The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 10-05-2004 ~ ,., Members: AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 5th, 2004 6:00P.M. Council Liaison: Staff: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragstcn, Lloyd Hilgart, and William Spartz Glen Posusta Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann I. 2. 3. 4. 5. . 6. . Call to order. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, September 7th, 2004. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizen comments. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa request for Variance to the front yard setback for an attached accessory structure in an R-2 (Single and 2 Family Residential) District. Applicant: Al and Janet Maus Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Variance for a temporary wall in an 1 I-A (Light I ndustrial) District. Applicant: Suburban Manufacturing 7. Consideration ofa request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail commercial sales in a PZM (Performance Zone - Mixed) District and a request for an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance to allow limited production as an accessory use in a PZM (Performance Zone -, Mixed) District. Applicant: Structural Buildings/AST Sports 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Rezone from a PZM (Performance Zone- Mixed) District to a PS (Public _.' Semi-Public) District. Applicant: City of Monticello Public Works 9. Public I !caring - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 1 O-unit residential Concept Stage Planned Unit Development and a request fix Rezone from PZM (Performance Zone - Mixed) to R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential). Applicant: .len-Tor Construction 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance allowing Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission II. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for Open and Outdoor Storage for a drywall supply facility in an 1-2 District. Applicant: Wallboard, Inc. Planning Commission Agenda 0&/03/04 - .....- ]2. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 41-unit residential Concept Stage Planned Unit Development in a PZM (Performance Zone - Mixed) District. Applicant: UP Development 13. Public Hearing -- Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a residential Concept Stage Planned Unit Development in an A-O (Agriculture - Open Space) District. Applicant: Insignia Development 14. Adjourn. . . - ~ - MINUTES REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 7t,\ 2004 6:00 P.M. Staff: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and William Spartz. Glen Posusta Je1fO'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: 1 . Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM, noting a full quorum of the Commission. 2. Approval ofthe minutcs of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, August 3rd, 2004. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGTSEN TO APPROVE TJ IE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, AUGUST 3RU, 2004. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Dragsten requested that an update be provided on any discussion by Council regarding the tree survey item recommended within the subdivision ordinance amendment approved at the August meeting of the Planning Commission. Frie asked that staff provide a report on the status of the Wal-Mart project as well as the recent construction development along Highway 25 south of thc 1-94. 4. Citizen comments. None. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Special Home Occupation for Spiritual/Intuitive Readings and Reiki Bealings in an R-l district. Applicant: Kristin M. Thomas/Healing with Spirit . Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/04 O'Neill provided the staff report, indicating that the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a special home occupation permit that would allow "Healing with Spirit" services at her home. O'Neill stated that the proposed use and associated operation is similar to other uses allowed by special permit such as barber and beauty services, photography studio, saw sharpening, skate sharpening, small appliance and small engine repair and the like. O'Neill referred to the applicant's letter, which states that the business would provide spiritual/intuitive readings, Angel Card Readings and Reiki hcaling. The applicant's letter also reviews the city ordinance standards, noting that the business will bc in compliance with all requirements of the special home occupation permit, with the exception of the limited rctai I activity that will occur on site. As it appears that the use proposed is no dilTerent than other home occupation uses that are allowed, O'Neill recommended approval of the home occupation permit. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Applicant Kristin Thomas, 6191 River Mill Drive, made herself available to answer questions. . Frie asked if Thomas agreed with the staff report and the conditions as outlined by staff. Thomas indicated that she was in agreement. Frie asked where the holistic centers referred to in her letter were located. Thomas replied that there are numerous locations throughout the area that would be used, depending on availahility. Frie also inquired ifthere is a licensing process for such services. Thomas indicated that while there is no state licensing process, shc has completed a certification process. She is also required to provide a notice to customers regarding business practices. Frie asked if the applicant would be willing to provide a copy of that notice f()r the file. Thomas stated that she would provide that information. Frie asked about lilY proposed signage for the business. O'Neill clarified that signage for home businesses is limited by the ordinance. Thomas asked 1I)r clarification on whether the ordinance stipulates that the name of the individual versus the business be used. O'Neill stated that he could provide the appliclilt with that information. Carlson asked about the length of the permit, should it be granted. O'Neill statcd that as long as the opcration is consistent with the code, it has been the policy in most cases that the use can be continued for an unspecified amount of time. However, in some cases, staff has chosen to review cases on an annual basis for compliance with the code. . 2 . . Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/04 Ilearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed thc public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE HEALING WITH SPIRIT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE OPERATION OF TIlE HOME OCCUPATION COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS IDENTIFIED BY ORDINANCE. RETAIL ACTIVITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO PURCHASES MADE BY CUSTOMERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN APPOINTMENT FOR SERVICE. NO RETAIL SALES APART FROM APPOINTMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED. AN EVALUATION OF THE CUP WILL BE UNDERTAKEN BY STAFF AT ONE YEAR IF ISSUES OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE ARISE. MOTTON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an Amendmcnt to an existing Development Stage PUD for a fence line addition and building expansion in a B-3 district. Applicant: AMAX Self-Storage Grittman reviewed the staffreport, stating that the applicant is seeking approval of an amendment to a PUD. Grittman noted that the PUD approval that was previously granted accommodated outdoor storage, a common signage plan, and physical improvements to the AMAX Sclf-Storage facility south of Dundas Road. Grittman indicated that due to improvements along Cedar Street, the front yard of the site would be the Cedar Street side as regulated by code. Tn seeking the amendment to PUD, the applicant is requesting that the front yard remain at Dundas Street. Grittman explained the recent Cedar Street improvements have also made the site accessible to the City's improved stormwater system, eliminating the need for the on- site ponding in the southwest corner of the site. The elimination of the pond is consistent with the Engineer's expectations for stormwater management in the area. With this change, the applicant is requesting the expansion of two existing storage buildings toward Cedar Street in the area currently occupied by the pond. The new proposal also extends the existing split-face concrete block and black iron fence along the Cedar Street exposure. The building expansion and extension of the fence line would allow for full uti lization of the site. Grittman noted that while the plans arc not clear, it is staff's understanding that the site improvements, including paving, building style, and landscaping will be consistent with current site use. With that notation, Grittman stated that statT are recommending approval. Chairman Fric opened the public hearing. 3 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/04 Glen Posusta, 36 Dundas Road, addressed the Commission as applicant. Posusta stated that building materials for the expansion would be of the same type and quality as the existing facilities. Posusta explained that the additional fence will be more of a decorative fence, while still providing the appearance of additional security. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten inquired about the change in storm water drainage. Posusta stated a new storm water catch basin system will be implementcd to address storm water issues. Frie asked about the applicant's plans in terms of landscaping. Posusta indicated that the current line of trees will remain undisturbcd. He will also be replacing trees that were damaged in the process of storm drain construction. It is his intent to provide a neat, well- maintained facility. . MOTION BY SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH TI-IE PREVIOUS APPROVALS AND MEET THE CITY'S ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE AREA. TInS RECOMMENDA nON IS CONDITIONED ON ALl, NEW IMPROVEMENTS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE, INCLUDING BUILDING MATERIALS, LANDSCAPING AND PAVING. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision to create two industrial lots in an 1-2 district. Applicant: Standard Iron & Wire Works Patch reviewed the staff report, indicating that Standard Iron & Wire Works, Inc. is requesting a simple subdivision of their property to create two separate parcels. The first parcel would contain all improvements built for Standard Iron. The second parcel would be created for future development in the 1-2, I-leavy Industrial District. Patch reported that both parccls to be created would fully conform to the zoning standards applicable to the 1-2 District, so long as the chain link fence shown by the certificate of survey as extending onto what will be the second parcel is removed. Patch also noted that no vacation of casements is requircd. Public drainage and utility easements are provided on each side ofthe new lot line dividing the parcels and on the east line ofthe new parcel. Dragsten asked if current parking standards support any expansion of the current sitc. Patch indicated while the existing parking available would limit any large scale . 4 - -- . . Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/04 expansion, the bituminous surface is already fairly expansive and has sufficient area to expand parking. Additionally, there is space for a small expansion, although it is staff's understanding that Standard Iron may cease to operate out ofthis building. Steve Nelson, representing Wallhoard Inc., a potential huyer of the Standard Iron building, addressed the Commission. Nelson stated that the Demeules Family would propose to huild an administrative complex on the resulting parcel. Dragsten asked if Standard Iron was going out of business. Nelson stated that they are would be utilizing other existing facilities; they no longer need the Monticello facility for manufacturing purposes. MOTION BY DRAGSTEN .1'0 RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TIIAT T1m SlMPL,E SUBDIVISION OF THE PARCEL DESCRII3ED AS LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 2, OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK BE ALI,OWED, TO CREATE TWO PARCELS AS DESCRJRED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PREPARED BY TAYLOR LAND SURVEYORS, DATED AUGUST 10,2004 AND LAST REVISED SEPTEMBER 3, 2004. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Discussion Item - Review of Open and Outdoor Storage Ordinance Requirements O'Neill requested input from the Commission on the current ordinance standards for open and outdoor storage. O'Neill hriefly outlined terms of the current ordinance. O'Neill noted that clari1ication needs to be made in terms of setbacks back and screening. O'Neill and Patch cited examples of open and outdoor storage in the community, reviewing cases where it is unclear whether the storage should terminate at the building setback line or at the fence setback line. Patch stated that it would seem to be the best use of property to allow the storage to extend to the fence line. In that case, Planning Commission may need to consider fence line setbacks. Frie asked if misuses have heen in commercial, industrial, or residential areas. Frie noted that there seems to be a large numher of residential units with a significant amount of outdoor storage. O'Neill stated that the accessory huilding ordinance attempted to address that issue hy allowing slightly larger accessory buildings. This clarification for storage would refer more to commercial or industrial areas. Carlson inquired that as the examples seem primarily industrial, is it realistic to require 5 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/04 open and outdoor storage to be in the rear yard. Patch stated that it is reasonable. There may be an exception, as in the case of corner lots. Patch also noted that any open and outdoor storage is also subject to a CUP. Hilgart asked if currently outdoor storage can go all the way to the fence line. Grittman indicated that while the fence may go all the way to property line in these areas, the ordinance is unclear where storage should cease. Specifically in the case of Simonson's Lumber's application, stafr questioned where the storage should stop. Hilgart asked if setbacks for outdoor storage were adjusted to building setbacks, would the Planning Commission need to remedy cxisting violations. Grittman stated that those already having storage bcyond the setbacks would be allowed to continue as existing non- conforming uses. i-lilgart referred to the imaginary linc between a proposed outdoor storage area and the fenceline regulated by ordinance. Grittman stated that gray area is the reason that the clarification is needed; either the fence line has to move back, or the setback for storage has to meet the fence line. . Posusta referred to Simonson's request, stating that the feneeline should shield the outdoor storage in way that allows property owners to maximize the use of their land. Posusta stated that he didn't understand the 6-foot setback requirement for landscape screening. He stated that he would prefer to regulate the look and type of fencing rather than landscaping. Posusta also questioned the large rear-yard setback versus the rather narrow side-yard setbacks. Grittman responded that those issues were why stafY sought to clarify the ordinance, both for property owners and stafl. Frie asked staffto put together a packet on the subject for Commission's review. frie asked about the process for a possible amendment. O'Neill stated that staff will put together a packet, then allow Commission to make a recommendation on code amendments. Planning Commission's recommendation would then proceed to Council. Frie asked that discussion on the item be heard at the October meeting. Nelson stated that Wallboard will store steel and other durable materials outside. Therefore, they will need outside storage. Nelson stated that he specializes in industrial real estate, and he thinks many companies are looking for the same opportunity. Maple Grove and Plymouth have more stringent regulations on storage. hie asked if Patch could make recommendations as to what seems to work for other communities. Carlson asked if there was any confusion in residential areas. Patch responded that while . 