The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 10-02-2012REGULAR MEETING MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Chairman William Spartz, Sam Burvee, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman 1. Call to order 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes. a. Special Meeting of September 4th, 2012 b. Regular Meeting of September 4th, 2012 3. Citizen Comments 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda 5. Public Hearing – Consideration of a Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Rezoning from B-3 to Planned Unit Development for a 2 lot commercial development including vehicle sales and to adopt a Public Values Statement. Applicant: Cornerstone Chevrolet 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(H), R-3 (Medium Density) Residential District, and amendment to adopt an R-4 (Medium to High Density) Residential District). Applicant: City of Monticello 7. November Planning Commission Meeting Date 8. Community Development Director’s Report 9. Adjourn. Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 5. Public Hearing Consideration of a Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Rezoning from B-3 to Planned Unit Development for a 2 lot commercial development including vehicle sales and to adopt a Public Values Statement. Applicant: Cornerstone Chevrolet. (NAC) Property: Lot 2, Block 1, Carcone Addition, and Lot 2, Block 2, Carcone Addtion The proposed PUD property consists of the former Monticello Ford dealership property, including the building site and sales display lot at the corner of Trunk Highway 25 and Chelsea Road, along with the Ford storage lot directly west of the dealership, west of Sandberg Road. Planning Case Number: 2012 - 028 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Rezoning to Planned Unit Development and Planned Unit Development Concept and Development Stage Approval Deadline for Decision: October 15th, 2012 (60 days) Land Use Designation: Places to Shop Zoning Designation: B-3, Highway Business District The purpose of the B-3, Highway Business District is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. Proposed Zoning: The applicants propose a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The purpose of the PUD zoning district is to provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non-residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and marketable. Current Site Use: The site is currently occupied by the former, now vacant, Ford dealership building. The parcel between Highway 25 and Sandberg Road also includes a large sales/display area. To the west of Sandberg Road is a paved area, formerly used for vehicle storage by the Ford dealership. Њ Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 Surrounding Land Uses: North: Automobile dealership, zoned B-3 (Highway Business) East: Mix Commercial Retail, zoned B-3 (Highway Business) South: Commercial Service, zoned B-3 (Highway Business) West: Commercial Service, zoned B-3 (Highway Business) Project Description: The applicant is seeking to be released from the Planned Unit Development applied to the Carcone Addition, a four lot commercial subdivision which overlays the former Monticello Ford dealership site located in the southwest quadrant of Trunk Highway 25 and Interstate 94. Specifically, the applicants wish to convert the former Ford dealership into a Chevrolet dealership and establish their own Planned Unit Development. In this elocate its existing dealership operations to the subject site. While no changes to the footprint of the existing dealership building or parking areas are proposed, a number of site modifications are required by General Motors (GM) to meet their branding requirements. Ordinance Requirements: When a proposal is made for Planned Unit Development, the applicants are required to generally describe their project, including a description of proposed uses, buildings, site improvements, and other elements. The first step in the PUD approval process is to conduct a collaborative Planning Commission/City Council workshop meeting with the developer at which a Public Values Statement is developed. This meeting was held on th September 4 2012, from which a Public Values Statement was written and forwarded to the applicant and public officials. The Public Values Statement forms the parameters for consideration of development proposals on the property and for the elements constituting the new PUD District that will apply to the subject area. The applicant is now seeking Concept and Development Stage PUD consideration. Concept Stage and Development Stage PUD includes a public hearing with the Planning Commission, and eventually results in a City Council decision to move forward under the PUD designation, or to revert to standard zoning. The Planning Commission is called on to review the request and provide a Ћ Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 recommendation on approval or denial of the rezoning and development stage applications. ANALYSIS Access: Access to the property is gained via two curb cuts on Sandberg Road. The most southerly of the two enters the site along the south side of the building and provides direct access to the sales lot and customer parking area. The northerly access point is shared with the West Metro automobile dealership to the north. This drive provides access to the service portion of the Cornerstone building, as well as access to the West Metro property. The two parcels jointly utilize this area for loading/unloading of car transports, utility and service vehicles, and as a secondary access point for other traffic. An existing Conditional Use Permit for this shared access will remain in place concurrent e access drive. Parking. Because the proposed Cornerstone