously defines — as the eastern edge of Downtown for two basic reasons: (1) Downtown should be successful and sustainable before new areas of competition are created; and (2) The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the integrity of residential neighborhoods east of Downtown. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-13 More than any other land use category, Downtown has strong connections to other parts of the Comprehen- sive Plan. The following parts of the Comprehensive 6. Plan also address community desires and plans for the Downtown area: ► The Land Use chapter contains a specific focus area on Downtown. The focus area contains a more detailed discussion of the issues facing the Downtown and potential public actions needed to address these issues. ► The operation of the street system is a critical fac- tor for the future of Downtown. The Transporta- tion chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (and the related Transportation Plan) influence the ability of residents to travel to Downtown and the options for mitigating the impacts of traffic on Highway 25 and other Downtown streets. ► The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan provides for parks in the Downtown and the trail systems that allow people to reach Downtown on foot or bicycle. ► The Economic Development chapter lays the foun- dation for public actions and investments that will be needed to achieve the desired outcomes. Policies - Downtown 1. Downtown is a special and unique part of Mon- ticello. It merits particular attention in the Com- prehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve community plans and objectives. 2. Downtown is intended to be an inter -connected and supportive collection of land uses. The primary function of Downtown is as a commercial district. Other land uses should support and enhance the overall objectives for Downtown. 3. Wherever possible, street fronts should be reserved for businesses. 4. Housing in the downtown can facilitate necessary redevelopment and bring potential customers di- rectly into the area. Housing may be free-standing or in shared buildings with street level commercial uses. 5. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To the degree possible, unique public facilities (such as the Community Center, the Library and the Post Office) should be located in the Downtown area as a means to bring people into the Downtown. Downtown should emphasize connections with the Mississippi River that are accessible by the public. 7. Downtown should be a pedestrian -oriented place in a manner that cannot be matched by other com- mercial districts. 8. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free parking for customers distributed throughout the area. 9. The City will facilitate private investment in Downtown and, if necessary, use its redevelop- ment powers to remove barriers to desired private investment. All of these policies work together to attract people to Downtown and to enhance the potential for a successful business environment. Mixed Use The Mixed Use is a transition area between the Down- town and the hopsital campus. It has been createdin recogonition of the unique nature of this area. The area serves two functions. It is the edge between long-term residential neighborhoods and a major tranportation corridor (Broadway Street). It is also a link between the Downtown, the hospital campus and the east in- terchange retail area. The primary goal of this land use is to preserve and enhance housing in this part of Monticello. Any non-residential development should be designed to minimize the impacts on and conflicts with adjacent neighborhoods. Policies - Mixed Use. 1. Development should not have direct access to Broadway street. Access should come from side street. 2. Non-residential development should be limited to small retail, service and office businesses. The scale, character and site design should be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 3-14 1 Land Use City of Monticello 3. All non-residential development will be oriented to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River Street. These uses are typically allowed in residential areas and governed by zoning regulations. These institutional uses (such as schools and churches) are important parts 4. Commercial development compatible with the of the fabric of the community, but require guidance to Downtown should be encouraged to locate there. ensure a proper fit with its residential surroundings. 5. More intense housing and commercial uses maybe allowed if directly related to the hospital. Places to Recreate New institutional use should be allowed in residential areas under certain conditions. These conditions should address the aspects of the use that conflict with desired characteristics of residential neighborhood. Places to Recreate consist of public parks and private Criteria for locating an institutional use in a residential recreation facilities. The land uses are essential ele- land use area include: ments of the quality of life in Monticello. The Parks and Trails chapter of the Comprehensive describes the current park and trail system and the future plan to maintain and enhance this system. The Comprehensive Plan is only one aspect of manag- ing the land use for public parks and private recreation facilities. The City's zoning regulations place these locations into a zoning district. Often, the purpose of the zoning district is to guide private development, such as housing. Under current State Law, zoning regula- tions "trump" the Land Use Plan and govern the use of land. With the potential for the redevelopment of golf courses, it is important the Comprehensive Plan and other land use controls work in concert to achieve the desired outcomes. The City's plans and policies for parks, trails and open space can be found in the Parks chapter of the Com- prehensive Plan Places for Community Places for Community consist of public and semi-public land uses. Public uses include all governmental facili- ties (city, county, state and federal) and schools. This category also applies to churches, cemeteries, hospitals, and other institutional uses. It is important to note that these land uses relate only to existing land uses. The Comprehensive Plan does not guide the location of new churches, schools, public buildings and other institutional land uses. Places for Community will be needed in the Northwest area as it develops. 