6 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/04 ...... ........ Frie is corred in the amount of personal property accumulating on residential lots, previous accessory ordinance amendments addresscs the issue. Carlson requested that the packet focus on commercial and industrial areas. MOTION BY SPARTZ TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC J-TEARING ON A POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE REQUIREMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. 10. Tree Survey Update O'Neill reported that the ordinance amendment including the tree survey requirement had been placed on the consent agenda, with a notation that Council should pull the itcm for discussion if needed. Council chose not to pull it off the agenda and the item was approved per majority. 11. Wal-Mart and South Highway 25 Development Update . O'Neill indicated that the project is moving forward. The final plat has been approved and stafr and the developers are working to complete the development agreement. Remaining concerns from Wal-Mart arc small and the developers are hoping for a st . October l' groundbreakmg. Posusta stated that it seemed that one of Wal-Mart's concerns was School Boulevard. The City requires cash in hand before authorizing plans and specs for School Boulevard improvements. This is due to the fact that the City Enginccr does not want to go forward without assurances from Wal-Mart that plans are moving forward. O'Neill stated that the City has received the full building permit package, and has provided the complete plan check fee. They have not yet provided funding for review of road plans. Patch believes that the building permit will be issued permit his week. Patch stated that Wal-Mart had donc a thorough job and were outstanding professionals throughout the process. O'Neill and Patch discussed the Brendsel project. Patch clarified that building permits have been issued for the strip center as all cngineering issucs have been resolved. A Goodyear store will be going into that center. Thc balance will be a retail strip, including a restaurant, which is not proposed to bc completed at this time. Patch also reported that Mike Krutzig's second building includes a restaurant. There was some conccrn about parking. Patch indicated that there is suflicient parking for the first proposed restaurant. At thc time the second restaurant comes in, parking will need to be addressed. The . 7 ....... Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/04 hockey arena will is ready for permit, as well. All of the big commercial projects are going very well, according to Patch. ..... 12. Long-Range Planning O'Neill provided the Commission with a packet prepared for a previous Chamber luncheon. The packet included information on current and proposed projects, as well as major development trends within the community. O'Neill also outlined the long-range planning effort items which would be discussed at Council on the 2ih. These items included the authorization of a comp plan update, utility system feasibility studies (sanitary sewer, streets, water treatment) and corresponding trunk fee funding structure. Council will also talk with a consultant for the visioning process for the planning efforts. A steering committee made up of representatives from City and community groups will make up that committee. Another planning item will involve the consideration of staff support and human resources in terms of organizational growth. O'Neill also supplied a potential time-line for the project. . Grittman recommended that Planning Commission begin thinking about what the community is going to look like in 30 years. He encouraged the Commission to look at other communities going through similar growth patterns including Blaine, Apple Valley, Shako pee, Cottage Grove, etc. and take inventory of what seems to work and what doesn't. Staff will also be doing this. Grittman indicated that it will hclp set up a plan to achieve the envisioned results. Frie stated that a school representative will be important on the steering committee. Frie asked who would hold the public hearing. O'Neill stated that they would be structured as open forums, and be a continuous process. 13. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN AT 7:20 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. Angela Schumann, Recorder . 8 -- ~ -=- . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/04 5. Public Hearin2: Consideration of request for Variance to the front yard setback for an attached accessory structure in an R-2 (Sine:le and Two Family Residential) District. Applicant: AI and Janet Maus. (O'Neill) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Al and Janet Maus are requesting a variance to the front yard setback to allow construction ofa two car garage in front of their rambler.style single family home. The home currently has a single car garage that projects slightly in front ofthe home. It appears that the front of the existing single car garage is close to the 30' set-back standard. The new two car garage would be placed in front of the existing garage which means that almost the entire garage would be in violation of the setback standards. It is hoped that more precise information regarding the degree of variance required will be available at the meeting. The Planning Commission has customarily granted relatively minor side yard variances to allow property owners to develop two car garage. Tn this case however, the degree of the variance needed to create a two car garage applies to the front yard and is somewhat extreme. It could be argued that the presence of a garage front almost entirely outside of the setback lines would seem out of place for the neighborhood. The applicant has exmnincd other options for placing a two car garage on the site but this effort is hampered by the placement of the home and the inability to buy land from the adjoining property owner. Due to the fairly significant separation between structures in the neighborhood, a small two car garage protruding beyond the setback lines at this location might be palatable. r suggest that every Planning Commission member visit the site to help them in making a determination. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to grant variance to the front yard setback allowing a two car garage based on the finding that strict application of the code in this instance creates a hardship by limiting the ability of the property owner to develop a two car garage which is a customary use in the district. Under this alternative, Planning Commission might allow a small two car garage to be placed in front of the existing home based on the finding that a hardship exists. 2. Motion to deny the variance based on the finding that a the degree of variance needed for the two car garage is too great and the structure would not be in Planning Commission Agenda - ] 0/05/04 - keeping with the neighborhood. Other options for constructing additional garage space, though very expensive and requiring major remodeling are possible without a variance or would require a variance to the side yard standards. ..... STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff would like to get precise measurements on the actual degree of variance needed and report this information to the Planning Commission at the meeting. This will impact the recommendation. SUPPORTING DATA A. Applicant Letter B. Property Images C. Aerial Images D. Site Sketch Illustrating Proposed Addition e..- e 2 SA . , ~. ~~n"~-n..~. ~Y1...J'(Y\-L~C.b'_'v,-- \J c:~, "'I ;t\ U>-6uJ.et j)..J~LIL_ f~ 't--- fJ'; , t. ....., '.:...1J.-'r:\ ,,-b--{L'''.~L( ....tn [~tJ. &.-._ ~_. Q1tJ...--, ~.cL~f'"-'- .__t~"'-" ..i-:,~."'.~,--J-. ct . ,-..:tji.J.,_ ~ L..~~C_<;L Q...O--.:"-.- ....._,1 '., .. ,\ .:_,0 (] :-'~tL. --:...~. , . "LL~0-L__,,);J~_Y1)~ {,"~lJ<~LJ- P-:J'__{Lj~~ Ct-._ q I ..LxJ .'. \ .. ~"------. '-~-'.:. >--t,J':"":f__~L.'l'\......' _L~.~ ....<-~. -~j -t-b.f!-lQ.,"&' / . ,. t- ""L'~~.,..l:;' .-:Th.,k-'- -- - ..itl. /- . I' '. . J. -",~_. '5...~O--.~fio,' ~(~~,.. .., j 115,:e".\__\~:E,-:<,.t,::: j-,b--\.. L }~_ I ,- i-', l. h: I . 1"' -0:.__ f'<.._ ("- t~.~~J' '-,--t~S-._._ 'U.2_<L~~-"- --ti) _.(~~_!J__L. 6-(_L~_. LL~tD._ t)"_9- . "J~""4-' <, D.4,J~_jLL, h. I~ f- 'v-f-'d:;1j t'="0.. ,furn ~dU.__f.~-t ..:._~::,.tJ'~~,,-.Yl.LL_~,,~tl,"q,_..5~.~-~t:l.c:~~-_c_ L>-u-,l ..3~:,,~:~\ cl_~h~\!..__ _ .; ~;s:.. \!..Q~ '~l> . LL):<;~__ -,.b~}c,~.k,_-:,'\,j)a.~)Jj;1__0.--{ Jlt;,,:L~~.-tA,\A, .,j _.6:+ l}-u.:'l_. ~__.L~ , ?.,-~~- 'L-/~t: . --f.. >J~:C'J.o~}," -- :1'....-)- \..t ; L. YLJ- ~:t() ~t{:t_->;, .,,': f "'- I. :,...." ...---b'l.,l.._ C-';"~_LC---'Lj -.~ t I-i.;. )',,---('_.1.. n~, LrLi;J7(~':::"" '~_'i-::'}-~._~J... ,tk.1..~' pl.o .M.." lJ.l,d,\.\J; ..=lh~~ .\. c~hj_- CL~~u.J-. l".'Cl':.\.-<,_., "}i Ll}6(..Lfc~ ,)c--c:.L"-,,_JJ/);~. \.tlYl_\t'-'.A \.1 . \ .' j -l~J:_LQ.__ )._(1...t-~:~bt, \-'l.,~,,,,.~~~J:-.i;;'n.~.I J-A-~&...t-<_~q '1.) -<.~ 4-. ~\ :......, ..:~,,,,1._<...__...;.1.. , \ ~_, c. ~"'lJ-'--J)-.C ~\ '-J.._~ [rc_ Ct [Lb-U1.)~!L.. C~',., "'-'t -..t, /.Y-'-- -- .-........ . '0>,-'.--,. " . .,~ ~' 1\ l; I '-,1_/ lY--.:~;._k_LL ~h...Q:\.-_-J;' (JjL--U,,( t' ~'~ , . . j,'d \"--""~tl.;t:- . <!',C\,.,\,. U~...-J.", i,1 . \\ .- 'n. c:-l-l-.t~".:(c__,' :;';,. D;_il-~~l:,... lj'-\~,~..9:,ifLP-(",a'~CL/l(".~....L~_. )'cS.~:)._'l....\c!J. --\- ) - . ..L". JI ',,-)~LD Ujl_'''---jrYl~ L.-I",.j-J' ,--L'n".. L.Lc(c-n.J~~:'_ Ll '..~ c, . ~":F\ - ?I~"" h.b---l---. I 1 u . , i;,j . " ~ '-- '---'C'.-ccX..J;J_-'YI._I___ l,',._., \) - ,~L'O.,,:.LI\._ ;;;,. l'~ . y.I'Cf (~UJ...<'[I.:.t:l.~.. ~ L." ! \ ",}_r;y,,, ",;:....~.__.ttUl. vY't..1.._i.'Y\ . . ~j-_tt~.c~~~ ~L'L.' VCb-~ '--~k.", U~ '"l':h"UL. 'YliJ~ (J_~, ,-J::}'cbr_(%t~J- ---LyctT:, .,-b"-~4j ...;. ,-t"'-~_k."\ t:~ I._;&-~\LU,"/Y\J- tJ:L-t~-,,~,-- -:-J "~~U:"V~ .~,--l~L-t._, '- L~. O-LL!t-. ~JLJ-.. .p.1RL~.) t~ c.l~)~l... --tQi+,:,J;> ~~h:.,"llt.LJ'I\;~~""\;,l~,-- (~~U~ z.>>-lj,~k , _ ]'-, .i ,) ,--.)-hJh~}Y\.~' d i(~R. r~L'" ~\~L/\.. ,:-t_L~~""f?..J.__. d' ... d. .,. '- .. '~\.Q,-'y,-__...:J .. !)J-1 'Y-~f".~.d . 3N3:JS J.33~.LS AJ.~3dO!:ld 1:J3ranS .:10 M31A ~fv3H '. . 1,- . r -. ..~ --..' "'" --;;,. <? . vh~ --............... -""""""---. ,,.,, -~ , '- \2 -+..... 'C" 1". r , [' t --~--' \;'\ )> r.. -::D. (;\ / ';<1.\ ~'.'W".__,.....~"~~,,,,,,,.,__,.",,~.,, \V I !- -- c. /,,::-!.J:; '1'\ . <I' .....) "1)' , "'<) .4J i' .) ',,- !517 ~ I I I Ie: " /_~. i I I _.._.~.J -'-'--~'-'---- "', c.. ~ i , '--I P t. "'-0 o I.j\ '" ~ \' ~ 'J' <:>. ~ I , ~I- ---j (,. I I ~ -~.J i I I I I I I I 1 . . . Planning Commission Agenda ~ 10/05/04 6. Public Hcarine:: Consideration of a request for a Variance for a teml>orarv wall in an It-A (Lil!ht Industrial) District. Al>l>licant: Suburban Manufacturinl!. (O'Neill) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance which would allow construction of a wall on a temporary basis that docs not meet the standards of the II-A District. As you may know, building walls in the I I-A district must be built to a relatively high standard as the code reads "all buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of fInished steel, aluminum, or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick, wood, stone, architectural concrete case in place or pre-cast panels on all wall surfaces". In this case, Suburban Machine is expecting that the subject wall will be removed at some point in the future for a subsequent expansion. It therefore does not make sense to invest in a wall that will likely be removed for expansion. In the past, Suburban has been granted a similar variance request which is resulting now in one temporary wall being replaced by another. At some point in the future, when the building has grown to match the capacity of the site, a permanent wall meeting the standards of the II-A district will be constructed. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to grant a variance to the wall standards in the Il-A district allowing construction of a temporary wall to be replaced at some point in the future with a wall that complies with I 1.A standards. Motion based on the finding that granting the variance for a temporary wall docs not impair the intent of the ordinance. 2. Motion to deny approval of a variance to the wall standards in the II-A district allowing construction of a temporary walL Motion based on the finding that a hardship does not exist and granting the variance impairs the intent of the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative 1. As one can see on the site plan, there is sufficient expansion area left on the site so it is likely that the temporary wall will be replaced at some point in the future with a wall that meets II-A standards. Issuance of a variance in this case would therefore be consistent with the intent of the code. SUPPORTING DATA . A. Aerial Image 13. Site Plan C. Building Elevations . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/04 2 . "W""'" ~~ ~ s- tl1 t1? 'l21..s- i~ ~Cll ""'tI ll- ,Ill "l ~ </0 </0 I ,I </0 1'. I / _ ....... / : r---'-,~~ ........ I\i / / / ~-"~/""'........~6".2S', / : I I ~-<::.- ....... S"f2 / ~ I I "', ........ /~ ~/ / I '-'-''- ............ ,I ;z: k"'!' / ',- l/!.i (:Q'/ Iii '_, /0 rp, Ii> , /! ~F ~ I~ , I ................. /f .:p / / "'--" / tJ~: I / il/ I , / ' , , t ,I / : I-<o., ,I / / ~',-,___ !,' ............ I II / </0 : / ,I I ( (~~~'- ..... -4DD/ 1'/01\1 SO;> .....,6, ...... ...... g\!1 '''1 ~~ ;'i!! m- )2 z '" .,-...., .......... ~....... ................. '-',- . . ..... , -..... "~........... O"t,/1-,.,G'~ ... ...... / ...,......., <f&}'-~I0- ............... I ~,~ -'--'--~1/ -', / II '- 'I ',- '1'1 ...... '- I I ~ ",- 1:/0 ~E '-, / II~ .