Chevrolet dealership will be replacing the former Ford dealership at the site, the footprint of the existing parking area will remain unchanged. Currently 270 parking stalls are provided in the parking area west of Sandberg Road, in Block 2, Lot 2 of the Carcone Addition. This area was formerly used for vehicle storage by the Ford dealership. The parking area is accessed by two curb cuts off of Sandberg Road, maintains a concrete curb, applies a bituminous surfacing material, provides adequately sized parking aisles and parking stalls, and maintains landscape plantings within parking islands and along the property edge abutting other properties to the north and south. Landscaping. Landscaping will remain unchanged, and currently consists of a combination of shrub and tree species (Ash, Locust, Maples, Chinese Elms, Arborvitae), and lawn. While landscaping in the parking area to the west of Sandberg Road is spaced somewhat regularly and provided along all property edges, landscaping in the proposed Cornerstone Chevrolet parcel at the corner of County Highway 25 and Chelsea Road is very minimal. This is due to the fact that vehicle display areas for vehicle sales uses are exempt from the standards for vehicle use area landscaping, as described in Section 4.1(F) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. The applicants have indicated that they may add ornamental landscaping to the west edge of the property, but prefer to consider that independently rather than as a condition of the PUD. The City has confirmed its agreement with this position as a part of the Public Values Statement governing the development plan for the project. Lighting. Site lighting is existing and is proposed to remain the same as was previously approved by the City. The applicants have indicated any future retrofitting of site lighting will proceed with guidance and approval from the City. Ќ Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 Signage. Additional signage is proposed for the site, and includes the following: Wall Signage North Elevation - A blue in color and LED illuminated. East Elevation - Wall signage would be erected according to GM requirements. While the exact wall sign size has yet to be determined, the proposed Chevy gold bowtie sign would not exceed 27 in area, and the Chevrolet signature sign would not exceed 73.50 square fee The applicant provided sign elevations (dated 08-06-12) which estimate that wall sign size will be smaller, at approximately 13.37 -gold Chevrolet bowtie sign, and approximately 35.37 square feet (-) for the Chevrolet signature sign. Depending upon GM approvals, the sign will either be white and internally illuminated or have blue lettering. South Elevation - Three wall signs are proposed. Again, signage will be erected according to GM requirements but should not exceed the following sizes: A 27 square fee73.50 square feet nated According to the sign elevations provided, these wall signs should be smaller, at approximately: A - 35.37 - - - (dealer letters) West Elevation - No signage is proposed with the possible exception of incidental directional signage. The total area of wall signs proposed will not exceed the permitted 15% of total building façade fronting not more than two public streets, described in the Zoning Ordinance Section 4-5 Signs, Subsection J - District Regulations. Ѝ Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 The applicants have made an effort to coordinate wall sign design with the design of the principal building on the property; in particular, the color of the proposed wall signs will compliment principal building finish materials. Freestanding Signage sign would be located along the east side of the subject site. This sign would be internally illuminated and located at the southwest corner of the site. -- would measure 28 feet in height and would be located at the southeast corner of the site. A scaled drawing indicating sign location on the subject parcel has not been provided. However, general locations of the proposed freestanding signs have been provided in the -03-12), and appear to fall outside of utility easement and setback areas. The monument sign on the southwest corner of the parcel will need to fall outside the designated corner visibility area (see Section 3.3(D)(b) of the Zoning Ordinance for guidance in calculating this area). The applicant should provide a scaled sign plan on a certificate of survey indicating the exact location of proposed freestanding signs to confirm compliance with City sign standards and setbacks. For the purposes of freestanding signage, the allowances of the Freeway Bonus Sign District apply. Those allowances permit two freestanding signs for multiple frontage parcels. One sign may be 32 feet in height, and up to 200 square feet in area. The second sign may be up to 14 feet in height, 100 square feet in area, and of monument-style design. The code thus allows up to 300 total square feet of freestanding sign area. The applicants have proposed 335 square feet on three separate structures. In addition, the applicants are proposing that 200 square feet of the proposed signage be digital message board. The zoning ordinance accommodates dynamic digital message board displays up to 50 square feet in area, with an additional allowance of up to 16 square feet for time and temperature messaging. The changeable display is counted against the overall allowance, unless the applicant agrees to forgo other temporary or portable signage on the property, in which case the changeable display is added to the overall allowance. In a PUD, Planned Unit Development District, signing restrictions shall be based upon the individual uses and structures contained in the complex. At the same time, signs must be in compliance with the restrictions applied in the most restrictive zoning district in which Ў Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 the particular land use is allowed; in this case, the B-3, Highway Business District, which were reviewed in consideration of proposed signage. The City may grant flexibility under the PUD designation. To accommodate the changes to the proposal are recommended by staff: 1. Allow a maximum freestanding sign area of 300 square feet (or up to 350 square feet if the applicant agrees to forgo future temporary signage). 