Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 03-02-1999 . . . AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 2,1999 Members: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Clint Herbst I . Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held February 2, 1999, and special meeting held on February 8, 1999. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Zoning District amendment from A-O to R-4 to allow the expansion of Kjellberg's West Mobile Home Park. Applicant: Kjellberg's Inc. 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit PUD and Preliminary Plat. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development, Inc. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit PUD and variance from the lot area per unit standards within the R-3 Zoning District to allow a subdivision and development of a two family dwelling. Applicant: Village Builders, Inc. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish zero lot line subdivision for twin home development. Applicant: City of Monticello. 9. Continued discussion on five of the most important items to be considered for the North Anchor/Bridge Park. Verbal update by Jeff O'Neill. 10. Continued discussion on length of terms for Planning Commission Members. 11. Adjourn. . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 2, 1999 Members: Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Roy Popilek. Staff: Steve Grittman, Jeff O'Neill and Fred Patch. Absent: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith and Council Liaison, Clint Herbst. 1. Acting Chair Richard Carlson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present. 2. Consideration of approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 5. 1999. Roy Popilek noted that in the council consideration of the preliminary plat of River View Square there was discussion about a remnant parcel. Steve Grittman informed the Planning Commission that the developer was asked to revise the plan to include the remnant parcel and that the revised plan will be reviewed at the staff level and will not come back before the Planning Commission. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 5,1999 REGULAR MEETING AS PRESENTED. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. No items were added to the agenda. 4. Citizen Comments. There were no citizen comments. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa request for a Conditional Use Permit within the I-I Zoning District to allow co-location of a wireless antenna placement on an existing tower Applicant: MCTC - Minneapolis Cellular Telephone Company. Steve Grittman presented the staff report noting that currently a tower and antenna setup exists on this property which is located at 1400 West Broadway. The applicant proposes to add a second set of antennas on the tower and to construct a shelter to house the equipment. The second set of antennas would be placed below the US West antenna. Under the ordinance this would require a conditional use permit. The staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the recommendation that some additional plantings be required. The Planning Commission asked about lighting for this structure -1- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/2/99 and Steve Grittman informed them that the ordinance did not require any. Fred Patch asked about the setbacks from County Road 75 (Broadway). Steve Grittman stated that at the time the original tower and antenna were placed on the property all setback requirements were met. It was noted that the fence around the tower site and structures was not subject to the 40' setback requirement. Acting Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. There was no one present who spoke on the request. Acting Chair Carlson then closed the public hearing. In Planning Commission discussion of this item, concerns were raised about the aesthetics of the existing facility. The ordinance provides for antennas and antenna support structures to be painted a neutral color. Rod Dragsten felt that the existing tower should be repainted. Fred Patch will check into this. ROY POPILEK MOVED AND ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MCTC BASED ON THE FINDING THA T THE CO-LOCATION MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S WIRELESS ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT LOW EVERGREEN SHRUBS ARE ADDED TO THE EAST AND NORTH SIDE OF THE ENCLOSURE TO ENHANCE THE LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING OF THE GROUND FACILITIES. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public hearing - Consideration of a request for a zoning district amendment from A-O (Agricultural-Open Space) to R-4 (Mobile Home Park) to allow the expansion of the Kiellberg West Mobile Home Park - Applicant: Kiellberg's Inc. Steve Grittman presented the staffreport noting that Kjellberg's West Mobile Home Park has been annexed into the City. The property proposed for rezoning lies in the southwest portion of the orderly annexation area adjacent to the mobile home park. The parcel is approximately 60 acres and is proposed to provide an additional 136 mobile home sites. In the City's Land Use Plan this area is designated for mid-density residential (4-8 units per acre). The proposed density for the mobile home park expansion is 2.3 units per acre. The appropriate zoning for a mobile home park would be a R-4 District. Under the MOAA guidelines, the City must review this before it goes on to the MOAA Board. Steve Grittman also dealt with the issues of street layout and park dedication. It was felt by the staff that adding 136 homes to a single access point would be problematic. It was also noted that 10% of the developed area is to be set aside for park land. The land shown as park in the proposal included ponding area and this would not meet park dedication requirements. The staff recommendation was not to approve the rezoning at this time. The question the Planning Commission needs to resolve is what is the appropriate use for this land. -2- . Planning Commission ivIinutes - 2/2/99 Acting Chair Richard Carlson opened the public hearing. Kurt Kjellberg, representing the applicant, explained their request. He stated since the inception of the mobile home park this area was meant to be included as part of the park. The project was designed with lower density in order to aesthetically match the surrounding communities. However, from a design standpoint they are not inflexible. In addressing the street concerns, Mr. Kjellberg stated the streets in the park are wider than typical streets in mobile home parks and therefore should be able to handle the traffic. He did check with MnDot and they stated that the traffic warrants required for installation of a signal are not met in this area. Mr. Kjellberg stated that they did not oppose an access to School Boulevard. He also indicated that they were willing to work out the requirements for the park land. Kurt Kjellberg stated he was requesting a meeting with residents of the Dunes development and he was requesting the Planning Commission to table action on this matter because of the MOAA and annexation issues. Mr. Kjellberg also referred to a legal question regarding previous zoning action on the Kjellberg property. Rod Dragsten asked about the lot sizes in the proposed expansion. Kurt Kjellberg stated that the border lots would be 12,000 sq. ft. and the others would be less than that. Roy Popilek expressed his concern about adding the additional units and only providing about one acre of usable park space. Mr. Kjellberg responded that the existing facility has a fairly large play area and stated they were