1. Size. Large buildings and site areas can disrupt neighborhood cohesiveness. Use in lower density residential areas should not be more than [to be determined] square feet in lot area. 2. Parking. Parking may spill on to neighborhood streets without adequate on-site facilities. The parking needs will vary with the use of the facility. Each facility should provide adequate on-site or reasonable off-site shared parking based on the use of the facility. 3. Traffic. Institutional uses should be oriented to designated collector or arterial streets. 4. Lighting and signage. Site lighting and signage needs may resemble commercial uses. These site factors should be managed to fit the character of the surrounding residential development. Urban Reserve The Urban Reserve contains all property in the Orderly Annexation Area that it not shown for development in the near term in this Plan. The objective is to encourage rural and agricultural uses, preventing barriers to future development opportunities. It is anticipated that the City will grow into portions of the Urban Reserve as planned land use areas become fully developed and ca- pacity for future growth in needed. The Urban Reserve is not simply a holding area for future development. Parts of the Urban Reserve are likely to be preserved as natural resource areas or for agricultural purposes. Future planning will consider the locations in the Urban Reserve best suited for development. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-15 Interchange Planning Area The Interchange Planning Area encompasses undevel- oped land in the northwest part of Monticello around the site of a potential west interchange with Interstate 94. The purpose of this land use is to preserve the area for future development and prevent the creation of development barriers. If built, the area should be planned to support a mix- ture of commercial, employment and residential land uses. The interchange location and the routes of future connecting roads are solely for illustration. Future land use issues in this area are discussed in the Focus Area for Northwest Monticello. Private Infrastructure This category applies to Xcel Energy's power plant and railroad right-of-way. 'Ibis category recognizes the unique role of the power plant in Monticello. Greenway The Land Use Plan Map shows a "potential greenway" ringing the western and southern edges of Monticello. The Greenway is intended to provide an environmental corridor that connects large community parks and open spaces to neighborhoods, schools, shopping areas and places to work. They serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as natural habitat, wetlands, tree canopy, and drainage ways. Land within this corridor could be comprised of a combination of public and pri- vate open space. Development would not be prohibited within the greenway but would be reasonably restricted to ensure that development is carefully integrated with the natural environment. The Greenway is intended to shape development pat- terns in a manner that is sensitive to the existing en- vironment and harmonious with the landscape. The Greenway creates opportunities for a continuous trail corridor connecting neighborhoods with large parks and open spaces. A trail within this corridor is intended to be fully accessible to the general public. The following are the City's goals for the Greenway: 1. To provide (where possible) a continuous green corridor connecting large community parks and open spaces to neighborhoods, shopping areas, schools and places to work. 2. To connect people to significant places. 3. To protect the community's natural resources (trees, ponds, wetlands, slopes, etc). 4. To create environmentally sensitive development and design. 5. To provide opportunities for corridors for wildlife movement and ecological connections between natural areas. Focus Areas For certain parts of Monticello, the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan cannot be adequately described solely with the land use map and the related category descriptions. The following Focus Areas provide a more detailed examination of the plans and issues in key loca- tions that will shape the future of Monticello. Northwest Monticello This focus area includes the entire northwest corner of the community. The land use objectives in this area include: 1. Encourage development in this part of the com- munity to utilize infrastructure investments and to provide the capacity to develop in high amenity areas. 2. Provide for a variety of housing alternatives based on the natural features and the surrounding land uses. Areas with high natural amenities or proxim- ity to the planned regional park should be reserved for move up housing. 3. Expansion of existing Places to Work in a manner that creates more "head of household" jobs. 4. Preserve and promote public use of natural areas, including the establishment of greenway corri- dors. 5. Identify and preserve key street corridors. 6. Preserve areas for future Places to Shop and Places to Work around a future highway interchange, if such an interchange proves viable. 3-16 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-10: Land Use Plan - Northwest Monticello The Comprehensive Plan envisions that growth will ex- tend westward from existing development. The initial high amenity residential development is expected to occur along the eastern perimeter of the new regional park (YMCA Camp Manitou), No Places to Live are planned with the boundaries of this park. Future development will be influenced by the capacity of the street system, including plans for the construction of a highway interchange. The remainder of this section describes the land use issues and objectives for northwest Monticello in greater detail. West Interchange A new interchange with Interstate 94 is a critical vari- able in the future development of this area. While the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the potential for a future interchange, in 2008 it is only a concept. It is not part of the State's plans for future highway improve- ments