2. Require that changeable copy/digital display may be no more than 50 square feet of the total freestanding sign area (or up to 66 square feet if the messages include regular time and temperature displays). 3. Permit the proposed signage to be spread over three total signs, one of which must be of monument style design meeting the requirements of the code (14 feet height, 100 square feet maximum area). 4. No individual sign may be greater than 200 square feet, of which no more than 66 square feet of area may be changeable copy (as noted in item 2 above). 5. Apart from the monument sign, the two pylon signs may be constructed up to 32 feet in height, in accordance with the allowances of the Freeway Bonus District sign height. 6. The freestanding signs are constructed to comply with the requirements of the sign ordinance, as follows: Section 4.5 (H)(20) Design and Materials Standards for Signs in Commercial Districts, Industrial Districts, the CCD District, PUDs, and Performance Based Mixed Use Development (a) In General The design and materials of any sign shall be consistent with the building materials requirements of the district in which the sign is located, and shall be the same as, or compatible with, the materials and design of the principal building(s) on the property. (b) Specific Materials for Pylon Signs All exposed pole or post structures must be wrapped or faced with stucco, architectural metal, brick or stone consistent with building architecture. Џ Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 Building Design. No changes to the footprint of the existing dealership building are proposed, however a number of building modifications are required by General Motors (GM) to meet their branding requirements. These modifications are as follows: Building Exterior Walls - A large area of the exterior wall surface at the southeast corner of the dealership building is proposed to be upgraded with architectural metal panels (ACMs). The panels would be silver/gray in color with a blue stripe. The remainder of the exterior would be repainted silver/gray. Showroom Entrances - The main entrance to the building from the parking lot (facing south) would be modified to include a typical GM branded entrance element (blue with a gold bowtie sign). The second entrance to the showroom (facing east) would likewise o Showroom Windows - The applicant wishes to extend the existing curved showroom windows to the ground. Other windows in the showroom may also be extended to the ground, depending upon GM approval requirements. If an exception is approved by GM, the applicant will retain the existing rock face masonry units and paint them to match the The Zoning Ordinance permits glass as a building finish in business zoning districts, however metal exterior finishes are permitted only where coordinated into the overall architectural design of the structure (as is the case here), but in no case should constitute more than 15% of the total exterior finish of the building. The total exterior area of the principal building is approximately 20,000 square feet, in which case only 3,000 square feet of the proposed architectural metal panels (ACMs) are allowed. More than 3,000 square feet of ACMs are applied to the south elevation of the building alone, in which case the proposed exterior metal finish will exceed standards. This is an accommodation which can be recommended for approval under the PUD. Grading and Drainage. Changes to site grading have not been proposed; as such, storm water drainage patterns on the site should remain unchanged as well. The applicant is working with the City and the adjacent property owner to define common drainage patterns and private easements over the parcel. Utilities. The utility infrastructure at the site is not proposed to change. Accessory Use Requirements. The proposed plan does not identify any accessory buildings. А Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 Trash Handling. The trash handling details were not provided, but the applicants shall enclose trash handling equipment within the building, or within an enclosure that is attached to the building and designed to blend with the overall building architecture. PUD STANDARDS The lot will be subject to the requirements of PUD approval, including the following expectations for a development seeking a rezoning to PUD: (a) Ensure high quality construction standards and the use of high quality construction materials; Comment: The applicant has indicated that high quality construction standards will be utilized. Construction materials for the project will need to meet GM requirements and the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. As indicated earlier, the proposed glass and metal exterior building finishes are permitted in business districts, given all criteria for their use are met. (b) Promote a variety of housing styles which include features such as side or rear loaded garages, front porches, varying roof pitches, and four sided architecture/articulation; Comment: Not applicable (c) Eliminate repetition of similar housing types by encouraging a housing mixture that diversifies the architectural qualities of a neighborhood; Comment: Not applicable (d) Promote aesthetically-pleasing