not opposed to increasing the park area. . Mike Quinn, a resident of the Dunes, asked whether the R-4 zoning would allow for lot size changes at some point in the future and he also asked about what type of housing would be allowed. Steve Grittman responded that the property would be developed according to an approved plan and the lot sizes would be whatever was shown on the approved plan. Chris Scribner who lives adjacent to the site, complained about pedestrian traffic from the existing park cutting across his property and that the owners of the park did not address this issue. He also stated his concerns about the impact the expansion of a mobile home park would have on the property values. Mr. Scribner asked how the area designated for park was currently being used. Mr. Kjellberg responded that one of the park areas is currently being used as a wastewater treatment site and the other park area is open with grass and trees. He noted that the wastewater treatment area would be reclaimed before being utilized as a park and pointed out that reclamation of this type was not uncommon. Mr. Scribner also asked about the setbacks from the power line easement. Steve Grittman pointed out that the power line runs along the southerly property line. Mr. Scribner added comments on the aesthetics of the mobile home park and vandalism in the area. Kurt Kjellberg stated that the storage areas have been improved and talked about their efforts to curb problems within the park. . Peter Niergard, a resident of the Dunes development, felt that if the City approved this " -.J- . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/2/99 development it would be a betrayal of the residents by the City. He felt it was inappropriate for the City to continue to push the growth of the town and he would prefer to see the small town atmosphere retained. Mike Riley stated his concerns about outside storage since there are no garages. Roxanne Rogers stated her opposition based on the impact the development would have on property values and safety concerns related to the additional traffic generated by the development. The type of housing she would like to see in the development would be double wides with a permanent foundation on one acre lots. InSik Jang also voiced his concern about the vandalism which he felt was a result of the mobile home park presence. Rob Sauter stated his belief that low income and rental housing in an area bring additional problems citing crime and vandalism as examples. He felt the City should think long and hard before allowing any expansion of a mobile home park. He questioned whether in five years the structures in the mobile home would be appreciating or depreciating in value. There was some discussion on what the price range would be for mid-density housing or what the income level would be of the people in this type of housing. Concern about what type of manufactured housing would be allowed in the park was voiced a number of times by the residents. Residents also asked ifthere wasn't room for the expansion on the east side. Kurt Kjellberg responded that the park on the east side had expanded to its limit and land adjacent to it was not available for sale. . Acting Chair Richard Carlson suggested that Kurt Kjellberg meet with the residents to address their concerns about police calls, criminal activity and other issues. Acting Chair Carlson then closed the public hearing. In Planning Commission discussion the question was raised whether the legal issue on the land would have any bearing on what the City did. Steve Grittman stated that the City's position is that any approval given under county zoning authority would not affect the City's zoning decision. It was noted that both the MOAA plan and the City's plan considered this area as mid-density residential. Rod Dragsten felt that a lot of questions had been raised that need to be addressed and that by tabling this item until the next meeting it would allow time for some of these questions to be answered. These issues should be addressed: 1) Traffic issues; 2) Compatibility with adjacent land uses; and 3) Park land. Roy Popilek stated that if the proposal does not meet the City's Comprehensive Plan and the MOAA's plan should the Planning Commission be reviewing it further. Fred Patch asked if the plan was changed significantly, could the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing. Steve Grittman stated that the Planning Commission could take additional comments if they desired but if they wanted to reopen the public hearing that would have to be noticed. The public hearing could be continued to another meeting. . ~4- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/2/99 ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE MARCH 2, 1999 MEETING WITH THE APPROPRIATE NOTICE BEING GIVEN AND SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Motion carried with Roy Popilek voting in opposition. 7. Continued Public Hearinl2: - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for a Development Staee PUD apProval within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Applicant: Gold NUQlZet Development. Inc. Jeff O'Neill presented the staff report explaining that the PI arming Commission had previously tabled the matter pending input from the MOAA Board. The question that is unresolved is what should the designation of this area be. The MOAA Board felt it should be industrial and the City in their comprehensive plan designated it as residential. This was discussed at the joint meeting of the City Council and MOAA Board held on January 27, 1999. The Township and the City will address the issue at the meeting of their individual boards and then bring it back to the MOAA Board so at this time there is no formal input from the MOAA Board. Jeff O'Neill reminded the PI arming Commission of the special meeting with the City Council scheduled for February 8, 1999 at 5:30 p.m. The staff's recommendation was to continue the public hearing until a later date pending input from the MOAA Board. Acting Chair Richard Carlson opened the public hearing which was a continued from the January meeting. Peter Niergard questioned the constant rapid growth that the City was pursuing. Acting Chair Carlson asked how the residents felt the growth could be stopped. If the property meets the guidelines set forth in the City's ordinance the City could not prevent that property from developing. While the City cannot stop growth it can attempt to control it. Dave Payzant at 8634 Davern A venue stated that he had just recently purchased his home and he was dismayed that the information about proposed developments was not disclosed to him. Bill Holland, 3407 80th Street, felt that the County Road 106/T.H. 25 intersection posed a safety hazard and adding more residential development in the area would only aggravate the traffic situation. Horst Graser from Gold Nugget Development gave a presentation on his proposed development and answered questions from the residents. Horst Graser also talked about his concerns about the property being designated as industrial. These concerns included the traffic, much of it truck traffic, that would be routed through residential streets and having streets and utilities that were not designed for industrial use. A resident asked whether a signal installation is included in the improvement plans for T.H. #25. Steve Grittman indicated that it was not at this time but when the warrants were met, signals would be installed. In response to the residents comments about the rapid growth, Steve -5- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/2/99 Grittman stated that although the residents