~ )1 :/~ ~~ 11119> ~ /;;jt~ ~ 'Ii: "'-....., II <.., //t/ 0; II II /1/ ! ;/1/ I' j;/~/ - I,' / ~$ I / 1 ,1 ....... ""--. /1' / ~ - - ..... - - "~""'" vi / / .......... ......~-. II, I -.....__..:.."-.-.-1 / / '. I / I II / / I I I / OJ r o o ^ " ~ ii! ~ i;! ii{ ;i?- f! ff '\ & ~ EBz tt!:: I [] I . .,.. ~ 1 ~ 1 ~~ i mg ? l~ -. F~ q , ~w )0.. r w g':E i~ g'm "lJl .. III ii~ _ C/'I ~- II' :r il- " "m ..,m -;m ..,- 9CD 'CD "l- 'l < < ~ III a a - o' o. o' ::::J ::::J ::::J ~~ H F~ -'- ..J 5R '" 0, " n . Po ~ *~ ;;I ~~ ...... 0 ~ ~ ...... ...... } ~~....,~r.'_........,--.-.~ ...... ? q ...-- ; ,I i J) ~;Iq ~ ~ .~ -I ~ -l Q' -..... 1-{J 11'0 ~ q 2 ~~ ~ ~~ mg ~~ F~ ~ ;r . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/04 7. Public "carine: Consideration of a reauest for a Zonin!! Ordinance Amendment to allow accessory production activities within a PZM. Performance Zone Mixed zonin!! district and a Conditional Use Permit to allow accessory production activities (associated with a screen printine business) within the PZM District. Applicant: Structural Buildines/ AST Sports. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Structural Buildings and AST Sports have submitted a request to establish a business upon an approximately 1.5 acre site located north of County Highway 75 and west of I Iart Boulevard. Specifically, the applicant wishes to construct a 6,348 square f()ot building on the property within which the business would be conducted. Approximately two thirds of the floor area of the business would be devoted to production activities, with the remaining third of the building serving as retail store. The applicant has indicated that the use of the building is primarily retail, with no manufacturing. However, the screen printing and embroidery of garments would be considered an industrial use. The site is zoned PZM, Performance Zone Mixed which presently does not make an allowance for "production" type activities such as that proposed. To accommodate the activity, it is necessary to consider an amendment to the PZM District provisions to allow production facilities accessory to a retail use (as a conditional use). Should the City find that limited or accessory production facilities are an appropriate use within the PZM District, a conditional use permit would then need to be processed to accommodate the proposed screen printing business. The subject site is bordered by commercial uses on the west and multiple family twin- home residential uses on the east and north. Ordinance Amendment As previously indicated, the PZM zoning district presently does not make an allowance for "production" type activities such as that proposed. Thus, the processing of an amendment is necessary. The purpose of the PZM district is to provide a land use transition between residential land uses and low intensity business land uses, as well as the intermixing of each land use. Generally speaking, the district lists allows medium density residential development as a permitted use and retail commercial uses as conditional use. An initial determination should be made by the City as to whether or not production activities are desired in the PZM district and if so, to what degree. The PZM District allows a specific list of commercial uses by CUP, and the retail uses listed in the B-2 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/04 . zoning district. In the B-2 District, there are some uses that include repair as an accessory usc to retail activities, but none that accommodate the production or processing of materials to be sold on site. Also at issue is whether the processing and/or production is an accessory use to the retai I store. As noted, the applicant's plan indicates that at least two-thirds of the floor area of the facility will be devoted to non-retail use. It is also the understanding that much of the production is undertaken on a custom basis for sale and usc off-site, rathcr than on~site rctail sales. Finally, staff's concern is that even if thc use involves relatively low-volume production, the specific site in the PZM district raises issucs of compatibility with the adjoining residential neighborhood. If the PZM is to be a transition from low- intcnsity commercial to residential, this particular sitc would appear to bc a higher intensity commercial activity. Introducing this usc on this site would not appear to be consistent with thc intent of the zoning ordinance. If such activity is to be allowed, it is recommended that it be allowed only as an accessory to a permittcd retail activity. As part of a formal amendment, the conditional uses within the PZM district could therefore be expanded to read as follows: . Accessory production or processing activities provided that: I. The production activities arc accessory to a permitted retail use in thc PZM district. 2. The building and site plan are designed to be compatible with architecture in the adjoining neighborhood. 3. The production activity shall not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the gross noor area of the building. 4. When abutting a residential district, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G) shall be erected. 5. The site is served by a collector street with access that avoids mixing of residential traffic with truck traffic generated by the production use. As noted, to accommodate the usc proposed by the applicant, the production activity space would need to be at least two thirds of the building, rather than the 25 percent accommodated by this language. Staff would also be concerned with the driveway access to the north and its potential for affccts on the adjoining residential neighborhood. . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/04 Conditional Use Permit . If the City chooses to amend the ordinance (to allow accessory production facilities in the PZM district), the CUP application may then be considered. Building Use. It has been estimated that approximately two thirds of the proposed building is to be devoted to production activities. Should the amendment suggested by staff be adopted, the amount of production area would need to be reduced to 25 percent of the gross floor area of the building (leaving retail activities as the primary use). Site Circulation. As shown on the submitted site plan, the site is to be accessed from the east from Hart Boulevard and from the west (in the southern portion of the site) from an existing private drive. While the two access points themselves are considered generally acceptable, the proposed site circulation pattern is considered problematic. The two dead-end parking lots are of particular concern in that building patrons wi II have no choice but to "back out" of such lots if they are full. It is suggested that the dead end parking lot designs be eliminated (in favor of a consolidated design that provides a through outlet). . One option would be to move the building northward, and consolidate the parking on the south side of the building, with access from the south, rather than directly to Hart Boulevard on the north. This would permit the design of a parking lot that avoids dead-end aisles and better site circulation. Finally, ajoint access agreement with the neighboring property owner to the west will be required to allow this condition. Setbacks. Within the PZM district, the setback requirements of the district in which the project would be zoned if conventional zoning was applied are considered applicable. In this regard, the following setbacks as applied in the Boo), Neighborhood Business District are considered applicable to the project: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 30 feet 1 0 feet 20 feet All applicable setback requirements have been satisfied. Off-Street Parking Supply. For retail stores, the ordinance requires at least one off- street parking space for each 200 square reet or floor area. With this in mind, a total of29 stalls are required ofthe proposed use. The site plan illustrates a total of24 spaces, five short of that required. The parking area should therefore be reconfigured to meet the off-street parking supply requirement. The City may consider an alternative plan for proof of parking, if appropriate. . 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/04 . Additionally, the plan should be modified to include two stalls designated for use by the disabled. Also to be noted is that the stalls measure only 16 feet in depth. 'rhey should be expanded to 20 feet in depth as required by ordinance. Landscaping. The site plan illustrates rows a row ofNOIihwood Red Maple trees around the perimeter of the site. While such plmltings arc considered acceptable, the size of such plantings should be indicated. It is further recommended that additional plantings be provided around the base of the building. The size, location and variety of such plantings should be indicated. The plan should also be enhanced to provide for a buffer yard along the Hart Boulevard frontage where the site abuts a residential neighborhood. The zoning ordinance has a specific requirement for such bufTer yards, including both distance and plant material intensity. Loading. The site plan should be modified to include a designated loading area. It is not clear how deliveries and other truck activities will be handled on the property. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. As a condition of CUP approval, a grading, drainage and utility plan should be reviewed by the City Engineer. The submitted plans do not show topography, and do not include a certified survey of the site. . Building Design / Materials. The proposed building is a metal building, with steel siding on three sides, and a cover treatment of cultured ficldstone on onc fac;ade. Due to the proximity of the building to a residential neighborhood, planning staff would recommend a building design that is residential in character, including horizontal lap siding and brick or stone on all exposed sides. Trash. The sitc plan should be revised to identify a trash handling location. As required by ordinance, trash handling equipment must be located within an enclosure and be screened from view of surrounding properties and public rights of way. The preferred design is an interior trash room, rather than a detached enclosure. If detached, the enclosure should also be covered with brick or stone to match the fac;ade of the building, and be landscaped to minimize its prominence on the site. Lighting, As a condition of CUP approval, a photometric lighting plan should be submitted. All exterior lighting should be directed such that the source of the light is not visible from adjacent properties or rights-of-way, The only lights identified on the plan are floodlights in the gable end of the north and south walls of the building. It would appear that the proposed lighting is not consistent with the regulations. . Alternative Amendment Language. The preceding CUP review includes a recommendation that the area within the building devoted to construction activities not exceed 25 percent of the floor area of the building. Should the City feel that the 4 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/04 . stipulation is inappropriate or that production facilities as a principal use in thc PZM district are appropriate, the amendment language would need to be revised accordingly. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. PZM District Amendment a. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the PZM district provisions establishing accessory production and processing activities as a conditional use. b. Motion to recommend denial of an amendment to the PZM district provisions establishing accessory production activities as a conditional use based on a finding that such allowance is not consistent with the intended purpose of the district. 2. Conditional Use Permit a. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow accessory production activities within a PZM, zoning district based on the conditions listed in Exhihit Z. . b. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow accessory production activities within a PZM, zoning district based on a finding that the submitted plans are inconsistent with goals and objectives of the PZM zoning district. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION It is the concern of planning staff that the introduction of production facilities within the PZM zoning district is not consistent with the intended purpose of the district. As noted, the PZM district is intended to accommodate low intensity transitions from residential to commercial uses. Production and processing infers a more intensive, not less intensive, commercial use - bordering on industrial activity. If such production activities are to be allowed in the district, it s believed they should be a secondary or accessory to a permitted retail activity, and severely limited in size and scope. . One of the issues to be considered would be how the use might be applied to other commercial activities. The processing activity will typically require more truck use, 5 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/04 . and could involve noise, odors, or other impacts that are inconsistent with either commercial or residential neighborhoods. This particular use may be relatively benign, but it can be difficult to manage other facilities that may wish to use this type of permit. If the amendment is appropriate, staff would suggest that it belongs in the B-4 zoning district, where much more intensive commercial uses are prevalent, and fewer conflicts with residential neighborhoods would be likely. In those areas, higher levels of truck tral1ic and noise are common, and the City can better manage how those impacts may affect residential areas. Should the City find the amcndment establishing accessory production activities as a conditional use in the PZM district to be acceptablc, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit only subject to the satisfaction of the listed conditions, of which there are many. Most ofthc conditions relate to mitigating the impact of the usc on the ncighborhood. SUPPORTING DATA . A. Applicant Lettcr B. Site Plan C. Floor Plan D. Building Elevations E. Draft Ordinance Language F. Exhibit Z - Conditions of CUP Approval . 6 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/04 . Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment Language to the Conditional Uses in the PZM District: Accessory production or processing activities provided that: 1. The production activities are accessory to a permitted retail use in the PZM district. 2. The building and site plan are designed to be compatible with architecture in the adjoining neighborhood. 3. The production activity shall not exceed twenty five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the building. 4. When abutting a residential district, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G) shall be erected. 5. The site is served by a collector street with access that avoids mixing of residential traffic with truck traffic generated by the production use. . . 