for this district. This interchange could be a valuable part of the long- term transportation plan for Monticello if it is part of a new river crossing that removes traffic from Highway 25. Without the bridge, the primary benefit is to pro- vide access to this area and expand the development opportunities. The Land Use Plan assumes that the interchange is a future possibility. For this reason, property adjacent to the interstate has been placed into a combination of Places to Live, Work and Shop. The Plan seeks to prevent development from limiting the location of the interchange (or block it) and to preserve the area around the interchange for future commercial, indus- trial and residential development. Without the access provided by the interchange, commercial, industrial and residential development should not be anticipated in this area. Ideally, the City will pursue additional investigations following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. These investigations should be designed to resolve some of the unanswered questions related to the interchange. These questions include: ► Where should the interchange be located? ► What is the potential for a new river bridge con- nection? ► How would the interchange be funded and what are the financial and land use implications for the City? ► What time frame should be used in planning for the improvements? The answers to these questions provide invaluable guid- ance to future land use and transportation in Monti- cello. The area included in future planning should not be limited to the property in the Interchange Planning Area land use category. An interchange and the sup- porting street system has future land use implications for a broader area. Regional Park Another critical factor in the future of the Northwest Area is the future of the YMCA camp. The City and Wright County are in negotiations with the Minneapo- lis YMCA to acquire the 1,200 -acre Camp Manitou. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates that the Camp will be converted into a regional park. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-17 Figure 3-11: Community Connections to Regional Park Existing Natural To Mississippi River Potential Parkways Lan •7 • Potential Greenway Corridor 39 = - _-- 7ToMississippi River • • • • • • YMCA r, Regional f Park Existing Green Corridor Potential Greenway - --- Corridor 25 Existing Natures and The area around this park is guided for future Places to Live. No residential development should be al- lowed within the park. The amenity of this land and the regional park provide an excellent setting (around the perimeter of the park) for some of the "upscale" neighborhoods and housing desired by the City. In planning for this park, it is important to look be- yond the boundaries of the park and to its context in the broader community. The illustration in Figure 3-11 highlights several key community development opportunities: ► The City must create connections between the park and other sections of Monticello. ► Building streets in a "parkway" design emphasizes the desired qualities of a regional park and of the surrounding Places to Live and Work. ► The park is a critical piece in creating a "greenway" system that links to the Mississippi River and may, over time, ring the community. Industrial Growth The Northwest area is a critical location for current and future industrial development. The Monticello Busi- ness Center, located south of Chelsea Road and west of 90th Street, has already started to be developed as a high amenity environment with protective covenants that address building materials, loading docks, outdoor storage, and landscaping. In order to provide sufficient land for Business Campus uses over the next 25 years, 3-18 1 Land Use City of Monticello the Comprehensive Plan extends this land use south to the planned expansion of School Boulevard. It is important to recognize that activity generated by business development can create conflicts with resi- dential development. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create both high quality business parks and residen- tial neighborhoods in this area. Careful site planning and development management will be needed to meet these objectives. School Boulevard Extension The Northwest Area serves as a good example of the need to coordination land use and transportation plan- ning. An extension of School Boulevard is needed to provide access to the area and to connect development to the rest of the community. The route of this roadway should be identified and preserved as development occurs. School Boulevard has several other Comprehensive Plan implications: ► This major collector street will influence the nature of adjacent land use. ► Streetscape improvements would help to define the high quality character desired by the City as a gateway to the regional park and to new neighbor- hoods. ► The street is a means for bringing trail connections to the park. Golf Course In 2006, the Silver Springs Golf Course was part of a development proposal (Jefferson at Monticello) that would have redeveloped this property mixing golf and housing. The development did not proceed beyond the environmental review. The Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Places to Recreate based on the continued use as a golf course. This designation does not preclude a future proposal and Comprehensive Plan amendment for residential development. It is likely, however, that this scale of new development will require the access provided by a new highway interchange. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to fill in other development areas and make effective use The Comprehensive Plan seeks to enhance the existing commercial core along Broadway by building strong connections with the riverfront and the civic/retail district on the south end of Walnut Street. of other infrastructure investments before extending utilities for redevelopment of the golf course. Downtown Focus Area Downtown Monticello needs special attention in the Comprehensive Plan. Following the last Comprehen- sive Plan update, the community undertook a separate downtown planning process. This process resulted in the 1997 Downtown and Riverfront Plan. This Plan emphasizes the importance that the community places on Downtown. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update continues to rely on the 1997 Downtown and Riverfront Plan as a guide for public and private actions in the Downtown area. The 1997 Plan shows that a vision and a plan are not enough to create the type of Downtown desired by the community. While some actions have occurred pursuant to the 1997 Plan, much of its vision remains unfulfilled. The Comprehensive Plan will not, however, create any actions that will immediately transform the Downtown environment and achieve community objectives. Revitalizing and sustaining Downtown Monticello requires a collaborative effort of the City, businesses, property owners and other stakeholders. Planning for the future of the Downtown must recog- 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-19 Figure 3-12:1997 Downtown Plan -Land Use The 1997 Downtown Plan envisioned land use in eleven districts, each with varying targets for use and character: Riverfront-Specialty retail, eating establishments, lodging, entertainment multifamily residential, office; upperlevel residential or office, • two or three story buildings river orientation; emphasis on public areas surrounding buildings (rather than parking lots). 6man-w—Downtown-Small and mid-sized retail, specialty retail, personal and busin ess services, eating establishments, lodging entertainment and office; upper level residential or office- two story buildings orientation to Broadway. Broadway: East and West- Singe family residential, strong emphasis on restoration ofexisting older homes. Walnut- Small and mid-sized retail, personal and business services, eating establishments and office, upper level residential or office; two story buildings encouraged; orientation to Walnut Street. Pine -Mid-sized retail and office,two story buildings encouraged; orientation to Pine Street. Seventh Street -Larger scale retail and service, auto -oriented retail and service, drive through restaurants, lodging, • orientation ofSeventhStreet. Transition -Mixofsmall office, personal and business services, multi -family residential and single familyhomes. Neighborhood - Predominantlysingle family hams following existing neighborhood patterns. Industrial - Cargill Kitchen Solutions operations onty,• transition to Ovidlnstitutional, Walnut or Transitional ifCargill Kitchen Solutions ceases operation. Parks and Open Space - Parks, cemeteries, outdoor public spaces and gathering spaces. Civic/ Institutional -Municipal and county facilities (except maintenance operations), public meeting spaces, communityactivityspaces educational fadifties, churches, outdoorgathering spaces. Civic/instihrtiona!-Municipal and county facilities (except maintenance operations), publicmeeting spaces, communityactivityspoces. educationalfacflitfes, churches, outdoorgathering spaces. 3-20 1 Land Use City of Monticello The current end of Walnut Street is a barrier to improving connections between Downtown and the riverfront. nize the practical realities facing commercial develop- ment in Downtown: ► The configuration and traffic volumes of Highway 25 significantly reduce opportunities for direct ac- cess from the Highway to adjacent properties. ► Traffic volumes on Highway 25 will continue to increase. Greater volumes and congestion act as an impediment for people living south of I-94 coming to Downtown. ► There is no controlled intersection on Highway 25 between Broadway and 7th Street. The lack of a controlled intersection combined with traffic volumes make pedestrian connections between Downtown and residential areas to the east very difficult. ► "Big box" and retail development continue to oc- cur in other parts of Monticello. These businesses directly compete with the Downtown and attract smaller businesses (that might otherwise consider a Downtown location) to adjacent parcels. ► These challenges influenced the recommendations in the 1997 Downtown Plan. Neither Broadway Street nor Highway 25 can serve as an effective "main street" or Downtown focal point for Mon- ticello. For this reason, the Plan recommended flipping the orientation of future development to Walnut Street. Walnut had the capacity to create more the qualities found on a downtown main street. More importantly, Walnut Street provides a "bridge" between the traditional downtown/ riverfront and the highway oriented commercial uses to the south. Some actions have taken place in accordance with the 1997 Plan. The Community Center complex stayed in Downtown and anchors the south end of Walnut Street. Combined with the Library, the area has civic destination that attract people from all areas of the community. The commercial development east of the Community Center shows how new buildings can bring storefronts to the street. There are also examples of missed opportunities. The old library was replaced with a bank. This site seeks visibility from Highway 25. The parking lot and not the building is oriented to Walnut Street. Such sites cre- ate gaps and impair the ability to connect the existing Downtown core with the south end. Downtown Strategies Given current plans and conditions, the Comprehen- sive Plan recommends the following strategies for Downtown. 1. The Downtown land use area should be an area running from the River to 7th Street. It is bound on the east by Cedar Street and on the west by Locust Street. 2. Land use in the Downtown should be a mix of retail, service, office, civic and residential development. Although an industrial land use, Cargill Kitchen Solutions is an important and ongoing part of Downtown. Change in land use should only occur if Cargill Kitchen Solutions decides to leave this location. At such time, it would be desired not to perpetuate industrial use at this location. 3. With continued traffic along Highway 25, it is essential to work to establish a strong link along Walnut Street between the Community Center, businesses on Broadway and the River. The objec- tive is to establish strong connections between all of the factors that attract people to the Downtown. 4. To help move towards the creation of a new "main street" all new development on Walnut Street should have storefronts oriented to Walnut Street. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-21 This development may be single story commercial or multi-level mixed use. 5. Orienting storefronts to Walnut Street is only one element of making the street more attractive for pedestrians. The City should also explore other ways to improve the pedestrian and bicycle experi- ence along Walnut Street. 7 E1 VJ It is essential not to allow Walnut Street to become a bypass route for Highway 25. As congestion increases on Highway 25, there is an impetus to seek other routes. Walnut Street is an attractive cut -through option. The orientation of buildings, on -street parking, boulevard trees, and curb "bump outs" are examples of means to calm traffic and discourage cut -through movements. Housing is intended to supplement and support, but not replace, commercial development in the Downtown. All housing in the Downtown area (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) should be multiple family housing. Land is a limited commodity in the Downtown and should not be consumed by single -story housing. Housing should only be allowed above street level on Broadway and Walnut Street. Housing should be encouraged on the edges of the Downtown, in locations needing redevelopment and not viable for commercial uses. The Downtown benefits from strong connections with adjacent neighborhoods. These neighbor- hoods provide an important customer base for Downtown businesses. A vibrant Downtown en- hances these areas as places to live. Improved pe- destrian connections, particularly across Highway 25, are needed to strengthen and maintain these connections. Existing crossing points Broadway and 7th Street should be enhanced. Downtown would benefit from stronger connec- tions with the riverfront. Downtown is one of the few locations in Monticello that allows meaning- ful public access to the Mississippi River. This asset should be enhanced as a means of attracting people to Downtown. West Bridge Park lies in the Downtown area, but does not feel like an active part of Downtown. One possible improvement is a connection with Walnut Street. Currently, Walnut Street terminates south of River Street and is separated by a grade change. The potential for Figure 3-13: Land Use Plan - South Central ---- - - 1 i •........ .r / s T_ J trail and/or street connection should be evaluated. Community events and activities in West Bridge Park also build the connection between the com- munity, Downtown and the River. 10. Access to the Downtown would be improved by making trail and/or bike lane improvements along River Street to provide another means of reaching Downtown and take advantage of the controlled intersection with Highway 25. South Central Focus Area Continued residential growth to the south is an impor- tant element of the Comprehensive Plan. This growth achieves several objectives: ► It helps to facilitate the expansion of the sanitary sewer system in conjunction with the reconstruc- tion of Fallon Avenue. This sanitary sewer capacity is needed to support future industrial growth area along Highway 25. ► These areas encourage growth in areas that could use the new eastern interchange with I-94 rather than Highway 25. ► These areas provide appropriate locations for con- tinued growth in entry-level single family homes and medium density housing types. These Places to Live are important elements of maintaining an adequately diverse housing stock. ► Orderly expansion to the south moves development towards area of higher natural amenity. Areas along the southern edge of the Orderly Annexation Area provide another location for potential "move up" housing. 3-22 1 land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-14: Land Use Plan - East Focus Area IM A key to development in this focus area is the construc- tion of the Fallon Avenue bridge. The bridge leads to the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the related ex- pansion of municipal sanitary sewer and water systems. Future development will be limited without additional utility capacity. East Focus Area The Comprehensive Plan places greater priority on growth to the west and south. Development should be directed to areas that most effectively achieve the objectives of this Plan. Several factors could cause the City to encourage future residential development in the East Focus Area: ► Increased overall housing demand that exceeds the capacity to support growth in other areas. ► Traffic congestion on Highway 25 that increases the need to channel use to the east interchange. ► The need to solve stormwater and drainage man- agement issues (Ditch 33) in this area. Solving drainage issues allows eastward expansion along County Road 18. Future growth in the east should continue to fill in the development area within the Orderly Annexation Area on the east side of Monticello. The natural features in these areas allow for higher amenity neighborhoods. This growth can occur with new collector/arterial street corridors. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-23 Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/09 11. Consideration to call for a public hearing for the Monticello Transportation Plan. (AS) • REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND At this time, the Planning Commission is asked to consider calling for a special hearing for the Monticello Transportation Plan. The Transportation Plan, a critical component of the City's Comprehensive Plan, has been a work in progress for some time. During that time, staff has had the opportunity to review and revise the document, and hold a number of public meetings to gather community feedback. As a result, staff believes it appropriate at this time to hold a public hearing on the Transportation Plan and to consider its formal adoption. Commission will note that at the time the Transportation Plan is adopted, a summarized version will be prepared for the Commission to consider as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as Chapter 6. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to call for a public hearing on the Monticello Transportation Plan on February 3~, 2009. 2. .Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends calling for the public hearing. SUPPORTING DATA A draft of the Transportation Plan will be mailed to the Commission on January 16th, 2009. •