may prefer not to see any development in this area, the City and Township had come to an agreement that this area would become part of the City's long term growth area. The question is not whether it will be developed but whether it will develop as residential or industrial. Jeff O'Neill asked about factors that were causing the shift in the designation of industrial land. Steve Grittman stated that residents in area where there were designations for industrial land were lobbying the MOAA Board to go with residential and put the industrial land designation in other areas. The MOAA Board has chosen this site in lieu of others for the industrial land use designation. Acting Chair Carlson asked if the freeway exposure wasn't more desirable for industrial development than for residential development and Steve Grittrnan concurred with that. The Planning Commission discussed tabling this item until the March meeting and whether that would create any problem for the City with the 60 day requirement. It was pointed out that the MOAA Board would not be considering this item until their March meeting which falls after the March Planning Commission meeting. It was suggested that the Planning Commission address this at the February 8, 1999 meeting. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 8, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Consideration of a request for Simple Subdivision within the 1-2 Zoning District to allow the subdivision of an industrial parcel into two lots. Applicant: Greg Ebert. Steve Grittman presented the staff report. This property is located at Dundas Road and Oakwood Drive. The staff presented this as a subdivision of an existing platted parcel into two lots. However, the applicant stated since these were two previously existing parcels and there is no creation of a new parcel, this should be a lot line adjustment and not a subdivision. Steve Grittman stated that the existing building encroaches significantly into proposed lot line setback and it was suggested that the property line be moved to the east so that the 30' setback could be met. Greg Hayes from Shingobee Builders, Greg Ebert and Russ Martie were present. It was reiterated that a new lot is not being created but rather the boundary lines are being shifted to make adjustment for the fact that when the building was constructed it extended over the property line. Greg Ebert stated that making the lot more narrow creates problems with the drainage. He also stated that the lot line jogs proposed by the City staff would cost them parking spaces. Russ Martie stated the reason for the jog was to allow for the unloading of trucks without traveling over the other parcel. -6- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/2/99 Rod Dragsten indicated that the property should meet all setback requirements and although he didn't like to see lot line jogs, he felt strongly that the setbacks be maintained. The other Planning Commission members agreed that the setback requirements must be met. Greg Ebert stated that the jogs in the property line would allow them to meet the setback. Richard Carlson stated that in granting a variance based on hardship it had to be shown that the hardship was not created by the actions ofthe applicant. In this case it was since extending the building onto the adjacent parcel created the hardship. Greg Ebert asked that if a lot line was created that would meet the setback requirements would the Planning Commission approve it. The Planning Commission talked about which was the lesser of two evils granting a variance or creating an irregular lot line. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION TO DENY THE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1-2 DISTRlCT. There was lengthy discussion on the problem with having the irregular lot line. Steve Grittman stated that he thought it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to set out what they would approve so that the applicant could make revisions to his plan. Richard Carlson stated that as long as the lot line was drawn so that all the setback requirements were met it would be acceptable. Fred Patch asked about the part ofthe building encroaching onto the other parcel. Russ Martie stated that an underground auger system was located there and he didn't think it would be practical to remove that. The staff felt that there were more issues with variances and setbacks when trying to develop an irregular lot. It was stated that the fact that an irregular lot line was approved would not constitute grounds for granting a variance at any future point. Acting Chair Carlson noted that a motion was on the floor and called for a vote. The motion carried unanimously. 9. Discussion on five of the most important items to be considered for the North Anchor/Bridge Park. Also naming two PlanninlZ Commission members to the North Anchor Planning GroU? The Planning Commission expressed some reluctance about establishing priorities and goals for this area without having the full board present. However in general discussion, the following items were brought up: I) Access; 2) Open public space; 3) The public retaining a sense of ownership; 4) Retail is not the focus; 5) River frontage between Front Street and the river is not suitable for private development; 6) Create as much river's edge as possible; 7) Safe meeting place with scheduled events; 8) Enhance visibility of the river; 9) Taking steps to provide access to the open area and provide better pedestrian traffic access from the downtown area with consideration being given to vacation of -7- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/2/99 streets, if necessary, to accomplish it and utilization of the trail connections; 1 0) Incorporate the river and make the river accessible for use; 11) Restrict parking by the river. Vehicles may drive down to the river but would not be allowed to park; and 12) Housing - The Planning Commission feels that mediumlhigh density housing would be appropriate as long as it did not occur in the public space and would prefer to see the units owned rather than rented. Another concern the Planning Commission had was that the boundaries of the area need to be established before the City can determine what facilities it wants located here. Rod Dragsten and Richard Carlson volunteered to be on the North Anchor Planning Group. 10. Discussion on lenQth of terms for Planning Commission Members The Planning Commission felt that if the City Council was going to conduct an annual review of the those members on the Planning Commission there would be very little value in setting term lengths. The staff responded that because of the specialized knowledge and pertinent related history of the City, a major turnover of the Planning Commission members for whatever reason would have a significant impact on the City. Increasing the length of the term and staggering the terms could provide the City some protection from that happening. ROY POPILEK MOVED AND ROD DRAGS TEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WHEN THE FULL COMMISSION WOULD BE PRESENT. Motion carried unanimously. RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 11 :00 P.M. AND ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. Recording Secretary -8- . . . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 8, 1999 Members: Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith. Staff: Jeff O'Neill and Fred Patch. Absent: Dick Frie and Council Liaison, Clint Herbst 1. Acting Chair Richard Carlson called the special meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present. 2. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. No items were added to the agenda. 