design within the neighborhood and appears attractive and inviting from surrounding parcels; Comment: The applicant has proposed signage and building material designs which meet the expectations of General Motors (GM), and will meet design requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (e) Incorporate extensive landscaping in excess of what is required by code; Comment: The applicant has indicated that they would like to plant ornamental landscape trees on the south and west side of the main car lot to create increased public value for the parcel. (f) Provide high-quality park, open space, and trail opportunities that exceed the expectations established in the Comprehensive Plan; Б Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 Comment: The applicant has indicated that parks and trails may not be logical on the parcel, given extensive paving and the highway commercial oriented use. . Staff is recommending of the Lot 2, Block 1 parcel, running from north to south edge of the property. This recommendation is based on the adopted Park & Pathway Plan for the City, which identifies the Highway 25 corridor as a Secondary Pathway Route. A pathway in this location will provide a connection to the east-west Chelsea Road pathway system, and serve as a developing linkage in the north-south Highway 25 system. MnDOT (which controls the right of way) has indicated that a pathway in this location would be permissible through their normal permitting process. (g) Provide a convenient and efficient multi-modal transportation system to service the daily needs of residents at peak and non-peak use levels, with high connectivity to the larger community. Comment: See notation above related to the pathway recommendation. (h) Promote development that is designed to reduce initial infrastructure costs and long- term maintenance and operational costs; Comment: The infrastructure and drainage are existing and the applicants have no plans to alter them at this time. The applicants are working with the neighboring property owner to define an existing private drainage easement as a companion part of the PUD approval process. (i) Where applicable, maximize the use of ecologically-based approaches to stormwater management, restore or enhance on-site ecological systems, and protect off-site ecological systems including the application of Low Impact Development (LID) practices; Comment: The applicants have not expressed a need to alter drainage or grading patterns. (j) Foster in inclusive community by providing a complementary mix of lifecycle housing; Comment: Not applicable Natural Resource Inventory (NRI); Comment: No important ecological areas have been identified on the site. В Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation 1. Motion to adopt: a. Public Values Statement for Cornerstone Chevrolet; b. Resolution #2012-081 recommending approval of Ordinance #565 C-PUD #1 for a Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development; and c. Rezoning from B-3 to Planned Unit Development for a 2 lot commercial development including vehicle sales. 2. Motion to deny Resolution # 2012-081 recommending approval of Ordinance #565 for a Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Rezoning from B-3 to Planned Unit Development for a 2 lot commercial development including vehicle sales and to adopt a Public Values Statement. 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, staff recommends approval of the adoption of the Public Values Statement, rezoning to PUD, and Concept and Development Stage PUD. This recommendation is based on a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and results in a development that meets the objectives and requireme regulations. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution 2012-081 B. Ordinance #565 C. Public Values Statement D. Applicant Narrative E. Site plans a. Aerial b. Survey c. Prelim Plat d. Final Plat e. Elevations f. Floor Plan(s) g. Landscaping Plan h. Sign Plans ЊЉ Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 F. Zoning Map G. Land Use Map H. Park & Pathway Plan, Excerpts Z. Conditions of Approval ЊЊ Planning Commission Agenda 10/02/12 EXHIBIT Z CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CORNERSTONE CHEVROLET PUD LOT 2, BLOCK 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CARCONE ADDITION 1. Applicant maintains the agreements necessary to comply with the existing Conditional Use Permit for cross access with Lot 1, Block 1 Carcone Addition (West Metro Automotive Dealership site). 2. Existing landscaping on the site is maintained per plan submissions. Additional nts. 3. Wall signage is installed per plan, as described in the staff report. Future changes to signage will require the applicable sign permits. Expansion or additional signage will be reviewed as an amendment to the PUD. 4. Freestanding signage will be changed from the proposed signage to be within the following allowances: a. Three freestanding signs, one of which must be a monument sign. b. Total freestanding sign area to consist of 300 square feet between the three signs, distributed as desired by the applicants. c. Maximum digital message board area of 66 square feet (presuming inclusion of occasional time/temp messaging). d. Digital message board may be added to the 300 square foot maximum if applicants forgo temporary signage as provided in the sign ordinance. e. Monument sign to be no greater than 14 feet in height and 100 square feet in area. f. Pylon signs to be no greater than 32 feet in height and 200 square feet in area. g. All other sign ordinance regulations apply to freestanding signage. 5. Building materials and design as requested by the applicant. 6. Trash handling equipment is contained within the building or in an enclosure attached to the building of materials consistent with those of the principal building. 