7 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/04 . EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval 1. The amount of production area within the building be reduced to 25 percent ofthe gross 1100r area (leaving retail activities as the primary use). 2. The dead end parking lot designs be eliminated (in favor of a consolidated design that provides a through outlet). 3. The building is shifted to the north, and all traffic is directed toward the south, away from the residential neighborhood. 4. A joint access agreement with the neighboring property owner to the west be executed. 5. The parking area be reconfigured to provide 29 off-street parking spaces as required by ordinance. 6. The site plan be modified to include two stalls designated for use by the disabled. . 7. Off-street parking stalls be expanded from 16 to 20 feet in depth as required by ordinance. 8. The size of the proposed Northwood Red Maple trees be specified. In addition, a complete butTer yard planting plan in compliance with the zoning regulations be added to the landscape plan. 9. Additionallandscaping/plantings be provided around the base of the building. The size, location and variety of such plantings shall be indicated. 10. The site plan be modified to include a designated loading area. 11. Finish materials of the building be modified to reflect a more residential character, including brick or stone on all exposed sides. 12. The site plan be revised to identify a trash handling location. Trash handling equipment shall be located either within the building, or within an enclosure screen from view of surrounding properties and public rights of way. The enclosure shall also be constructed of brick or stone, consistent with the finish materials ofihe principal building. . 8 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/04 . 13. A photometric lighting plan be submitted. All exterior lighting shall be directed such that the source of the light is not visible from adjacent properties or rights-of-way. 14. The City Engineer provide comment regarding grading, drainage and utility issues. . . 9 ~ Jamie Paulson fA . 236 W. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 s~ 763-295~4099 Fax 763-295~5574 Angela Schumann: My name is Jamie Paulson I am the owner of AST Sports formally A Stitch In Time. Our business is currently located on West Broadway of Maticallo. We have out grown our location and are trying to relocate our business. The lot we have chosen is on 75 near Hawks. Our business is a retail store which sells clothing and custom embroidered logos on that clothing. . We will also be selling sporting goods. We do not manufacture anything in our shop. Our business will remain the same as it is now with a larger retail space and a larger work area. If you have any Questions you may call me at 763-295-4099 Thank YO~ ~ O~ . . "12 oJ ;1."'JJO ':JU[ S6UID'lng 80€SS NW 'J;;>:p::>g 1<1<1ns 1SJ1;:j ?Gb1':1 It2Jnl:JnrJ.S ')'Q 0 ,O?Y'\ ~ A " :\00 "b-,b0~- ,?'\ - \'Q/ ' 77 ~ <) ~ "",-,bb / ( '\ JdmdS ,/ WJOls7 ~ I / /' / -- .' / / / / ,/ , "S'8b/1 , ~~ i ~~ ...., I~I u '-.-1 I - ,") b ',) '/~. I . '~ ~, ( ~IO~'S / i I ,ie-,COb' , ~ \ ;;1c1b?l..J fJ"'~ ///~ DOOmLJ1JON ,$/ i~j::. ",.~,~"' ~;1,6\ ~r &\/1' \ ;;;;.1<-:;; "I-'"b'\'~ \ l'v' ;Ul?wS,;JII?S T :;lJnl't;>u6IS J;lW01 pO/8/b;;>WOJ~~tJ ;~g UII UOSln12d" :211-11. ( ____.!.Qj,.=1I1 :i/;Ili?:;1S U Q I d'--2 '+ TS--- ,::\Jt:?w y::>u,;Jg .,' 7J(l ~'O' II _ - ...- '~,..:ir:Y- . 'bv:/:-:J _ I c' / // i IIS-,'7b IS ;.f- III f/ z .----b.,(l) \ \ G"'--E \ \ X- OJ \\ \Y c \ \OJ =-- \\~Q- .. ::s \ \ La \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ '\ ,~\8 " I .\"s-.Lb'," }\I.. ~ /~. I ' , -'i\~ ~:-.h ~, \1\ -.. ... 'WI' I }'" /1 ""TIM 1 ~ x- I ,,~ 1 ::OUl : iifg 1 " 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 I , 1 1 1 1 1 " X -" n o " n ;;; c+ [b 1] '" ()". 1 I 1 1"-> I~ 'Cll '0 IX 1 ~. , III '" 1< I" I , I m...........__ I I I 1 , I I , , I , 1 I -1 - . . ()CI> " - 0- U) _/[1 7..-----........... ECO S X~ g." .h. " ~co " x- g-" c: " c+ '-'= OJ -; " '" " a; , Q 7tl o o 3 15'-0" __ _4_b'::- 0 " J I I OJ I~ lO [b I ~) u I; g, I: I~ ." 1.-". ~ ~ 2"1" Boxed (-,able ~co " X- CL-" o . E r--- I I I ii0 1,- ia I, ! i {- _-~m E-" :) x ~ D....U'1 A E-" :J x. 0-" 2 - '( ~m " x' g-. ,b- E , ;::OiJ1 I~O I ' " " I I I I I I I .I WI --t;i I OJ, ~ 1 " ' CL' , rn i "'I ~I I 1 I ~ n ., ~ ..~. ~. 1-- 12' -Q" ---. ~, 0-0 I o ..........-...': B B \1 II . i .:s Q ~ .--........,...,~~ --- B t:' ,-" ' '):.... -;\ IJ . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/04 8. Public Hearine:: Consideration of a request for a rczonine: from the PZM District to PS. Public-Semi Public District. Applicant: City of Monticello, Public Works Department. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City of Monticello is seeking approval of a rezoning to allow the construction of an office and garage building on a site across County Highway 39 trom the main Public Works facility. The rezone request would also include the existing Public Works properties/facilities within the area identified on the parcel map. The building would house a front office building as a "Water Meter Shop", with a larger rear portion for storage of equipment and materials for water and sewer maintenance. The proposed building plan shows the Watcr Metcr Shop at approximately 676 square feet, and the storage area as 3,200 square feet. The site is currently zoned PZM. Staff has recommended a change in zoning to P-S, Public-Semi Public to rcflect the governmental use of the City property in the area. In the Puhlic-Semi Public District, "structures necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community" arc allowed as permitted Uscs. To consider a rczoning, the Planning Commission must find that the proposed zoning use is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, generally requiring a finding that the use is compatible with present and future land uses in the neighborhood. The public works representati ves suggest that the design of thc building will not contrast significantly with other buildings and uses in the neighborhood. There are a mix of uses in the area, including residential to the east and south, and utility uses to the west and north. The proposed facility is a steel sided structure with a gable-style asphalt shingle roof. The plans show that a hrick "wainscot" would be provided along the Water Meter Shop, and along the side containing the garage doors. The building is proposed to be of pole-type construction. The site plan appears to meet all requirements of the PS District. To ensure compatibility with the residential areas to the south and east, planning staff would recommend additional landscape plantings along the south and east property lines. Because a future building addition to the south would help future screen the parking and driveway areas, and existing vegetation obscures direct view, small plant materials would be appropriate, allowing time for growth. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to recommend approval of the Rezoning for the Monticello Public Works facility, based on a finding that the use meets the conditions in the zoning ordinance for rezoning, subject to the following condition: Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/04 a. Additional landscape plantings are provided along the east and south property lines to enhance with bufTering from nearby residential uses. . 2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe rezoning, based on a finding that the proposed use is not compatible with the adjoining neighborhood, and does not meet the conditions listed in the zoning ordinance. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as proposed, but with the additional landscape butTer as discussed. Planning staff will prepare a concept sketch illustrating the additional landscaping that we would recommend as a supplement to the existing plan. That plan will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. With this change, the proposal should meet the conditions of the rezoning provisions of the zoning ordinance. SUPPORTING DATA . A. Aerial Image B. Site Location Map C. Site Plan D. Building Plan E. Typical Building Photo F. Public Comment Letter - Westcello Apartments . 2 /.':')~' .', .,"'...., PROPOSED ONE ACRE BUILDING SITE ~ . ~~~" ~~ / 'C 0tJ 4tl'"y .. -....., '" ~ , ~ r INDEPENDENT>" '. SCHOOL DISTRICT .. LOT ..... r OF L.OT B += .. .. Z OF NO. ~I I / 882 4-\Q.~. , I I / ------~-! LOT , ,/ I OF J A I LOT B ....... ... .. .. t OUTLOT 'f' A ~t;~! J :'\ ~-<. ! I --h cc..S 7.. 1: ,J ~ 101'2-04 ~~ S1' e \ \;;,0 C~"'" "O~ ~t)O\1'\" (~r I t'y,.. .......,1 \..Oi \ e\..OC '(... ! [ LOT c "- o "- ,0' ! .::.~I t D-1III::4'J NO.- ,..~ ~.I', . . '~ ~ .I - ---3',9;. -'.'" ''- , " 'I; I I I"' TELE. I " . I.. COMPANY '''J '. I " . . , , . , .... ",>Q 17 I J '^ 2 " ..... .- ,o\-Q , " /6, g:: 3 110;. I I'~~'~';"!' :~~. ..... . '... ~ 3 . .., , . ,~.. . .. " 4 : ,t , "'....,. .. r !s. 0 ~' "- 'S.'h . , '" ....., ~"'~ ...... 0""'" \) ~fA~ : i C" >:; Z (l o o O<fi ~ ,0, I'l ~I (") ""-- -.1 @ [J1, -I N~ o :""-U I'l en :::s }:l Ul :::J z '"' ;;:: :I . r~... I .. I I I ON r' N o < I" @ 0;, 0;0 , n g" }:l Ul :P < I'l ....IN Z+ -I .. ;;o~ :PO ZI'l ~Q2 c! ;;:: z o c Ul -:; -I ;;0 I'l I'l , )<_. _._--~=;:'";.- '. , ;;o=i {-,/ -< c .{'. j fT):;-; -:-Z >0 -<c ~ '--,.~ -=.-,-~ -~ i ~,:~>':. . .~. . . ,.-~ 00; 'OJ < I' @ 0;, OAl , (") g" }:l \ r---------i \ ~.~, , I " , I .(', , ; 1 "i' TJ 1 ".1 c , .I' -I t.-., ' -I C .( " ~ -7\1'1 ) "~I .'~ .;' I (D I IUl ) led 'I'l 1<' ), r)." "I S;:!(" ;ol~ ( A .J, z " ~ J-I I J, 01.:p 1-1 \ ) I :- 21;0 A 'r. , ('R r','-'-A/ i lLL AI 1_., ~_. ~ ",--,.1 fr~( .I ,..( " " , '._i.j'-( i co JO ! ~C ;~ Xi ,., ,i"', v., e, "I. -0 ~ m ~ m z --I (f) m () --I o Z [1 [ Ie (/) ~~~....,. c ~ In---l. ~ () ~ -..J~ '" >0>1;0 , Ei UlO=i1'0 r'l Ul::;! ~ t;: ""U UllJZO :;;u )> rrl 0 r'l "'r- c::;! "'"U O<Ul-p ~ fg (H ...oj 1""'\ ~~zf;~ 0--<0" Z rr1 Z () l.N 1;0:120;>;, ~~:':'i~ in~ :;0 L - ~'" ~ Ul" " UlO 0 o>C C ~ ~ ['1 f'11 ~ ? z ~ ;>;' r'l '" '" 0> 0> o 0 '" '" o 0 3, 8 o o z () ;;0 rrl -I rrl o o c :;0 (j) fll :;0 o )> o I I' -EI~ SE"R,,"jiCE E/\ Nt. I ,,--1-". T1 -': =-. C) I lXtF 5ER"Il:f 1 ~)J: ~ I T I I~ I -,'" ;0 ~ I I ( v "', R l', ) J I~, g I ")C. f."J '{}. "- -J u\ !, VI < D.: rr1 I oJ . '.~.;\\ :,\, ~ f1 I . . . z.~ ,-.. "I ~,\1 ~ 1:\ At 1\', .' i . I .... F" d> Cj~ J:5' :P~~ S,."1 -D"i) '.;) I ~~...~~~- .._ .l._._~__ --- C"\ ;S , " - f'" ".~ 'r '1 i : I": . ~ I ; I , , ; ; ..i , ~ I r , ~ ! ~ ~, "'"r'<.., 0 . ~ ;1:. ~ - rJ1 .~ ~ L ~ l....ooII '. z o ~ ~ trj ~ m < > ~ ~ o --.. Z i. : "-'1<:: V) "'" K, ". ,~ v lJ, .F) _ f'~ ' t..r- ... V1 ..: F! .--. ---.,..-. . I", ..,.__._-~-"'_...". , ":~T---:;r--:-~ :'~~ :~~.=-:-:'.- ,;,.',. . I'~-'''- ; . . , 01.\-" L!, . . .........____._ ~j,. 1. :- ===-_~_.__., ; I '.c...... ._,..-:-'__ ~ \ ' . -- ,.._~---~~~._,-- .' . --L,....,---.-..-. i ' 'I' i ~~.. ; i D--~...: , I ~ .,._ 1. I . \! ! ,I r--n .. \ i : D ::':.~':~~ I ! l! ~".':~' . ...~_. \.\ --,-_..., ..-.--..-,-- : -".__..~._.._--'''' . --.--,,-,,---.". ~,-.-.--..~".. . I i,'=:.:.:-:"_~:~:'::::'::, I , -_._~~.- ,Q ,0 i l f "':j i ' ! -- - ~ >- ~ tr'j ~ ~ ~ 10 (/) ::c: 1-0 ~ ~ r:..n. tI1 ~ Residential Property Management for Institutional & Individual Investors . D September 24, 2004 City Council of Monticello Monticello City Hall 505 Walnut Street, Suite #1 Monticello, MN 55362 c RE: Public Hearing Rezoning Request by City of MonticeJlo Public Works 909 and 918 Golf Course Road Dear City Council Members: I understand that the City of Monticello Public Works is requesting a zoning change so that it can expand its existing Public Works facility. As the immediate neighbor to the north of the City's Public Works facility - Westcello Apartments-I applaud and approve the City's request to expand. My reasons are simple. First, the Public Works facility has been and is kept clean and neat all the time. Nine years ago, when the City tried to sneak the expansion of the Public Works facility through, I was not happy with the City's actions. The City Public Works at this site had not kept clean. In the ensuing years, what I have found is that the Monticello Public Works facility has been a very responsible neighbor! . Second, the screening to block the Public Works Facility, done via fencing and trees, has blocked the view and noise of the facility. Ifthe same is done with the new expansion on both sides of the street, I believe no neighbor will have a problem. Last, the City has John Simola as the director of Public Works. John's word is a contract. If John says that the facility will be kept neat, it will. In this day where everything must be written down it is encouraging to deal with honest people such as John. You have a class act running the Public Works Department. If he is around, I know the City will be very proud of its facility and know that its employees work hard, work honestly and really care about what they do. To conclude, Westcello Apartments does not object to the expan~ion of the City Public Work,,_ We support the expansion of the Public Works adjacent to us and across the street. We know that our good neighbor will continue to do an exemplary job. Sincerely, CLJ/IL A<c PROPERTIES, INC. ~E. 18th Street Minneapolis, MN 55403 Office: (612) 870-7503 FAX: (612) 870-0289 Chris Holm, General Partner Westcello Apartments 915,917,919 and 921 Golf Course Road r:;:::---.-.....-.--.-"-..--..-- '..-.." ..... ....- -.,."-- irl'~. l~ [~ I~ ~ WI [E . .::-I~ !: 'J r...---..-..-----, i p"'. I . !"'\'" - " \ I . ) I!!Y S E P 2 7 2004 :; ~j j ll" ". r'~..1 1'\ \ ~--;;~"~..~.i ;:;r7T7;:::'"i'::"-L1 .- I __~~_~~.~,~ ...\'".L! :..._...... ~':,~. ~:_:, .:.. \~ .,. ! ".~..~..~.~~~~_l., V ~ . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/04 9. Public Hearine:: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Usc Pcrmit for a to-unit residential Conccpt Stae:e PUD and request to rezonc from PZM to R-2, Sine:le and Two-Familv Residential. Applicant: .Jen- Tor Construction. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Land U'le The appl icant is seeking concept stage PU D approval of a I O-unit townhouse project on property in the original plat area along 4th Street and Palm Street. The project straddles the un built Palm Street. A part of the project relies on the vacation of the Palm Street right-of-way. To accommodate the project, a rezoning from PZM to R-2 would ensure that only residential uses are located in the units. At ten units, the gross density of the project is approximately six units per acre. The neighborhood includes commercial and higher density residential property to the east, and predominantly single family uses to the west. It should be noted that the City may require compensation for the vacation of the Palm Street right-of-way, consistent with the standard policy for such vacations in the original plat. The level of compensation may depend on the caliber of the devclopment. ,)'ite Plan Layout The site plan provides for a single private driveway that splits the property, providing access to three unit clusters on the east and west, and a terminal four unit cluster at the south end of the parcel. The plan refleets a number of the recommendations provided by planning staff to the applicant's sketch plan, which included several additional units. Building setbacks would be at least thirty feet (or more) from the street and thirty feet to the rear of each unit. The southern building cluster provides side setbacks of 10 feet to adjoining property, and a thirty foot setback to the rear. Each unit includes a two-car garage and driveway adequate to accommodate the parking of two additional vehicles, and more visitor parking is avai lable. LandscapinK/Bu/fe ring The concept plan is not specific as to proposed landscaping. Clusters of vegetation are shown on the plan, but appear to be primarily for illustration purposes. If the project proceeds to Development Stage pun, a more detailed and intensive landscaping plan will be required. Planning staff would suggest that landscaping is utilized to provide fix privacy and screening around rear patio and/or deck areas, in addition to creating a positive public entry along 4th Street. Planning Commission Agenda -- 10/05/04 Building Design . The plans provide an illustration of the proposed buildings in the project. Each unit is approximately 1,000 square feet per floor, with a split-entry design. While planning stafJ believes that the site plan has provided for a land use and layout that is reasonably compatible with the neighhorhood, split-entry housing is inconsistent with the pattern in the neighborhood. Planning staff would strongly recommend full two~ story units with more traditional detailing. Such a change would reflect the development pattern in the area, and help to ensure that the project meets the intent of the PUD ordinffilce - a design that includes a higher level of design and amenities so as to justify the use ofPUD f1exibility. Without PUD, the development capacity of this site would be just 6 units and require construction of a full public street. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Jen- Tor Construction 1. Motion to recommend approval of the 10-unit townhouse concept plan, based on a finding that the land use ffild site plan appear to meet the intent of the City's PUD ordinance, with the condition that Development Stage PUD plans provide additional landscaping consistent with the comments in this report, and with the condition that the housing style is re-designed to provide for a more traditional two story housing style, rather than the split-entry concept shown in this application. . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept stage PUD, based on a finding that the vacation of the Palm Street right of way and the proposed land use are not consistent with the land use goals of the City. Decision 2: Rezoning of the subject property from PZM to R-2 I. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning, based on a finding that the residential zoning district best ref1ects the City's land use objectives in this neighborhood. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that the PZM district provides for the best future land use in this area due to proximity to the downtown business district. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends approval of the Concept Stage PUD, only with the conditions on landscaping and building design noted in this report. As discussed, the split-entry housing style is not consistent with the traditional housing more common in this area 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/04 . of Monticello. The PU [) ordinance requires a finding that where flexibility is granted, development design and amenities must exceed the standard zoning regulations. In this case, the PUD (and the vacation) could permit an increase in density by about two thirds over a standard subdivision with public streets. One way for the City to leverage this benefit is in the building design and site improvements. With regard to the rezoning, planning staff would recommend tabling action until a more detailed plan is provided. If a townhouse project proceeds on this site, a rezoning to R-2 would be appropriate to ensure that no non-residential land uses are introduced into the project. SUPPORTING DATA A. Applicant L,etter B. Site Location Map C. Aerial Images D. Site Plan/Building Plan . . 3 . 'I&,~ ~~ I... .. ~fI"~'" -- .''''-r....\. ," _ .;: I(~~ i ,. U.,u \, _ iI " ..._._11 .. ,. 4!" --' ~i~1 . " "--'--'-- ._.JIe:.IiIS1Iofi,l!(ct~8m: NO 1..C#29311 M\I LC~ ~Jc Jen- Tor Construction, lie. P.O. BOX 1604 Monticello, Minn. 55362 Phone: 612-366-0913 Fax: 763-263-6590 E-mail mike@jen-tor.com September 13, 2004 Community Development Department 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, Minn. 55362 . Dear, Community Development Staff This concept plan involves 224 E. 4th St., 300 E. 4th St. and what would be considered Palm St. road right of way. I have noticed the considerable amount of work that is being done to the west side of Hwy 25. Although to the average person it could be construed as scattered, I can see that by improving some ofthese properties and structures have improved some of the other properties way of living. I would like to continue that plan by bringing it to the East side of Hwy. 25. I understand that the style home "split" is not the most desirable, but I believe that it would be welcomed if the facade were correct. My main focus in this project is to green the area up, as is yours I am sure. Please review these plans with an open imagination. I would like to be a part of bringing Monticello into a new era. Using old to create new is what we at Jen-Tor Construction thrive on and we would love to be a part ofthis project. If you have any questions, please contact Mike @ 612-366-0913 or mike@jen- tor.com . /". j' i 1 " Sincerely, .,/ /~t .,' 1./ , /; , 011 ~J; y:<-T----- Michael P. Haught Owner . )1- lVlontlcello . I MONT aTY HAIL 11 I 1/2 MILE cirY HALL PHONE . ctIY HALL FAX ~ I o 1/4 MI LE , .. ,-- .. . -- ... ADDRESS: 505 wALNtJr SI'REEI'. SUITEi, . MONiIryr.1 n, MN 553 '.' ---'-... HUr:JlC'J: 8:00 AM - ~ : : /: - ----PimUCWORKSPHO~ PUBUCWORKSFAX , I :';" r~:i f~ ~ 1? 1 :~. .- . ,e: 'iol_.... ." ..1 ". 0, -" - - - - - - - .. - - ...::x:a...._ - -.,..0;0..,..- - ~ - - - - - - "1 r-:.,,;\:.~~. ' '~~Jt;> ~ . .. . .1 '. . .'. -. ~ ~ "" . ' . ~\ . .' ,,",'.' "~~ l~"'_/ . ...., ~"\' . . . ..,' -~..~~ , , '( t;~, '.' '-:. '.' " '.' '~~ - ' . .' '~'.<-' I ~ ~. ~~~) ,\ . . " : . V , ~\', ,'. ", '~'. @) I ~.1 ""':-6' .~': ." ... n~). . ~ , c1;\.... ..k \:JT , . 01 ~~I , '0'1 I.: fif- ~.." 'I' ~ . ~ \.!j.. ~- '< ' .~J' , 4 ~.~ .;j , ~.. ; J' . ~;..-. . .. . .(:,..-: ..... '.. - ~.. ------ - - - - - .--...,-. - 1"5'.:" '. ,.' --. I'~..."'.' t..... ,...:, , r:~;' , 1C0 f. 0, .I~, 6:,"\ (,\\ h\ '. "\ '8 ~)'~.J .. r.--~' l\.,....;,"\ . .....:.:~.,~~, .. '~..11j-.....,. ~~....- . ,.," ".\ ':......:...:.'. . . @....fi-. 1'7\. ';~ .~ ~ " J ~ \fl .. .. '" " .J f,;.':":\ I ,".\~~~I \ ~.~l:" ~~:f'" .. .. ~.l\~\.>.> -~ " .. !(~ f .JI \\ ,@~, . . !. - . -~.----=-...:-- -1t~-- E38B litO lbt .'~ Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/04 10. Public Hcarin J: Consideration of an amcndment to thc Monticello Zonin Ordinance allowin 0 en and Outdoor Stora c. A licant: Monticello Plannimr Commission. (Staff) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Planning staff will be preparing a recommendation for a proposed ordinance amendment regarding open and outdoor storage. The proposed amendment will be based on the following supporting documentation: 1. Images previously obtained relating to code enforcement issues 2. Examples of other municipal ordinances for open and outdoor storage 3. Staff and Planning Commission discussion. The amendment recommendation will rclate specifically to open and outdoor storage in commercial and industrial areas. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to table the request for an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regarding Open and Outdoor Storage, pending the submission of a staff recommendation and supporting data. 2. Motion as determined by the Planning Commission. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends tabling this item to the November meeting. Tabling of this item will not impact the Wallboard, Inc. request. Wallboard, Inc.'s request will be reviewed under the terms of the current ordinance. SUPPORTING DATA None. .- - 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/04 11. Public Hearine: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storaec in the 1-2 zonine district. Applicant: Wallboard, Inc. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to expand the outdoor storage area as a part of its occupancy of the former Standard Iron building along Dundas Road in the 1-2 zoning district. Outdoor Storage is allowed by CUP, subject to the following conditions: 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. The plan shows storage area to be paved with bituminous surfacing throughout the rear (north) and side (east) portions of the property. A line of trees is shown along the north and east property lines, and a chain link fence separates the area from the front portion of the site. The plan appears to comply with the zoning regulations generally, however planning staff would recommend the addition of Spruce Trees along the fence line east of the building, and along the side propeliy line toward the rear. These trees should be spaces approximately 12 feet on center. This recommendation would require the addition of approximately 15 trees, and would ensure that the screening requirements are properly met. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage in an 1-2 zoning district. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/04 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that the use meets the conditions of the zoning ordinance, subject to the following requirements: - a. Addition of 15-20 Spruce Trees, spaced 12 feet on center, along the fence line east ofthe building, and along the side property line toward the rear, to complete the screening requirements. 2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that the use is inconstant with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends approval of the CUP. The use is allowed in the district, subject to specific conditions. With the requirements added to the site plan as noted above, the use should meet the intent of the zoning ordinance. SUPPORTING DATA . A B. Site Location map Site Plan . 2 '~ v KJEI..UIERG'S MllIllLE IO'IE PARk lEAST! - ~ '" '" ",....- i '-' ~ ;;: "- ..; :z .1':. 85th STREET I\A ~ ~ > , ~!: I I ~ ~ , ~ . . ---- i I I I I I I I I ~ ~ff ~ JI 40 I 4) I I ! i I R I ~ q '" ~ I I a !__~ I I --"-T- I I I I I I 40 4 ;~~:- 6~iii ~Q~ ; I ~ ~ ~I /' '- ~ co I!J . -. ""AlN""" tASf""NT . '-"'tftb'IN(;, ~~ i;~ ;~ -< '--:'~f"tJ '_._-~'-~--'.__._--.............~ ~"""', ' . ct.;" ---- 11 '- " -~ -- CO\C'. WALL', PARKIM;J.' , ' ~'~' / , ~'~ :~' .----/ ", . 'J ' . 9, . ~} . u;; ~3 ,~ uQ..Q) -...-,~ '" _.o~ ~ l...... '" {^ ~ De,. Or! !r . . Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 12. Public Hcarine: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Concept Staee Planned Unit Development for a 41 unit townhome project in the PZM district. Applicant: UP Development. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking a Concept Stage PUD approval for a 41 unit townhouse project. The current plan shows 30 detached units and 11 attached units. Prior to this submission. the applicants had originally presented a concept plan for City review which consisted of detached townhome units on the site of approximately 6.7 acrcs, formerly a part of the Ruff Auto property. The site is bounded by 6th Street on the north and Elm Street on the west, and abuts the Vine Place townhomes on the east. An extension of the public 6 Yz Street will be required through the property between the Vine Place project and Elm Street. The applicants have made revisions to their previous plans. This is the second revision. As noted, some concerns remain. As a new type ofproject, the City needs to balance the benefits of the added variety in housing choice with the ability to anticipate future development design issues. The primary difference between this project and other townhouse projects is the use of an "alley" design with virtually no garage setback from the alley, and reliance on a consolidated open space that serves as the "front yard" for a number of the units. The changcs to this plan from previous versions includc the following: a. The central open space has been expanded and extends the full length of the site, rather than being cut off by rows of units on the north side. b. The dctached buildings have been moved slightly farther apart to provide f()r the possibility of temporary parking on one side of the alley. The alley itself is listed at 28 feet in width - a dimension sometimes used in the housing industry for two-way traffic and parking on one side. c. To provide for the additional open space mId wider detached building spacing, 11 of the units on the east side of the project are shown in 3 and 4.unit attached clusters Three issues were raised with the original project design that are summarized below, with comments on how the revisions affect those issues. I. Alley-loaded townhouses leave no driveway space in front of individual unit garages. This design creates questions relating to parking accessibility, convenience of access to individual units, and turning/backing movements trom the garages to the alleyway. This design, though new to Monticello, appears to work well where it has been Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 ..-.. applied based on interviews with residents ofthe development in Brooklyn Park. ..... The applicants hold to this design based on a lifestyle choice to be made by their future residents. Their concept relies on a unit design that discourages driveway parking, which results in a cleaner look to the alley. In an attempt to accommodate staff comments, they have added space within the alley areas for temporary visitor vehicle parking. Staff is not certain that the addition of these parking areas is consistent with the goal of maintaining a "clean" look in the alleys. Staff would note that a small parking bay has been provided in the south portion of the project, and similar such bay should be added to the north so that visitors to the site do not have far to walk from parking to a residence. 