3. Citizen Comments. There were no citizen comments. 4. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use permit for a Development Stage PUD approval within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development, Inc. Jeff O'Neill summarized what had taken place to date on this development. Action on the development had been tabled pending input from the MOAA Board. Since there has been no agreement between the City and the MOAA Board on the land use designation for this property, the Planning Commission could table this matter until such time as information was received from the MOAA Board or the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to forward to the City Council. Robbie Smith stated that he was leaning towards going with the residential designation for this property and felt that the Planning Commission should take a stand on this. Rod Dragsten felt that residential was the best use of the land but he felt there were other things to ensure the quality of housing and amenities to enhance the development that could be incorporated into the covenants or development agreement and the Planning Commission should look at these items. There was discussion on what details supporting the claim that this was upscale housing could be addressed in the restrictive covenants. Shawn Weinand felt this could be accomplished as long as there weren't too many restrictions placed on the developer. However, he cautioned the City not to expect $175,000-$250,000 homes in this development but stated that the homes would be a step up from what was in the area. The Planning commission discussed the need for upscale -1- . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/8/99 housing and how it could be achieved. The Planning Commission discussed the ponding areas in the proposed development including the capacity of the holding pond and what could be done to enhance its appearance. Horst Graser suggested plantings or prairie grasses in the ponding area but stated that it may take 2-3 years for the plantings to become established. The developer in his efforts to make this development a desirable place to live had made considerable financial commitment to the trail system as well as other amenities for the development. Rod Dragsten felt that some of the problem was a result of the property being such a flat piece ofland. He felt that some contouring of the land would create a better lot that would command a higher price. A higher priced lot would more likely have a higher priced house on it. In discussing the development the Planning Commission felt the need for assurances that this development would be a step up from what is existing. . Dave Klein asked what the major concern of the Planning Commission was. Was it to encourage construction of higher price homes in order to increase the tax base. He noted that changes in the energy code would add $5,000.00 to the cost of home so he felt it was inevitable that higher priced homes would be coming in. Dave Klein indicated that in a market study that he had done he found that housing in the price range of $110,000 to $125,000 was what was in demand. Dave Klein stated he was in support of the Gold Nugget Development and keeping the 220 acres as residential use. He stated that it would be harder to attract upscale housing if the housing is adjacent to the freeway. The staff noted that there was time before the next meeting to have the developer come up with the items that he was proposing to utilize in this development in order to entice upscale housing. When asked ifhe would be comfortable waiting until the next regular meeting, Horst Graser responded that he would like to have the Planning Commission make a decision on the development at this meeting and make review of the covenants a condition of the approval that could be met later. Rod Dragsten stated he had reservations about forwarding something on to the council for their consideration that was not complete. He felt if more time was taken to work out the details on the development, the City Council would be more receptive to the Planning Commission's recommendation. . Horst Glaser indicated the restrictive covenants submitted would be based on 500+ lots. If the property use is changed in whole or part, such as designating a portion of the land for industrial use it would impact the restrictive covenants. He also felt that the residential portion of the development should not have to pick up the drainage from any portion of the property that was designated for industrial use. Richard Carlson stated that there is pressure to demonstrate that this will be a step up from developments that the City has had in the past and there is pressure to supply the industrial designation to some -2- . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/8/99 other land. In order for this 220 acre parcel to remain residential there is the need to find some other land area for industrial lIse. Fred Patch indicated that in 1997 approximately 128 homes were built and in 1998 a total of 207 home were built. The current inventory of available platted lots (approximately 220) could be depleted in 18 months if the current building trends continue. The industrial land inventory is adequate to supply the City for 40 years. Horst Graser stated that there was some redesign work on the development and he would like to defer this until he has a definitive answer as to whether the City wants the land as residential or industrial. He will, however, deal with the other issues raised at this meeting, such as the restrictive covenants. ROY POPILEK MOVED AND ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE 220 ACRE PARCEL KNOWN AS THE GOLD NUGGET DEVELOPMENT SHOULD REMAIN DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE AREA REFERRED TO AS CHADWICK/BOHANON IS BETTER SUITED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION RELATIVE TO THE FREEWAY. . In further discussion on this item, Richard Carlson stated that the Planning Commission was following what was set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan which is the basis for its finding that the property should remain residential in use. Rod Dragsten questioned whether the motion should just cover the residential as the other areas were still open to discussion. ROY POPILEK AMENDED HIS MOTION TO STATE THAT ALTERNATIVE AREAS CLOSER TO THE FREEWAY WOULD BE BETTER SUITED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE RATHER THAN RESIDENTIAL. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND ROY POPILK SECONDED THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PINE MEADOWS BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, AND COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNEXATION AS OUTLINED IN THE MONTICELLO ORDERL Y ANNEXATION AREA AGREEMENT AND WITH THE CONTINGENCY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE REVIEWING THE COVENANTS AND BUILDING RESTRICTION INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE MARCH 2,1999 MEETING. . -3- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 2/8/99 Upon further discussion, Rod Dragsten stated he believed that the Planning Commission should have all the information before them before they acted on the plat. Roy Popilek rescinded his second to the motion made by Robbie Smith. The motion died for a lack of second. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE GOLD NUGGET DEVELOPMENT PENDING SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION BY THE APPLICANT RELATING TO COVENANTS AND BUILDING RESTRICTIONS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried with Robbie Smith voting in opposition. There was a brief general discussion of the North Anchor/Bridge Park. It was felt that the property between Front Street and the river would not be suitable for private development as it could not meet current setback requirements. It would seem logical, ultimately, for the City to become the owner of the property. This property should not be purchased by a private developer or be allowed to be exchanged for park land in the area. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO TABLE DISCUSSION ON THE NORTH ANCHOR/BRIDGE PARK. ITEM UNTIL THE MARCH 2,1999 PLANNING COMMISSION SO THAT STAFF COULD PREP ARE A LISTING OF PRIORITIES AND GOALS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW. Motion carried unanimously. ROD DRAGS TEN MOVED AND ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:15 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Recording Secretary -4- . . . Planning Commission Agenda -03/02/99 5. Continued Public Hearine: - Consideration of a request for a Zonin~ District amendment from A-O to R-4 to allow the exoansion ofKiellberg's Mobile Home Park. Applicant: Kiellber~'s Ine.. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission tabled action in February on an application from Kjellberg's Inc. to proceed with a rezoning of its property for an expansion of the Mobile Home Park. Staff had expressed a number of concerns relating to design and traffic, as well as an overarching issue with the density as proposed in the Land Use Plan, both as adopted by the City for this area, and being considered by the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Board. The land use issue will need to be addressed first, with the design and other issues addressed subject to the outcome of the land use. As noted in our previous report, the mid-density pattern identified in the planning documents infers an attached housing pattern, such as twin homes and townhouses in the neighborhood of 4-8 units per acre. The proposed development is less than three units per acre, and is more typical of a single family residential plat. The Planning Commission and City Council will need to consider a change to the proposed land use in this area to identify the lower density and accommodate the mobile home park as designed. Design and other issues are the second set of concerns. Stail had identified a number of design changes which were intended to improve traffic and accommodate public services to the area. At least one, and preferably two, additional access points were recommended in order to better distribute traffic. The applicant has submitted an alternative plan which illustrates this option. With regard to public safety, the applicant is requesting that only one of the new access points be constructed. This request is based in the belief that park management can better control visitors and traffic by limiting the number of access locations. Park and recreation area is a second issue. The R-4 District ordinance requires a ten percent set-aside for recreation space. The applicant has indicated that they would be willing to acquire additional land adjacent to the park for public use to accommodate this need. One of the related issues on this point is the City's interest in acquisition and development ofa larger recreation facility along the School Boulevard extension to the west of this area. The City recreation area is likely to encompass 30 to 50 acres, well in excess of the requirement for the mobile home park. The R-4 District does not have an allowance for cash donation in lieu of land dedication, as is typical with platted development. This point will need to be discussed further with the applicant and the City, including the Park Commission. A related issue which was raised by members of the public involved a pathway connection between the mobile home park and other neighboring residential areas. The neighborhood comments indicated that they would like to close this connection, and there was some dispute as to who was using this pathway. Staff's general approach is that more pathway -1- . Planning Conunission Agenda -03/02/99 connections, like streets, are generally better. Cutting off this pathway would leave the Dunes and Prairie Acres without a pedestrian connection to the north. This issue will require additional study as a part of the development planning. The location of School Boulevard in this area is also an issue. The City had tentatively reserved a corridor which would cut off the northeasterly corner of this project for the extension of School Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a change to that plan which would route School Boulevard in a straighter alignment along the northern line of the property adjacent to the proposed mobile home park. The City Engineer is evaluating this option, including soils and topography of the area. Finally, there was public comment regarding a concern over a perception of police calls to the mobile home park, and a concern over public safety. The applicant has submitted information irom the Sheriffs office regarding police calls to the Park, utilizing a comparison to the number of calls to the City as a whole. The applicant's contention is that this information shows that the ratio of such calls to the Mobile Home Park, based on population, is lower than the ratio of police calls to the City in general. A copy of this information, submitted by the applicant, is attached to this report. . In summary, the applicants believe that they have addressed each of the issues raised by staff to date, given the level of detail at this stage of planning. If the Planning Commission believes that the density issue is best resolved by this land use, forwarding the proposal to the MOAA Board for consideration of annexation would be appropriate. This should be accompanied by a proposed change to the Land Use Plan redesignating this area as low density residential. A more detailed review ofthe site plan for the Mobile Home Park would be reviewed upon annexation. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the concept plan and recommend approval of the rezoning to Mobile Home Park, R-4, subject to final site plan review by the City upon annexation. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning based on a finding that other land uses would be more appropriate for the area. 3. Motion to table action on the proposal, subject to additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: . Staff believes that if the City is considering approval of the mobile home park expansion, that the layout which has been proposed is generally superior to most mobile home park -2- . Planning Commission Agenda -03/02/99 designs, given the density and other issues. As noted in this and the previous report, there remain some design issues which staff will need additional time to consider. The land use plan calling for a higher residential density could be met with a mobile home park as well, but increased density, and the resulting crowding of units, is one of the common objections to mobile home park design. If the City is going to hold to the original land use plan and call for a medium to high density residential pattern, staff would recommend that an attached housing design, such as twin homes and townhouses, be considered. In this case, a recommendation for R-2 zoning, rather than R-4, would be made. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Revised Site Plan Exhibit B - Record of Sheriff Calls . . -3- " . --9'.Tii. / . - . 7' ... ~. .... . /, ; :..~........" \ \~~ ,,' I ~ .~......~). It>. "IF"" .. ',,-' . c,;'~ '//"'" I " '4 ~ ( \ 1 . _ . ,-- r- ~ V ....... l '1' I ~' , ". ~ I ! ~.