2. The PUD concept plan and unit design is intended to create a central "village green" onto which the units have their front, or public, exposure, with back alleys and garages hidden from public view. However, much of the project does not have exposure to this area, and most public or visitor exposure would be to the rear of the units, not the green space. . The design has been modified from previous versions to create a terminal open space with either pond or lawn and landscaping with views from 6 Yz Street in both directions. This change is positive from previous versions of the design. It is still noted, however, that fewer than half of the detached units have exposure to the central green. In addition, to accommodate the additional space, the row of units along Elm Street appear to be just 20 feet from the street where a 30 foot setback is required. These units have no exposure to the common green "front yard", and their fronts are now reduced to a 20 foot distance from the street. 3. Staff had proposed an alternative concept that mixed detached and attached units in an attempt to add some variation to the building spacing, keep the unit count up to accommodate the developer's objectives, and vary the building style. The revised plan includes 30 detached units and 11 attached units in the east portion of the project site. In the current design, the attached units serve as a sort of transition from the attached townhouses to the east, and the detached townhouses to the west. Of concern, however, is that the end units in each of the four-unit clusters will have accessibility issues - the sharp angles prohibit backing out of the driveways in a reasonable manner. StaiY continues to have concerns that the use of PUD in this design merely results in a denser project without the benefIts of open space preservation. When pun is used to lessen the zoning standards, the City's ordinance requires that a specific, tangible benefIt results from that flexibility. The common open space shown on the plan is accessible or visible to only about half of the units in the project and to accommodate . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 the largcr space, setbacks for units on Elm (which have no exposure to the common green) have been moved to about 20 feet from the street. Planning staff believes that the pursuit of alternative housing opportunities will lead to a richer housing environment for the City, and as such, believes that the concept has merit. Planning staff acknowledges that the dimensions and configuration of the property make it difficult to accomplish all of the following: (I) achieve the developer's density objectives; (2) retain the standard building plan he proposes; and (3) provide view and access to a significant open space worthy of the PU D requirements. However, this contlict should not result in abandonment ofthe PUD purpose. Instead, the unit style should be changed, or the unit count should be reduced (or both) to fit the dictates of the site, rather than the other way around. It is further noted that a number of issues have been raised with regard to development materials and quality that may be important to discuss before Development Stage PUD plans are prepared. The developer's other project in Brooklyn Park has "hardi-plank" siding that is painted to provide a durable, but variable finished look. The applicant has suggested that they expect to change to a vinyl siding in this project. Secondly, the Brooklyn Park project docs not include curbing along the alley - Monticello's standards would require curbing in this area, and staff recommends it to control traffic and drainage. . Finally, the Brooklyn Park project utilizes an "inverted crown" drainage design in the alleys, flowing stormwatcr to the center ofthe alley, rather to a perimeter curb. This type of design is not recommended by the City Engineer. As noted previously, planning staff believes that this project would be appropriate with just 30 to 35 of the units proposed by the developer, with the narrow alley design as proposed, an open space of impressive and attractive proportions could be accommodated, thus justifying the PUD flexibility. Alternative Actions Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stage PUD for UP Development. 1. Approval of the Concept Stage PUD, based on a finding that the applicant has proposed a superior project in design and amenities, justifying the use and flexibility ofPUD for this site. This recommendation would be subject to comments relating to engineering and public works issues to be addressed at the Development Stage PUD application. 2. Denial ofthe Concept Stage PUD, based on a finding that the project does not exhibit the required level of design and amenities required for application of PUD flexibility. . 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/04 3. Approval of a Concept Stage PUD that reduces the number of units to 30* 35, with each unit having exposure on a greatly enlarged common green space. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends either of Alternatives 2 or 3. The project, as designed, does not appear to fit the site, and keep the intent of the use ofPUD in place. While the applicant has made significant modifications to the plan, several issues with the project remain, and the PUD zoning technique is intended to ensure that superior projects result from the flexibility granted to the design. There is a definite value in encouraging alternative housing styles in the community. The proposed units have a traditional look and would complement the City's residential stock in this area, both in terms of variety and architectural appeal. Although the zero-setback alley design raises concerns for some, the aggregation of common open space to be shared by all of the residents of the project could become a valuable amenity. The problem encountered on this site, as noted above, is that the design does not accomplish that goal for most of the units. While planning staff believes that the variation in housing style could be an attractive addition to the City's housing variety, the design as proposed appears to be too dense to accomplish the goals of the City and the Comprehensive Plan. As a result, planning staff believes that the detached units would need to be reduced to about 30- 35 units. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Location Map B. Site Sketch C. Brooklyn Park Project Images 4 jl ,~A ~ o ;1 fill MILE I 1/2 MI L.~. , , ~> ~i j: It; 11:" ~t:: 4:: -":,,,., ~~ -::e: :::"',j ~~'! ~~,:,: -.", , ;t..~,. - -.- 1~~'~ z,:.: ~h.,., 1~': ~,~",.' : :r"" ~~: ~".,: ~.., :i.,." ~:::~ -........ t\J . . - .. .~ ... Ib.... '" m ~ \ /~d / . 13. Planning Commission Agenda _ 10/05/04 Dest for a Mixed Use REFERENCE AND BACKGROVNJ) Insignja Development has requested Concept Stage PUD approval of a mixed use development upon a 230 acre site located soutb of 90" Street Northeast on the West side of the City. The subject site is presently zoned A-O, Agricultural Open Space. The site is gnjded as proposed for a mixed-use development. The proposal includes a mixture of single lamily resideotial lots, tOWllhomes and apartmeots totaliog 705 units. Additionany, 20 acres of commercial use has also beeo proposed. To accommodate the propose mixture of uses, the processing ofa planned unit deVelopment is necessary. . Planned Unit Development. As previously indicated, tbe processing of a plaoned uoit deVelopmeot (PUD) is necessary to aCcommodate multiple buildings upon the subject property In coosidering requests for planned unit development, it is important that tbe City apply the purpose oftbe Planned Uoit Development approach _ anowing fleXibility from certain zoning standards to achieve a higher quality project than What Would otherwise be achieved through conventional zoning. Examples of quantifiable PUll desigo attributes are SUperior building quality, additional open space preservation, and extraordinary landscaping details. Whether or not the purpose ofPUD has been acbieved with this Particular project win become more evident as more detailed project infonnatioo is submitted. Land Uses. As previOUSly indicated, the development proposal calls for a mixture of residential units including standard single family lots, detached, single family lots, towohomes and apartments. Additionany, two commercial lots have been proposed along 90'" Street. The fonOwing is a breakdown of the various proposed land Uses: . ----._--~------------._----- - Unit Type/V se Standard Sin Ie Family Residential Detached Single Family Residential (Sl~ots) Townhouse ------- A artment ---- Commercial Park Misc. / Outlot Total ~ ~~ Planning Commission Agenda -_ 10/05/04 Area 98 Acres 25 Acres ---._-~ Vnits 158 69 Generally speaking, the proposed allocation and arrangement of laod Uses is considered generally acceptable. The City will require the submission of a proposed phasing plan lor !be development at !be time of development stage application. ~-------........~~ -----._---,- 21 Acres 178 ~- ~~-------~-- 18 Acres 300 -------w---- --~ ----------------- 44 Acres N A 4 Acres NA ---------~ 230 Acres 70S One coocern which does exist however, reJates to an existing excavatiog busioess Jocated wi!bin the easterly commerciaJ parcel. Such Use is not considered consistent wi!b the long term Jand use objectives for !be area. Thus, questions exist regarding its eventual relocation. This issue should be addressed by the appJicant . Zoning. As part of future processing, !be site should be rezoned from A-O, AgricnlturaJ Open Space to !be various residential and commercial zoning districts which correspond to the USe locations depicted on !be concept plan. Access. Primary aCcess to !be site is proposed via a westerll extension of School Boulevard (a collector street) and from two points along 90" Street. Future street extension opPortunities have aJsn been provided tn!be snu!b and west. The acceptability nf the access pnints shouJd be subject to enmment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Streets / Circulatinn. The proposed deveJopment inclUdes variety of features whicb influence site circulatinn. These inclUde Jimited site access (along School Boulevard), n centrally located transmission line ea,ement, wetlands and the variety ofJand Uses. Recognizing !be existence of!bese activities, a well-conceived pJan lor site circulation is bo!b very important and very Challenging. In regard to streetslcircuJation, !be following concems exist: Commercial Street Within the easterly most commerciaJ Jot (along 90" Street), a street stub has been proposed Irom the West. The Jocation of such a street raises concern as its extension will resolt in limited lot depths for flanking commercial lots. Lots within the area will average only 80 to 90 feet in depth, very limited fi)f typical commercial Uses. With this in mind, consideration should be given to providing a "single Joaded" street configuration (or other alternative configuration). 2 Planning Commission Agenda - lO/05/04 . Northerly Park Access. Another street-related concern involves the intersection of School Boulevard and the northerly park access drive. Of particular concern is the interrupted traffic movement that residents traveling from School Boulevard to the northeast neighborhood will have to encounter near the northerly park access. It is recommended that the public street be reconfigured as an uninterrupted route (with the park access tying into such street). Blocks. Lot II includes 5 single family lots. It is believed Blocks 10 and 1 I could be combined. Such combination would lessen the amount of impervious surface within the subdivision without compromising project design. Lots. Specific lot size information has not been provided. As a condition ofPUD Development Stage approval, all lots should satisry the minimum requirements of the applicable zoning district. In regard to lots the following additional comments are offered: Transmission Line Lot. Uncertainty exists in regard to the use of the lot located between Schoo I Boulevard and Lot 1, Block 13. This should be dari fied. Lots 17 and 18, Block 5. Lots 17 and 18, Block 5 exist as "flag lots" and are provided only 20 feet of public street frontage. These lots should be reconfigured to meet the minimum lot width requirements of the ordinance. An alternative for the City to consider would be the use of the PUD flexibility to allow for modified lot widths in exchange for larger, R-IA designs in the portion of the project area. The applicants would need to demonstrate how this flexibility would be used to increase the size and value of homes in the neighborhood. 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 family homes ,md 2.5 units for attached housing is used. Using this formula, a total of28.8 acres of park land should be dedicated as calculated below: Lots 1 and 3, Block 15. One area of potential land use conflict however, is in the extreme northeast corner oflhe site where the side yards of two single family residences (Lots I and 3, Block 15) border commercial uses. In review of existing site topography, it appears that Lot I is situated in a relatively low area. With this in mind, consideration should be given to replacing the lot with a ponding area. Such feature would both fulfill a buffering function and visually enhance what is expected to be a high volume intersection. If Lot 1 is to be retained, it is important that appropriate screening be provided. . . ^' -, . Unit~ Planning Commission Agenda _ 10/05/04 Single family Homes* Attached Housin -~---------- Total ~- ~~ Numbcr Of Persons Per Total Perso Units Household ~ ---- 405 3.5 per unit 1,418 ~ - g 300 2.5 per unit 750 ~ - ~ -- ns Acres Required (1 pcr 75 ersons) -- 18.9 ~ * Includes Townhomes ------ 10.0 28.8 As shOwn on the concept plan, a 44 acre park has been proposed in the central area of the site. The majority of the park land however, lies within the transmission line easemcnt. The amOUnt of park land, excusive of the transmission line ea,ement, be clarified. According to the subdivision ordinance, the City will not give park dcdication credit l;,r land encumbered by utility easemcnts. The City may at its discretion however, accept such laud if it deems the dedication to be of public benefit. As noted, it has not been indicated how much of the 44 acre park lies within the easement area. . Generally speaking, thc Use of the easement area as parking area for adjacent park activities appears to be a logical Use of the land. The City should however, detemine if land within the transmission line easement may be put tOward the requircd land dedication. The park area includes four soccer fields, three baseball fields, a playground, a tot lot, a concessions bUilding and an olf-street parking area. The acceptability of the proposed park improvements should be subject to comment and recommendation by the Park Commission. Some preliminary Park Commission COmments include the need to move the active playfield uses off of the POWer line easements, since the City does oot have assurance that the utility will not need to remove the park facilities or add POwer transmission equipment. In addition, the Park Commission is seeking a design which will accommodate at least four fields of each type to be able to accommodate toumament play. The size of the fields should be enlarged as well. Soccer/football should be sized to match interoational standards and the home platc--to-fence distance on the bascbal1 fields should be increased per the Parks Commission recommendation. To facilitate these changes, it would appear the fields could be movcd away from the pOWer line easement in each direction, moving the residential area to the northeast, and School Boulevard to the southwest. Planning staff has suggested that maintaining the park edge alung School Boulevard will have a significant value to the community in terms of open space views and interruption of the continuous roof-top impression of large subdivisions. 