-Il...,~~,...:;to" . '/ ~ . , ~ / -..; ,(.J. (9..... / \, ,: I ,. ~~ .... \ _ ",;t'-; '1~. , ~ .... ''''''M''' ''''''''0''''' ~"J, \ ~ "'6>:6"'J ...V1~'" ' ;' / "" ,1<' r/// i,l .., "'.', 1fC'....04:JFr,.,'.",/d. ......a ~,,~,. \, ~ ~b. ~ ~,t.P. I '\;It"~....../ ---IL_ ---'----'...-"'"--------.-.~---:--", ~ ,. v'~~)' ~ ' ~..:(:-,;:;:.,., - ". ' , "\EJ;___..-..".,...~ ,. .,',1 .- NllQ'''4.'''7''W\ I 7rJ7F::> ~',{l II.. ,/ ~~ ../.~.. ',,\ '~",,-.,t>;;"'k,/~-<---,-,:.-' ,/~/,,:" ~ - '- ". - ~- l - '( rl \ i, :i'....." Nfi9'0407 W 286,07 \ \ \ ~''''''''''.4..-/6i) ~ ..:.~. /~I - - ...'.0 I ~ , ~ ~ i" 7J / '/ . -- , / ... ---,0: ------ --- \8.' ....: czu'"!;' , ' ~,; ')-' 'I ' '\ ',--~ / ' ' / " - - 1 ,~ . - - "7T"" ,~ \ \ '1<-' ' /' AI . ~. ~ "'\ \ ~;..; ~ "- \: ~ I'~/. .. \ / -' "t- " /;.~C'-- :...;:~, ,'-- - · 0J~(' ~ " :' ,L/ · f~ 0 "', /, ,,'/ :. . '~,", .~~,{~~' -\'~~<~:f}V~-':0,::;:"r;!, ~ ':~ ~-" ':...:_'<,:/ / ' ',~ -' ::) ~ ' . I', & I -...., ;' , . _ , /;, ~ / ~ ~'I , : 'H / "l ~ ~ ,r.. --0- ';i. __ ...- ~ ~ ' ' '-", ~~' , ' "'. 0'> \,i/ " \ \, _, ::: J ~ ~ ' ...- - - ,,:-,~ ~ \ ~_'~\ _,,' t'> A~<~" /....) ~ ~> ':" ~::: ~~_'~:/ - -.-:- ~ 'Ie.: ,'~ ~. -~,- '-'{..;..'---f.-~><"'fj ~ '~__/ ~'- -_~.:_J' r"" '- \ / '. /~. . -. / .-/ r '-- t <.: '/,1- ~~ - <., - /' ~ / .:.::c ...\ /~. i --~, '<;" 41 "~' :"._--< / .~ ",'l. '\-~ ~". II " _ ). / i' / - - - ~ '. -., ......../ ~ ..::.. ..::.~~,~, :.; \J . . ~j- /'~ ~'-. ~:~~~.~~, '- ~ ~/ ~,,> --.- , ," ,0/ (' . ~.~ ," ~ '/ -l'~di;1" j!" ,:' !~/~ ~ ", · - - ,;'-- ----, , ,,-..... ! \ "\ J \ .~ ~ . .~ · '.l~.~ -. ..~ ~,~', -b" . ~ _ _ '.~ \ _ _ __., ___ .....:."...~.. "z+~:'" ::_<r,','_~ ~ < -.,~/~' '",:", ", ~"il,'_,' ";'~ ~i: t" \ , .. .....C) '::, . .\ ...:: ";~ \ ..:.. -- ~ I ~ '. , I ~ ~ 1~' ' " \~ " /Ji ',- " / ~ '- ~, ~ . . ~, ~ J /'; '\, ~ ~',( i ~ ~ $ 0- " - ~ --. I -'" ',~::: ,-r, "'&-". / '/ _. " ~ /' '- __, _ . _ "(, IS - -, ~ ,~ ',' ':-: _2 " / "':,' , ~/, /.0/-::, 0.. .'- _--- ' ... ,,-- -- G' ~ ',,' - / . \.., "'.' ',- ~""~,....- ___ .-~ ",- '::J.","_ ~ '>6',' ~J)---""- _---- -- ',' -' '-:--'--' . ,-,,-,~ " - / ~~ t / ,/ _....-- "r--- r '-1;".\ ,,"'-' il:; /',,<3-/ .~ t" " ::.!.~ \ I, '7 " ~~. " ,/ \ill "'..../ , '<> , ''''-, ' .f 1"- /.' ,,' ~ \ \ I ~ ~ "/ ~ '/ r'Ji/ "~..~ \1"'\j , --'" i . ' 'I '. '1 _ '\ \ '-l / I It'' to (- ~-~,....' . " ....; 1 -- ... -" I ~ \0 .~ ,~~,/..., ~ ',- J'"' ~', _--___ '~I ~'-"'-', ~ ....- ~ ~~.. ,~.~ J I;--::.~I ~" I /...... l.~e ~_~__~ .r ~ "~ -.~".....~ r ..~ \. ~ ~ / S ,., //'S"IC:;:~..-.-- \- / I .. \ j )~ v .., -!- " --'-:0::-/ '- t--, / I" "j,', : I ~/ I ~ \, -. ,,,,, "'''", ""\'1 - .... i 1--:- ,- . ~ ':-- ~ -.--,~ '''-'--- ''''''' <;~ j ~ , '-I . ~ \.. .~ I ~ I" \ ". , '" .... "'. ..........--,'c~ j' I '" i" ~ f ' .~ C----....., / . 1.;: - , - ~ - '- - -~ - ~ J:3 ~ 't'l '., ~ ~: I I ~,- \ 1- -~ ~J'--""""""'\---........--,--, 't:---- <! ;~" /;' : ,~ '. ))-----.1., "l' ----....-- ... \'~ ~ ~.\. "" I ....~ ~ ;........!, .' ~ ." ................., / _ \J_, _~. ~ ~"'''--~~:'''-- .~:Si -.~j ->/';Y <z:~ I ........-r-------.-,;;:Yc", J:'\ro: .::!.O~ -----c-~....-'.,;, '----" / I I'\)"" //---------__ \ ,,:-., . --.---'. ---r-- I ~"-"'" ' / i -- i " ! __/ r-- r 0-._'t;; !~! ( k. I -i ",... I ( .. __l ~~'\;;......,.... --:~J "". .~ I: " ~ h' r.::==:- ' , ill',' \\I. __ ,:<," '\ I L~\ ~ ! ~ ,__=-, 1 , - - -l. f '-::: I 5'\ --), _______ .-" .'~7.:1 " ~ )o.~ ~ . -~~, ~~ /~~~- 8:r~."~....O(..$ f:l.'.J,:' - ~ I_\.. ,;' ~ .'- ---=-;:......- _------- .I I J I t.n-~~,,~ >~> ..--- , ~- (~:r ~ 1--: 'r :"):':' ,_/ s 8S"53 '59. E 1319.82 .;.-~.: . .... , , i I, ~ <> . ... . .. ...- ~ ., y " ""- ~ .'i ~ / / / ,-Pf--~ .) ""eC-'f1&> . ~ I.l.. . ~ , N ~~ ~ '...., . .:::. ~ '(, ':"'- .... '" ~ ~ --- ~ --,- -~~:'~' ": " , I - r ',: , ~ , ,.~ ~! - ~ - - - , I /'.~.-L.,~ ;. . , ~ - ~.r~~ ~ ---... . (; .. ,,':.i1_ <l(: '\ , '. ,,' -~- , SC;I..!T~ ~!': '],- r ~ .X :;i::: ~ ;Q~. . 'i 1,'../ :.- -. -: ;;. '/J:F ~ ~ g. ~ ~ . ( , ~ I!X,H~I,T A -\ flEVISEO SITE PLAN ' ~,\ FROM KJELLBERGS INC PHONE NO. 612 295 2991 Feb. 24 1999 10:57AM P2 ". Population of Klc1lbere:s: 1000 Population of Monticello: approx. 6000 Ea.<:t and West side lncluding Kjellberg's East side . OFFENSE KJELLBERG'S Approx.300 CITY OF MONTICELLO Public. ~ 10 211 Motor vehicle accidents I S9 (Non-reponable) 201 Animal complaints 2 123 Towed vehicle 9 178 TheftlBurghuy 14 411 DoIDeslic 32 181 Civil Process 39 159 JuveniUe Comp_ 14 447 Suspidous Vehicle 2 61 Wammr 6 118 No insurance 2 147 . Aid 10 other dept. 5 ]30 Harrassment 14 117 Fight 2 32 Fire Call 2 78 Assault 7 4 (unfounded) 46 Welfare check 5 113 MPii1Mll 2i 2S0 Property damage/trespassing 18 271 Weapons 1 ]6 Suicide Attempt 4 22 Fail 10 Stop for school bus 14 Phone call 12 159 DL Restriction 1 11 . Speed 3 103 Traffic.. 8. 48 EXHIBIT B - SHERIFF CALLS /',~ J FROM KJELLBERGS INC PHONE NO. 612 295 2991 Feb. 24 1999 10:58AM P3 . . . Planning Commission Agenda -03/02/99 6. Continued Public Hearin~ - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit PUD and Preliminary Plat. Applicant: Gold Nug2et Development. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Gold Nugget Development has been awaiting a resolution of the land use planning issues in the MOAA affecting their property along Trunk Highway 25 and 85th Street NE. The applicant has indicated that they would be willing to comply with the recommendations of staff with regard to design, and is developing a series of development controls which will regulate housing design and site improvements throughout the project. However, the applicant has been reluctant to redesign the project, pending a resolution of the land use issue. Staff has met with the applicant regarding the development controls, including the developer's proposed covenants. It is expected that a list of the proposals will be available to the City prior to the Planning Commission's meeting. The Planning Commission should consider whether it is ready to take up the plat again, or continue action until the land use issue is resolved. If the Commission chooses to wait, the "degree" of resolution should be identified. The Planning Commission and City Council are scheduled to again mect on land use at 5:30 p.m. next week. This could result in a recommended land use pattern from the City. However, the Orderly Annexation Board would not meet until April on the land use issues, and a final plan document is not likely to be in place until Mayor June. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD, subject to conditions listed in the staff report for the January 5, 1999 Planning Commission agenda. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Plat and PUD, based on a finding that the land use issues are yet to be resolved, and the Plat is premature. 3. Motion to table action on the Plat and PUD, subject to additional discussion on the land use plan. 4. Motion to table action on the Plat and PUD, with a recommendation on land use forwarded to the City Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends either Alternative I or Alternative 4. The land use issues in this area are the subject of ongoing discussions, however, the Planning Commission has a good opportunity to provide input through its action on this project. If a residential pattern is -4- . Planning Commission Agenda -03/02/99 considered to be appropriate, the Planning Commission may effect the land use planning discussions with a motion regarding either the plat, or the land use, or both, even though the final annexation and land use decisions may not be made until later meetings. As a reminder, on March 8, at 5;30 p.m., the City Council will be reviewing the proposed MOAA Land Use Plan jointly with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss the MOAA Plan and consider formulating a recommendation for discussion at the upcoming joint meeting. At a recent meeting of the IDC a recommendation was formulated that mirrored thoughts expressed by the Planning Commission. Please take the IDC thoughts into account as you discuss this item. Attached is a copy of the IDC minutes along with a graphic showing the differences between the proposed MOAA Plan and recommended IDC plan. D. SUPPORTING DATA; Exhibit A - List of Development Controls - Pine Meadows. Exhibit B - IDe Land Use Map Proposals Exhibit C - Pertinent IDC Meeting Minutes . . -5- -. . B. . MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neil FROM: RE: Horst Graser Development Controls - Pine Meadows DATE: February 17. 