4 . Trail Issues. As sbown on tbe concept plan, a series of trails bave been proposed throngbout tbe site. Wbile well-intended, Some concern exists regarding tbe trailway proposed within tbe interior of Blocks 6 and 8. Of parti c ular concern. is a feeling of neigbborbood "intrnsion" the trail User may bave being in sucb close proximity to tbe adjacent rear lot areas. Tbe inclusion ofsucb trail link may wish to be recoosidered. Planning Commission Agenda ~ 10/05/04 The concept plan illustrates a berm on the south side of soccer liclds I and 2. Wbile this is considered desirable for ball Containment aod general buffering purposes, it is believed a Scbool Boulevard trail crossing sbould be considered between tbe two fields in alignment with the nearby T-intersection. Trail-related issnes sbould be subject to comment by the Park Commission Setbacks. While the PUD may allow interior setback fleXibi/ities, periphery structure setback requirements of the base district are considered applicable. Tbis issne is of particular concern with the townbouse areas adjacent to the West side of School Boulevard. It appears that the garage fronts in tbis design are jnst 50 feet apart. Tbe City requires at least 80 feet for private streets. and prefers a moditied public street design which includes a 52 foot street right of way and 25 foot setbacks. . Tbis issne, as witb all lot size and setback issues, will be addressed in further detail at the PUD development Plan stage. Building Architecture / Design. As a PUD, the City has tbe ability to impose design related conditions. As Part of the PUD Development Stage snbmission, building elevations oftbe variolLs bUilding types (excepting tbose upon the standard single family lots) should be provided. Off-Street Parking. A detennination of off-street parking requirements for the commercial Uses will be conducted at sucb time when derailed plans are available for reVIew. Landscaping. As a condition of Development Stage PUD approval, a landscape plan must be subm;tted. Such plan should indicate the location, size and variety of all site plantings. It is furtber suggested that the applicant consider a landscape feature at the intersection of90~ Street and School Boulevard. As presently desigued, School Boulevard is to be a modified parkway of sorts being flanked by park / open space on the east side. The extension of tbis "green way" feature to the north (to 90~ Street) would be considered a positive deVelopment feature giving passersby an feeling of the park being extended the entire length of the project. 5 . Sign age. 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. As a PUD, it is also appropriate for plans to be submitted for any planned monument signage. Planning Commission Agenda __ 10/05/04 Wetlands. The subject site includes three wetland areas. Wetland-related issues should be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Grading Drainage and Utilities. As part of the Development Stage PUD, a grading and drainage plan and a utility plan must be submitted. Crrading plans should be accompanied by a tree survey. Such plans will be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision: . I. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUD based on the comments from the staff report for the October 5,2004 Planning Commission meeting and the finding that the concept is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUO based on a finding that the submission of additional plans is necessary to Comply with the requirements of the City. 3. Motion to table action on the Development Stage PUD su~ject to submission of revised plans consistent with approved conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding review, the proposed mixed Use development is considered generally well conceived. Provided the concems cited within this report can be satisfactorily addressed, OUr ollice believes various proposed uses can compatibly exist upon tbe subject property. it is therefore recommended that the fOllowing items be addressed as part of the fi)rthcoming Development Stage PUD submission: I. An application for a rezoning oftbe property, consistent with the proposed uses, he submitted. 2. The applicant address issues associated with the long term viability nfthe existing excavating business Use (within the easterly commercial area). 6 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/04 . 3. The acceptability of the proposed access points shall be subject comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 4. To avoid lot depth concerns, a "single loaded" street configuration (or other alternative configuration) be considered within the easterly commercial parcel. 5. The public street which provides northerly access to the park be reconfigured as an uninterrupted route (with the park access tying into such street). 6. Blocks 10 and 11 be combined into a single block. 7. The use of the lot located between School Boulevard and Lot 1, Block 13 be clarified. 8. Consideration be given to replacing the Lot 1, Block 15 with a ponding area. 9. Lots 17 and 18, Block 5 be reconflgured to meet the minimum lot width requirements of the ordinance, or a PUD rationale is generated that includes a broader area ofR-IA design and lot size flexibility. 10. The amount of park land, exclusive the transmission line easement, be clarified by the applicant, working with staff and the Parks Commission. . 11. The City will determine ifpark land used for parking within the transmission line easement may be put toward the required land dedication. 12. Reconfiguration of the park area to move fIelds off of the power line easement, consistent with the comments in this report. The acceptability of the proposed park improvements and other park and trail related issues be subject to further comment and recommendation by the Park Commission. 13. Preparation of a development stage PUD consistent with the recommendations made by the Parks Commission at the meeting of September 23, 2004. 14. Due to a feeling of neighborhood "intrusion", the inclusion of a trail link within the interior of Blocks 6 and 8 be reconsidered. 15. A School Boulevard trail crossing be considcred betwecn soccer fields 1 and 2 (in alignment with the nearby T-intersection). 16. The arplicant consider the inclusion of a landscape feature at the intersection of 9011 Street and School Boulevard. . 7 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/05/04 . 17. As a condition of Development Stage PUD approval, a landscape plan be submitted. Such plan shall indicate the location, size and variety of all site plantings. 18. All site signage comply with the applicable requirements of the Sign Ordinance. 19. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to wetland issues. 20. 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. 21. Preparation of a development stage PUD that incorporates the 5 acre parcel owned by Jeff Fischer. The Fischer parcel is located along a collector road alignment at the south end of the development site. SUPPORTING DATA . A. Aerial Image B. Site Survey C. Site Plan D. Proposed Use Mix Map E. Long Range Land Use Map F. Parks Commission Minutes G. Public Comment letter - Jeff Fischer H. Site Location Map -.- Fischer Parcel . 8 . . ~v~ vaOI-CaC (ca~) 1:!!.L NI 311;105 ~"'''\.CI OOZ 0 JON3J ..--,-.- ~~o~ lV13rl .. xos 3NOHd31:ll NOIS ~ 310d ~3MOd ". 310HNVrl 0 IvtSS NI'I 'H.LflOI'lJ.1d 'a :WflS 'HJ.1I0N :!IflN:!IAV 'nSI DOtCI .HDS aNY1 aNY DNIH:!!:!!NIDN:!! 1IAIJ 1'1 ''BlOS~UU!WJO Ziu!l~~u!ZiU3 UOSl~PUY ~~ ~r@......: ~/' ~o ~ M.d(S0.69N"= 1I1 NOll.:>3li.:lO ~3alYnb l&all\~~ 2r"............ ."\' ~l~:~~~t.-..r'" JlV~~ltll=r: ~~~~:ykrcS ~" Lr~\"f (P~ 1;I~lnl'ON ':X:I1l1l1cl1It3l'13&1'3::i11n ~/""" Ii~~ NOI5SINlN'f'1Il 01 "D:l1I'r'1I ~'-'OlI.RQv ~- ~~ ~ O"'iJ' - " >~~~. "' ~ >Ii '011 'O~ ~Inr po,op 9~a199Z _!D.lneYI IiIllli JOJ. lUOWllWWOO ,(uDdwoO ."'UDJn8YI tllU IjIo,WM UOlll)lillOlUI lUCliWCliIO. PUD UOndlJ;)Vep ID61j\11.~ 'L -. 'tYOO-tOCO tt~O!l: .ON dow llituod .(\IUnWWOO J.d -.u DCliOp UOCliJCU~ peqlJ;)8ep J.:~.Jlildo.Jd ~I.n ',(luno:) ll.l&l.IM .(:)uoflV lUQIWO&OUD~ ,t;;)uIjIo6JWW3 IDJllt.p~~ Ol 6UlpJOOOV '9 ..PIS _.JDCliij _lUOJ.;l "a::)UDU!.pJO ~~l~~~~ru400o~~o~n o~~:d o~~JOlc;'~~D l~~~.:eOI~;w'~~: :> .l.I~ WO,ij .Itll"'l 6uluOZ D ulDlqo J.UMO J.lJ8dOJ9' 81.n 11 'Mol8q Plj\Il"lI ~lulillw..JJnb"'J 'l10Dq~.. ~ulpllnq "',n SD4 :-doJd lol(qnlll Ij\Il,n 'DII~:Jlluori !O '<~I:) o4~ o~ ~UlPJOO'O'V '~ 'pJn4)j.JDVi 10 DlDP OIJlltWOJDolOl.ld pup .DlQB"'UUI~ ~o tlUIJOOUI&U3 ! D1DP PII'IJ uo pe.Dq Ij\IJD U~"4 UM041- ClJnolUOO 041 '., 'uon:;uVlIlfUO:J .JI) uOllllow,,"P ::)~o8tlll~ut.::I~~~nD~~UU~~~D::~ :~l-,~~;JD~:~~Q:~~~~ "'q Plno41 ..!llllln liD JO UOllgOQI puo Q~uCllal)t'" Clln ~o d .q ,(DW .elllUln punoJD.-pun IOllolllPPY 'OlDWI)(OJddD o ;,q plnoL/C uOllo,,"ol pun "'2:!'I "41 'uollDWJO~ul c14~ .10 :J ,(OOJn:/OD o4l o~ 80 eelUDJOn6 oU 'I ClJClLU '"ouap!^o "UD $"'IUDdUJoo .{lllnn o41 A"q pep,^oJd 1Iil6uIMOJp ~unClI)(Q '\II II '1Iillj\llllUln punoJtlJClpun lO \UO\X8 pu~ uollD"'ol "'''ll " 'IO~D O1r'OCl: F'grOrO~ 1:' uoeJel.( plj\lqJJ"'IjI~p ..(\j",doJd 0\1\ JO D.JD "l.I1 'l: 'life^, ,PUD:J1iIIIil 90 .o~nuJw ;; INJ&.p B8 !MD4 ol p.wnng ~I 4:J1l4M jS~ uOJl:lOS PIDI .10 J.lJOno 4~noS 1.10 p.IIIDq 81 1,J01UIiII4 UMOljllll WOlMI &UIJDOq "I.U. 'l -n OlOllllj\luuU'i ~'or :.\q JIiII9UI6UJ uoe..pu't' ~OOZ '9~ Alnr :po,oO i Ij\IIqDMOjlO 1j\14l palill:)xa lOU 01' ,(OAJnI 84l 1.10 'PDW ...Jnli &14\ WOol! &UnINlOJ cOI~uIDlJg,,"un IDUOllliod 1j\I\.U. '~IW uD..q..iD. UD IrI (U()llO~.:1 .'LR lO g.lDp.~41.-'" :s:)Y pLiD '1'1,.,. ..<q P.ldopD 10) iIIP.JopuolCl ..(:)!:UnQlOD ~ld p~~O !;:tCl,& ;d:~qD;u~O ~:U~l ~ j2~ ~llo~~ ,..a..<~Jns ~llU p~o, riS::>V7VJ.1V JOj. ,~u8WOJlnb8~ "1$ wnwlUlW.. L1llM eouOpJo:;):;)D ul epgw IUIitM paliiloq II ~l.n PUD lDld ...0 dow t:14l lD4l ,(mJ.O' ol II '14J. ul ellL... 06Dol4:) pUO ':)" ~llJClwdol~OQ DJU611UI oJ. :NOI1 YOLJI1~JO 'Olot:~UUI~ '.(lunoo ll.lDIJM 'jOeJlj\ll.ll ,(liIt\,.1rlS lLlIjllWUJ,,^oO IQ.:)OO l&UIlDUIWJD\ ItJ.l.(l ltul:I PIDIi PUD ~liIpl)no la~M4lnos ~nD5 1i114l 10 ~.ClJ "l'tpn- \llnos PIDI 10 ~uU l1l.JOu 1i114l 0\ -"IP D 'UIjIII i1plJooot: Ot t:~lnulw tr ...Jliiep 08 61J1l"'lj\IlIljIIp :-ql.):Jfjlap aq ol OlJlI PIDCI .10 DUIUUI&_q -loll ol lltltj 00'['['& !lj\IlJDIlO lfjllj\lMIHnoS "'41 JO J.l.JDno l..Ml.nnOs PIDIII 10 Ij\IUII "DIt ~OUfil\fl l"lJono It:'''M4lnoS 8\1l JO JelJDno llltMl.(lnos 8It1l'l.IlhOIjl ~4l lO 6ul~uowwoO :aMolloJ ID peQlJO'lIIfi1p Ij\IUII '. filCh"O~ ILU dI4QUMO,J. 'Sl uonoes .10 JIjIIlJDntl l8fi1MI.ll/'lQS llltM4lnos 1j114\ 10 lalill H....tt 4lnoc DLIl :ld3:JX3 ONY ::q JO lLlIQd &l4l ol lOGj. ~rgz::r JO .OUD18'P D 'ItUII 4lnos ~!;!"ll !Jo}Jnno lClQM4lnoS .4~ jO J8lJDno lSDel.lvoN 1jt4l ~o III l.nnos PI!)$ 01 lClCll 90.Z9t JO OOUDltilP 0 '1.1., iipUO:)IlI$ -"J6"p ~.L 6uIl:;)litl}ap ..(1-'1iII1C"'M',nnos a:lUIDl.ll :lOClj go'~~ JQ ItM4lnos 1j\14l 10 J~lJonO ltlDOLllJON "loll JO llDH 4lJON lj\I\f:l M IltllDJDd l$liIM. CloUQLA :lOOj. Z::Sniitz: )0 .;)UO\8IP 0 ~1.l61J !..! If. SIi\I8JDwp ot CUll09uap lllClM41JON OOUClIU :P;'QIJ:'JI88P ul&oq jO lUjOd .4l Ol llil~ LO'eel JO OOUDlClIP D JOlJOnt) JDnt> lCDal.llJoN 1t1.t1 JO JIDH I.IlJON PIO$! ~o ljIIulI 41nos oLll :J.lJDnt) llJ8Ml.nnOs Ij\II.I] JO Jlj\Il..nno "'9D~4lJON "4l ~o JIDH o~ .~.~~~41~~S ~:~!. ~~, ~~I\)~~~~?? j~:$~~I,I~L!O ,fO~~?~~f 133.:1 I OOO~ I 009 I 001' :S:llON S :~ J~M \ ~I NOLl::l3S . ....:J i,~'NOO' 0310VOO: . \//~ N ~J~f!S,/~d~ ~~. ,:"::.",,~~ I .r;f:- w.., - --:- _~_:!r~~~:J1f--r;;~)~------~N~----~!>~, [ 'i~]fC ~~;J .~ ~}) ::i::;'-::~O\~d'O ~C --I~ \ -!~f$L ~ ,J Il : 0\ \ (j[t;~~ ;' ~~ " .~ ,A: ,<-'~,~~ ~ ." I '7fr {;~>Ii,~~~~ ~\\ V. I I \ 7f~~ ~:::c: :..- ..". 8% c: I :P ,~I V /Jl(ir~/~;::- :::8~~~/,;:;~ J r :P ~~~}J.~ ~'~ - ~ 2\ i,"l I j' ~~ :) . )H ~~nl; -~ JWf(" 0 //:<:~",,,",?;\y ~ # /v/~~ ~k ""01 "Oi,....",,- 2 \r;' I~/~r~;; < -- - - - - - ~~ \\{ 1tc \-~.0~~ d .:~I~.\~~ .W~\\\ D~'.~ -:~, :.; ~ --~ ~ lJ: Q::" ~'''''1- ., "F o' ;:;-: &fil ~ ,- 0Y-: ,,' "if: _ - nOl M.OI,So.a9N/-::- ~oo~~ \ ~ ~~~_:'f_:~;9~)~crn~~ )lLLd~.'"'1 A 'f ~~~, ~ 1-~OI,~o.!9JNM~\((V~~~0 ~ ~ ~. ,~~S~ ~'\ .~ "_ "f ~~~l"" ) ~'" __! ' ~~~. I':l - )lO"~' ~ !"c }"~ I, \ ~j/..) jtrr~9''I' ~.". j j ~ ''''D' 7::' If'" ~: ^ ~.. ~...d yf~~: -// S);" , '7~ - ~ ~~ - - -~ ____1....___. rl ~ )ff?(' ~V~01 ~ ~:L; ~~~) ~ /0) 7.".b.~~.. 'i. ~ ~')J/~~ ~h ~~~p ~ ~~ :..-- ,/~O'B'!! 2:<1 ~y: ~ v~.~. \V ~,), '-h~ ~'-....~ \"~ ~ :::-"-. v~/t l/fJ(.' ,(~ ' i" ,:S ~ f'; ~1l~ ~~ "'" '-~/>~ ~ ??c!:;ii?!;);7t I Y d ~~ ~ ):.~ ( ( ""j1I} ~ '10 ~".-;;: '/&,: ~~~ "~\\~'~'" If ~ :/Jllf/1 ;I~/tf;) ... I),,~~"~r/'){o.~~~~~~' a', mJ ~~~o n~~_ \ ~~ '-:~)~,,~ <q,;,,5>" #3 0 "'. # :'r'" n ,---.;. "~~.... 0%.4\~" ~~ .<<> "~ AI ..~o lNY~<l'H <;> NO~I ONnoJ. 3311l 0 xos Ollll~m III NO~I 135 . l~~lno lN3rlnNON ).J.Nno~ ONnoJ. NISYB H~l YO . \ 1 V I "1 t 0" ~~ ~~ -~ t '" E {l JOIII~_J ~:~: ;~ .~ ~ li\ liS '" '~ .;I' ~ (1~~ di*,L ~~ ~ 'rt ,; ?' 't. j ~ " ~"o. j~ r~ .,m ,. ._~u._. / ,; ~ ~ ~ ~ )S' I ,tIS \0 · ........._-'\ ~ ---, ,'~~=--""j ',' "l;IIf\fi..,,:m.I-J I Ii :, II I II :1 " l Uco " ;~ fl " ~~' "ll " \" "ll " \ " , \ \ . . ~-- I I - I U~i?S' I I I I ..... I <>'" I " -- --:: =--.=- - -, -~ - 3Jnfnl D\. -- -:- - ~ONII"i Q "/-- D~" / "r) all "('...0 -,y/ / S' ,4\V!,/ ') (:' 1 1 0'" 11-tS III /1 , I,.,., I /x ,Iff t;j I 125 I I I<?: )1 1 1 // / / / / / / me /-- 1 I . ~ "-.. 0' in " p~z un ~~~~ ~~~t 6' ........ ~ u~' ~ i. ~ ~ . " ~ r ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ n " ."~'~'_M_ "I: ?.........,"" 'm:,~,' i I Ii '~ i~;~ ~~:e ~~~~ 'i~! ~di ~ =m ~ H- I ~I:~ ~ --"3~-_ . o ~>- c '" Q. " " " . OJ i ~ g ~ ~ ~ tTI ~ 0 <'J cf6 ,', ' ,;- ! i ~ 11 I"~ S' ~ ~ ~ Q(/ .". ~ '=' 0 , .., i 1 ~ ;?:; j , 1:l' j ~ '" fD ! ~ ~ " '" ~ t"" ,..... ~n -lI:: ~~lI:: ~:::I!f >~:::I ~9~ ~!;S ~~1Il ~~~ :z0 -i-i )> (') o z (') 1"'1 "'0 -l "'0 r )0- z Q en ;''''-'' :0 in (") m ~ln_ < m :0 . c:: = ,&>0 . n -> jiji o li ~~ "Tl ~ ~ .. ~ 1~ l& !j ~ t \~ ~ I \:{) 'j !;~ i' ~i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ '/-- ,!, ~" <l " ~ .'''- :&"~:_- ":;r:rl '--'I~p r ~ ~ ~ .11 ~ ~ ~ ~ (t) ~ G\ AI Z. t1 r.> ~ E ~ \' ~ ..... 'Ill'$'- H 11''1 \../ n~"':" -,,"'-' ,,/ - ,),',"P'" e: ,/."",Y //.' ..p" 'I, I ( , ! I I~ 'J? , - ~(,}Nl~ o ~"g>~'i''''I' r (~l~~~d=- ~ o~g~~::: g r ~~g~~ ~m ""1'.1\ ~ i5 .t~.."Dq\l' I~ "po ,PO Jo]oJo'Jr:kop.~ I' n 0(")"C/(")()n1;: ~ !,~: ~: .~ ~ i '! I'Z .s :l:J::l~!... ( ~Ji ~ ;;-~a-~O::~ll:Ei ~ . . . MINUTES PARKS COMMISSION September 23, 2004 - 4:30 p.m. West Prairie Room "To eIIhllnce community pride through dl'VelopinK IInd maintaining ci(v parks with II high standard oflJulIli(v" )~F Members Present: Fran Fair, Ben lEtter, Nancy McCaffrey, Larry Nolan and Rick Traver. Members Absent: Council Ljaison, Robbie Smith. Staff Present: Adam Hawkinson, Park Superintendent; John Simola, Public Works Director; and Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator. 1. Call to Order. Chair Nolan called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. and declared a quorum present. 2. Ao{>rove minutes of August 26. 2004 rel!ular Parks Commission meetinl!. RICK TRAVER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TilE AUGUST 26, 2004 REGULAR MEETING WITH A TYPING CORRECTION. FRAN FAIR SECONDED THE MOTION. MO'flON CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Fran Fair was asked if she had met with Mayor Thielen regarding the bathrooms for Ellison Park. Fran Fair indicated that the Mayor was not in favor of having permanent restrooms in any parks except the major parks. 3. Consideration of adding items to the al!enda. JelTO'NeiIl asked if the order of the agenda itcms could be changed as he had to leave at 5 p.m. Adam Hawkinson added to the agenda discussion of establishing a ponding area in Hillcrest P arIc. 4. Citizen comments and requests. No one was present under citizen comments. 9. Insignia Development. i Paul Quarberg representing Insignia Development was present at the meeting. Jeff O'Neill statcd this project is identified in the park plan as having a fairly large park which is intended to be a regional or central park. The proposed development is one of mixed uses including single family homes, townhomes and somc commercial uses. 'fhe park land area per Paul Quarberg is 41.37 acres and according to the recently amended park dedication ordinance the park dedication is calculated to be 29 acres. John Simola asked how much of the 41 acres was not encumbered by easement. Of the 41.37 acres the area under . . .'\k 10. Parks Commission Minutes - 9/23/04 easement is 17.55 acres and the area directly under wires is 6.67 acres leaving a net park area of 23.82 acres. The Parks Commission would like to get sufficient park area for necessary parking and to buy land so that a ballfield complex could be built. Amount of land needed for parking would be 4.25 acres. Larry Nolan asked if any wetlands or ponding areas were included in the proposed park land. Paul Quarberg indicated that ponding area was included in the park land numbers. 28.07 acres includes wetlands and ponding area. Jeff O'Neill said they are shol1 of park area for what this development demands. Larry Nolan asked about tot lot and open playground area. Paul Quarberg indicated that was sketched in to show how it could be accommodated. Jeff O'Neill noted two soccer fields are outside the wires but not outside the easement area. Does the Parks Commission feel the dimensions work? Adam Hawkinson asked if ballfield dimensions were deep enough. These fields are proposed be lIsed for softball. Although the City ballfields are 280'-285' deep, Adanl Hawkinson noted most fields are 320 feet deep.. .Jeff O'Neill stated that in order to have tournaments you need to have a certain number ofballfields within your complex. Adam Hawkinson felt one of the biggest concerns was lights and added that lights do not work out well when a ballfield complex is adjacent to residential development. He felt the fields should be located closer to the commercial uses. Adam Hawkinson presented some sketches showing layouts for four full softball fields and soccer fields. The sketches were discussed. In presenting information to the Planning Commission and developer it is being recommended that: 1) The ballfields be moved to abut the commercial area because oflighting concerns; 2) Need enough room for four international size soccer fields. Fields would be 320' with 50' spacing. Jeff O'Neill noted that 330' is considered international size. 3) Need for a play area; 4) Parks Commission is okay with parking beneath the power lines noting poles are located at either end of the parking lot. The question is whether the 29 acres is sufficient space to provide for four ball fields, four soccer fields, parking and play area or whether additional land would need to be purchased. It is proposed that the soccer fields be separate from the ballfields. Fran Fair asked if additional land was needed where would it be coming from. JelT O'Neill indicated that it would have to be adjacent to the existing site. Adam Ilawkinson noted that there would have to be some benning and screening around the athletic area. Je1TO'Neill will present this information to the Planning Commission when they consider the development. FRAN FAIR MOVED TO APPROVE THE PARK PLAN SKETCH AS LAID OUT BY ADAM IIA WKINSON FOR THE INSIGNIA DEVELOPMENT WITH THE STIPULATION THAT TIlE CITY WOULD BE LOOKING TO BUY ADDITIONAL LAND TO MAKE A COMPLETE BALLFIELD COMPLEX COMPRISING FOUR INTERNATIONAL SOCCER FIELDS, FOUR SOFTBALL FIELDS, PARKING AND PLAY AREA WITH THE PARK DEVELOPMENT BEING INCORPORATED WITII TIlE INITIATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT. NANCY MCCAFFREY SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Jentor Development This redevelopment project is adjacent to the Cedar Crest Apartments in the area of Cedar Street 2 Parks Commission Minutes - 9/23/04 . and the railroad tracks. As part of this project it is proposed to vacate Palm Street. Jeff O'Neill reviewed the preliminary sketch of the project with the Parks Commission. With this development it is proposed to have park dedication of cash in lieu of land. This development is relatively close (three blocks) to the Fourth Street Park. The park dedication fee would be based on 11 units at $1500/unit. ~ 5. UP Development. This development is located at 6th and 7th Streets and Elm Street. Previously the development consisted of 45 units of detached townhomes. There is no alley parking so parking will have to be developed along the perimeter of the site. The nearest park to this area is Country Club Manor. Outlet A of Country Club Manor is owned by the City and perhaps could be developed as park land. Jeff O'Neill recommended taking money for park dedication to develop the 71h Street park. He indicated there is also another 8 acres on the other side of Elm Street that could be taken for park land. John Simola suggested keeping a crossing for access to the park as it is on the other side of Elm Street. John Simola felt the development was too tight as tar as space. The Parks Commission felt the 8 acre site should be considered. 7. Riverside Cemetery. . John Simola provided information on this item and submitted the long term plan that was set up by the Riverside Cemetery Committee. Although the committee listed long term goals and improvements for the cemetery there was no funding set up for implementing these goals. The cemetery operations is now under the jurisdiction of the Parks Commission which was why this item was being presented to them. John Simola was asking the Parks Commission to review the long terms goals and make recommendations to the City Council. T'he Street Reconstruction Project for 2005 is proposed to be in the area of the Riverside Cemetery. The street in this area is 32 feet wide and they would want to allow for an 8' bituminous pathway or a 6' concrete sidewalk on one side of the street which would more than likely be the cemetery side. John Simola suggested that the pathway be taken up to the entrance of Montissippi Park since there are no other crossings of CSAH 75. The Parks Commission will need to look at the placement of the pathway as well as look at the other recommendations of the Cemetery Committee. John Simola asked the Parks Commission to review the list and decide which ones they want to work on and how they should be funded. Larry Nolan asked if anything was budgeted t'()f this in 2005. John Simola indicated nothing had been budgeted. John Simola suggested that perhaps Park Commission recommendation on pathway alignment could be incorporated into the Core Street Project design. . The Parks Commission discussed the capacity of the cemetery and when future expansion would be anticipated. In 2001 there 1227 grave sites available and approximately 30+ sites a year were sold. Based on that information it was estimated that by 2040 the cemetery would be filled. However. as the community continues to grow that date may come sooner. There was discussion on whether the City should continue to operate a cemetery once Riverside was filled. It was suggested that may be a survey should be done of other cities who operate cemeteries. '"I -, Parks Commission Minutes - 9/23/04 . Added Item: Ponding at Hillerest Park. John Simola reviewed the area in question. He noted the sediment ponding area needs to be extended from the pond to the creek and then to the river. The ponding area would run through the park. Drainage in the area was discussed and it was indicated that the proposed ponding work would be done next year. John Simola felt a survey of this area with established elevations would be necessary. Adam Hawkinson said the softball association would have to be notified since these field are used at least twice a week. He also noted that there has becn discussion on re-establishing the skating rink at Hillcrest park. Nancy McCaHi:ey felt the parking situation at this park needs improvement. Staff would like to get this project out for bid in January or February. 6. Park Maintenance. . Adam Hawkinson answered questions relating to the maintenance work done by stail for the month. He noted that a trail for cross country meets had been completed through the woods by Pioneer Park. The Parks Commission also discussed the Eagle Scout project to re-landscape the 'I'll 2S side of Hillside Cemetery. The plans for the landscaping project will be approved by the Parks Commission. Nancy McCaffrey asked if there was anything new on the remaining two entrance signs. Adam Hawkinson had nothing new to report on the entrance signs. Larry Nolan asked that an update on the CSAH 18/1-94 interchange be added to the next agenda. Larry Nolan asked about the paving of the Groveland parking lot. Adam Hawkinson reported that he had received some information from the City Engineer on this and noted that according to the ordinance 24 parking spaces are needed. Adam Hawkinson will discuss the locating of the parking lot and keeping it as far away as possible from the homes adjacent to the park. Adam Hawkinson suggested using $10,000 of the budgeted funds for Tower Park for a split rail fence and then use the rest of the funds for a fence at Riverside Cemetery. Adam Hawkinson will research the cost for the fence and bring it back at the next meeting. 8. Review of wetland replacement apolieation - Meadow Oaks Area. Wetlands encroaches into the back yards of several property owners in the Meadow Oaks area. It is proposed to fill in this wetland area and establish replacement wetland area by the Meadow Oaks park wetlands. 'fhe wetlands created at the park will be double the area that is filled in. RICK TRAVER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION ON FILLING THE DESIGNAfED WETLAND AREA IN MEADOW OAKS AND ESTABLISHING REPLACEMENT WETLAND IN THE AREA OF TlIE MEADOW OAKS PARK. FRAN FAIR SECONDED THE MOTION. M(yrION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Tree Plantine Event. . Adam Hawkinson reported that a decision needs to be made on what species to order. The trees available include lindens, oaks and hackberrys. For a I W' diameter tree the prices would run from $21-$34 for a bare root tree. Adam Hawkinson asked if another meeting was needed for the 4 . . . Parks Commission Minutes - 9/23/04 Parks Commission to decide what type of tree is needed and what areas would be designated for planting. Once the sites arc selected, they will need to be checked for location of cable boxes and other utilities. It was also questioned who would be responsible for the locates. Other questions were who is going to do the actual planting, where classes arc going to be held and who is going to teach them, staging area for trees and activities and publicity. Fran Fair asked that information relating to the money donated by the Mep for this event be obtained and reviewed. Adam Hawkinson indicated that at the fall planting seminar sign up sheets for the spring planting could be made available. Fran Fair also suggested contacted Susie Wojchouski at the Chamber of Commerce for her assistance. Larry Nolan suggested setting up a subcommittee to hel p Park stafT with some of these issues. Fran Fair and Rick Traver volunteered to be on the subcommittee. This item will be brought back at the next meeting. There was additional discussion on number of trees needed and other expenses that would be incurred for the tree planting event such as rental of special equipment, etc. Other Items: Adam Hawkinson showed a sketch of the Pioneer Park parking lot consisting of 30 space and how they were calculated. Adam Hawkinson submitted a draft of a revised tree ordinance which would update the existing ordinance and expand the diseased tree program to include other diseases besides Dutch Elm. Adam Hawkinson suggested the Parks Commission read through the revised ordinance and discuss it at the next meeting. Adam Hawkinson noted that the amended subdivision ordinance states that outlots used for park purposes should not be designated on the plat as "parks". He questioned why that language was included as he felt identifying areas as parks would ease problems with home owners not knowing they were located adjacent to park areas. Adam J-Iawkinson submitted some information on fees collected fi'Oll1 ballfield concessions, park rental and team fees. There was discussion on parking improvements at the Mississippi Park (Swan Park). lt was felt the pathway to the viewing area should go in this year. John Simola said the proposed parking lot improvement would not work since there would be no increase in additional parking space. It was noted that you can't do diagonal parking on residential streets. 13. Adjourn. NANCY MCCAFFREY MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 7: I 0 P.M. FRAN FAIR SECONDED THE MOTION. MO'rION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Recording Secretary 5 . la9 . .~~ ~~~, ,ll ~ LXn,-\ \..MY\d..t.n..o16l(O~~'n'l tho..-\.. d..ux-O~l 1S'f\ <.1Lu-N:\ V("\~ O-;nO ~cwl::. tb I..XYl ~ ~()~~ J..o ~ '\)\CVfl}:) i& ch.ut.CO-Pl'(nov(\-\., :c. ~ t_h.i..D ~ ' ~cl.vrn'1 ~ WUcJ.\,",\, _~ -uu. ~-\.. ~ ?\cd: ov.n ?1'\o~"1 {61 ~ ,~~~ .~ w~ c\ ..J..:U<..o.. \0 o...~(. t:h-o J:)o.Jt't\..Q S'\Ol..LO 'i ~ ~ o...tJ\..J... Q.j::) w'ho.k LuLU ~ 't>\cdUd ..J.r.r. ~ ~ ~~\, WJ.. \.J.J"ou.1.6 , o..ltx:> jJ.,.~ \b J:uJ... ~~ ....lu-t.h QJ:) ~cciJ D u..a.L:.. ~ . ~~. f..J..t~ ~~ bLU\ ~~ ~ ~\av1Wrq . ~ ~~h.{. '"L.b you 0lcM:JL ~'1 ~~~ 6^1 J: QWn ,lfi et 6..."(\l.\ ~~CA. ~G.J:u ~ ~ -\-6 , co..iQ. T c.~ \x 0'-lo...cl'v-d cd.. d ~ ~. ~ ~ \ , ~o..~ 1 2rlrb '-i-0J ~ <1OC'5Uo.n l;:."<"'\5hm ~. ('f\crnu.. ~~ ff\ t\J ~~ ~ . . . . . Page 1 01'2 )~~ "'- http://156. 99.2X.X9/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=CustomParcel&Client... 10/1/2004