1999 On February 2. 1999. the Planning Commission held a special meeting to continue the preliminary plat hearing for Pine Meadows. A number ofitem.s were discussed. However, of principle concern to the COnunission-were the types ofdevelopmem controls to be imposed on single family homes within the project. The following is a list of proposed controls that Gold N\.lgget Development, Inc. will incorporate into a document for official controls and restrictions: A. Architectural Control: Any structure erected on a single family lot must be approved by an Architectural Control Committee established by Gold Nugget Development House Design Standards: 1. All single family homes must have a 3 car garage. 2. Garage froms must have one half brick. Front elevations of the main structure must have one quarter brick. 3. All rambler home styles must have a D1inirmlm of6/12 roof pitch. 4. All home styles except ramblers must have a minimum ofa 5/12 roof pitch on the main portion of the structure and 7/12 roof pitches on all front facing gables. 5. Exterior colors and finish materials must be approved by the Architectural Review Committee. 6. The Architectural Control Committee shall make every effort to eliminate monotony by controlling the facade of homes. The facade of every home within 300 feet shall not be so similar to or different from other homes. C. Home Values; The range of single family homes in Pine Meadows will be 5120,000.$190,000. D. Housini Starts' Gold Nugget Development, Inc. will limit the number of single family housing starts to 75 for the calendar year in which the first phase of the development is approved for occupancy. EXHIBIT A LIST OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS ~ .~\ . . . Gold Nugget Development, Inc. will limit the number of single family housing starts to SO for each calendar year thereafter. 2. In any given calendar year, the di1ference between actual home starts and the maximum number allowed shall be carried forward to the next calendar year. 'E. Mailboxes: All mailboxes shall be uniform in design, clustered and installed by the developer. F. Itw;. In addition to the two front yard boulevard trees required by the City of Monticello, a six-foot pine or spruce tree shall be planted anywhere in the yard. G. Landscaping: All lots must be sodded and/or landscaped from the curb to the rear comers of the house. H. Accessory StnJcture~: All accessory structures including all fencing shall be prohibited unless approved by the Architectural Contro] Committee. I. Park Deliniation: Every lot which abuts land dedicated for park purposes shall have the rear property corners marked with either a 4x4 cedar post or 4x4 vinyl post. 1. Storm Water Man_sement Ponds: Gold Nugget Development, Inc. will enhance the ability to maintain a water column in the deeper areas of storm water management ponds. The objective will be to prevent rapid stonn water infiltration by first spreading silty sands and. then six inches of top soil over the deep pans of the ponds. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the storm water management ponds, Gold Nugget Development, Inc. will introduce plant material to include native grasses. shrubs, and trees at various elevations and areas of the ponds. A landscape plan will be prepared to provide greater detail. EXHIBIT A-LIST OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS ~/?- . D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Proposed Amendment . . -10- Planning Commission Agenda - 03/02/99 . . . City of Monticello Wright County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE .10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3 [El, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO TWIN HOME SUBDIVISIONS IN THE R~2 AND R-3 ZONING DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 3, Section 3 [E] is amended to read as follows: [E] Subdivision of non-single familv base lots in R-2 and R-3 Districts. 1. Lots of non-sino Ie family fflttltiplo housing unit structures may be divided for the purpose of condominium ownership provided that the principal structure containing the housing units shall meet the setback distances of the applicable zoning district. In addition, each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable open space as specified in the area and building size regulations of this ordinance. Such lot areas may be controlled by an individual or joint ownership. 2. Lots containinq twin homes or townhouses may be subdivided along the common wall in a "zero lot line" arranoement. provided each resultinq lot contains the required amount of lot area per unit as prescribed elsewhere in this Ordinance. and all other setback and performance standards of the Zonina District are met. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. IlslI EXHIBIT A PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1>"\ . :0 m (/) 6;~ "lJz :0-1 0)> "lJr 0)> (/):0 rg ~ hi c)> zr 00 mZ :o(j) s:8 ~r;; "lJO ~~ z~ 1m i I '~.liJD ~ Ii s i I:" o i ! . ~ ~ ~,~ 'l " Ji' f J I J ~ n" '" 12' tJ: ~ o z (j) 'T1 :0 m m ~ )> -< ~ OJ C 11 'T1 m :0 r )> Z ;{. 0 " ~ ~ '0 m 1J ''''D ~ ~ 3: o :::J ..... o' CD :E 0 ., 0 =r .., n C- o CD ~ .., . ::'< I: )> :; :::J : :::J . CD o >< ; s:>> .-+ -. . . ~ .~ SUMMARY OF MEETING MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, Febmary 18, 1999 - 7:00 a.m. City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shelly Johnson, Vice Chair Tom Ollig, Don Smith, Bill Tapper, Torn Lindquist, Dick Van Allen, Bob Mosford, and Chamber Chair Marianna Khauv. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ken Maus and Kevin Doty. OTHERS PRESENT: Council Liaison Mayor Roger Belsaas, Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, and Ollie Koropchak. The IDC members heard a presentation on the development of the Southwest Corridor Infrastmcture by City Engineer Consultant Bret Weiss. Following the engineer's presentation, Landowners Shawn Weinard, John Gries, Tony Emerich, and John Chadwick shared background and proposed plans for industrial, commercial, and residential development within the city limits and MOAA. O'Neill shared maps on the various land use options and Mayor Belsaas shared insights of the Council, Planning Commission, Townhship and MOAA discussions. Koropchak presented industrial site selection priorities from the perspective of industrial businesses. The IDe members unanimously approved a motion recommending the John Chadwick and Goeman Investors properties of approximately 185 acres for industrial use; the property lying east of Silver Springs Golf Course, north of the proposed Chelsea Road, and abutting 1-94 for industrial use with a planned buffer to the easterly existing residential property; the property lying in the afea of the Orchard Road and abutting 1-94 fOf industrial use as proposed; and the Golden Nugget property of approximately 220 acres for residential use with an area running parallel to South Highway 25 for commercial use. The rational ofthe IDC recommendation: Long-term planning versus short-term planning for industrial land use, property abutting the 1-94 better suited for industrial use (exposure) versus residential use (noise), large-concentrated industrial land use areas more desirable to minimize industrial/residential land use conflicts, continuation of housing development in close proximity to the school campus, and long-term planning for commercial use along South Highway 25. EXHIBIT C PERTINENT IDC MEETING MINUTES b'~ . . '. Planning Commission Agenda - 03/02/99 7. Public Hcarin _ Consideration of a re uest for a Conditional Use Permit PUD and variance from the lot area er unit standards within thc R-3 Zonin District to allow a subdivision and develo ment of a two famil dwellin . A licant: Villa e Builders. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This item has been withdrawn at the request ofthe developer. The report was already written so it is included below for information only. Planned Unit Development Village Builders has submitted an application to allow the development of a twin home on a parcel in the R-3 Zoning District. Twin homes are permitted uses in this district, however, the applicant wishes to create a subdivision along the common wall between the two units which would allow separate sale and ownership of each dwelling. This application was filed as a companion to staff s application which would establish a clause in the Zoning Ordinance allowing such subdivisions without the need for a PUD. The rationale for the amendment is presented in a separate staff report This application for a PU D is included in the event the Ordinance amendment does not pass. The intent of the PUD in this case, as noted above, is to allow separate unit ownership. Under the current zoning language, two family structures are permitted, but only on a single base lot meeting the minimum size. Without the ability to split the lot, the units within a two family structure would have to be occupied by renters, or a condominium subdivision would be required. The first option is counter to the City's common objective of encouraging home ownership where possible. This goal often promotes higher standards of property maintenance and longer term housing tenure. The second option allows ownership, but is complex, and requires a development which includes common space owned jointly between the two occupants. Such a design would seem to be an unnecessary requirement for promoting ownership. Moreover, the complexity of condominium requirements can result in a reluctance by potential buyers to enter the market. If the amendment is not approved, the PUD approach would appear to serve the City's interest in home ownership without creating the additional administrative concerns of a condominium. Variance This particular application is complicated by the fact that the applicant has purchased a parcel which consists of j ust over 10,000 square feet in area. This meets the R - 3 minimum lot size (10,000 square feet) but is not adequate to accommodate a two-family dwelling (6,000 square feet per unit). Moreover, townhouses may be situated on parcels at a deusity -6- ~_..,~~,.~._'- ~-~..'.. .,~ -,-- .'''~'''''-'''''''''''''''-~: ._'~ --- .-- ..---',. ,._~-~-_..-----,~_"""""'~ . Planning Commission Agenda - 03/02/99 2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that the criteria for variance consideration, including hardship and lack of reasonable use, have not been met. 3. Motion to table action on the variance, subject to the submission of additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend approval of the variance. The findings of hardship and the reasonable use standard should not be avoided due to the precedent which could be set by doing so. If the Planning Commission believes that the proposed use would be acceptable for the site and the neighborhood, staff would recommend an amendment which would reduce the lot area standard for such structures in the R-3 District. With regard to the CUP/PUD, staff believes that if adequate lot area were acquired, the PUD would be acceptable in concept form. Final PUD processing would require the submission of a full set of site plans including site improvements and a final landscape plan. In the alternative, the adoption of the companion Ordinance amendment would allow applicants in this situation to forego the submission of a PUD request for these kinds of uses, presuming compliance with the density provisions of the Zoning District. . D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Site Survey/Layout . -8- . . ....;:;- ... '-I'1Jt- (0, ! l--_ j -- ~~ I '" 1tis/~ ':'; !}j 1" [__.__.m___.______... _____ ._.__....-.__. _,'''-'''' SIN(,U lJNI1 ARU\ '.~ 1,5:Jf3.0 TnT AI. TOI,..INH[]ME AREA = 3.D [---------_._-~-~~_._--._' ~_~_~~"ARc:[L AREA ,',~ lO~_: 5tH -........ S "as, t ---r__~R~~'~'.~,.,. / -........ ... ... -........ ... ... / / / / / liL..OCI( 8 / / / I I A I", IVII!; ::;1 is-' QJ/! I .. ,t; / 6 . I I / 40 I I / I / / --... DR/V f w4f- / ? / / DR/v I:w4)' ~ E? 1#, ~I / 4- / / / I I / 40 "os, s t~ c ~1\'1Jt- <"" t...Or I . , --------.. s 40 nOR LAND SURVEYORS, INC. I 'oJ. BrQa.c/wo.y PO Box 179 '-.-tlc:ttUo, Mn :5:5363 .., 612-290-3388 F"a.x.' 612-295-3<409 / / / i; ..... ~ ~ v: / I / / L EXHIBIT A - SITE SURVEY / LAYOUT '\-"\ . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 03/02/99 8. Public Aearin!! - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish zero lot line subdivision for twin home development. Aoolicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Although Village Builders withdrew their request, the Planning Commission may want to consider this important amendment. This item was raised in the initial staff review on the Village Builders application to develop a twin home on a parcel in the B-3 District. Under current ordinance language, twin homes are permitted uses in the R-2 and R-3 Districts. The requirements ofthe Zoning Ordinance state that the allowable density for such uses is one unit per 6,000 square feet of lot area, however, the minimum lot size in the R-2 District is 12,000 square feet, and 10,000 square feet in the R-3 District. With adequate area, then, a developer can construct a two-family structure but can not provide for separate owner-occupancy, except by PUD or condominium plat. The concern is that the ordinance language actually encourages rental occupancy without a simple zero lot line subdivision clause. Such a clause would not have the effect of increasing density, since the same requirements for 6,000 square feet per unit would apply. Therefore, every twin home would require 12,000 square feet ofland, but the clause would permitthe simple subdivision in the R-2 and R-3 Districts allowing owner occupied units. The ordinance currently makes it more difficult to create an owner occupied pattern. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment, based on a finding that it will facilitate owner occupied twin home development. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that additional City review of twin home projects is preferable. 3. Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to the submission of additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendment. PUD is not very well adapted to the construction of a single twin home structure, and condominium plats are often undesirable, except in large projects. The amendment will not compromise density, and should encourage increased owner-occupancy in such developments. -9-