7. The applicant construct a pedestrian pathway along the Highway 25 frontage of the site Plan. 8. Final record plans are developed and provided to the City illustrating compliance with all terms of the PUD approval, other applicable ordinances, and including Exhibit Z. 9. The applicants enter into a PUD Development Agreement guaranteeing compliance with the terms of the PUD approval. ЊЋ Planning Commission Agenda – 10/02/12 12 EXHIBIT Z – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CORNERSTONE CHEVROLET PUD LOT 2, BLOCK 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CARCONE ADDITION 1. Applicant maintains the agreements necessary to comply with the existing Conditional Use Permit for cross access with Lot 1, Block 1 Carcone Addition (West Metro Automotive Dealership site). 2. Existing landscaping on the site is maintained per plan submissions. Additional landscaping will be a the applicant’s discretion, outside of the PUD requirements. 3. Wall signage is installed per plan, as described in the staff report. Future changes to signage will require the applicable sign permits. Expansion or additional signage will be reviewed as an amendment to the PUD. 4. Freestanding signage will be changed from the proposed signage to be within the following allowances: a. Three freestanding signs, one of which must be a monument sign. b. Total freestanding sign area to consist of 300 square feet between the three signs, distributed as desired by the applicants. c. Maximum digital message board area of 66 square feet (presuming inclusion of occasional time/temp messaging). d. Digital message board may be added to the 300 square foot maximum if applicants forgo temporary signage as provided in the sign ordinance. e. Monument sign to be no greater than 14 feet in height and 100 square feet in area. f. Pylon signs to be no greater than 32 feet in height and 200 square feet in area. g. All other sign ordinance regulations apply to freestanding signage. 5. Building materials and design as requested by the applicant. 6. Trash handling equipment is contained within the building or in an enclosure attached to the building of materials consistent with those of the principal building. 7. The applicant construct a pedestrian pathway along the Highway 25 frontage of the site per City specifications, consistent with the direction of the City’s Parks and Pathways Plan. 8. Final record plans are developed and provided to the City illustrating compliance with all terms of the PUD approval, other applicable ordinances, and including Exhibit Z. 9. The applicants enter into a PUD Development Agreement guaranteeing compliance with the terms of the PUD approval. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2012-081 Date: October 2, 2012 Resolution No. 2012-081 Motion By: ________________ Seconded By: _______________ A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING MAP AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 566 REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT C-PUD #1. WHEREAS, the City of Monticello and the owners/representatives of Cornerstone Chevrolet have agreed to a Planned Unit Development Public Values Statement governing the redevelopment of Lot 2, Block and Lot 2, Block 1 of Carcone Addition for the purpose of establishing an automobile dealership; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has prepared a PUD zoning ordinance regulating the development of said parcels in accordance with the Public Values Statement, identified the zoning district “C-PUD #1”; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted a zoning map providing for the regulation of land uses in various zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the parcels within the PUD are zoned B-3, Highway Business District; and WHEREAS, the parcel is identified in the City’s Land Use Plan as being guided for “Places to Shop; and WHEREAS, the parcels in question exhibit the characteristics of visibility, accessibility, and similar conditions that would support automobile sales and other retail, office, and related land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the rezoning and PUD Ordinance will be consistent with the Comprehensive land use plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on October 2, 2012 to review the requests and receive public comment on the rezoning; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the most appropriate zoning district for the property in implementation of the City’s Land Use Plan is defined by the uses and provisions of Planned Unit Development District C-PUD #1; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the zoning ordinance amendment establishing the zoning district to be identified as “C-PUD #1”; and further The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council rezone the subject property from B-3, Highway Business District to Planned Unit Development District C-PUD #1. ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2012, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: ________________________________ William Spartz, Chair ATTEST: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director ORDINANCE NO. 565 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING SECTION 3.2(A) to ESTABISH THE C-PUD #1 ZONING DISTICT AND ADDING SECTION 3.8 PROVIDING FOR USES AND STANDARDS WITHIN THE C-PUD #1 ZONING DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3.2(A) is hereby amended to add Section 3.2(A)(1) to read as follows: 3.2 (A)(1). Planned Unit Development Districts (a) Planned Unit Development District C-PUD #1, as regulated by the provisions in Section 3.8 of this Ordinance. Section 2. Section 3.8 is hereby added to Chapter 3, to read as follows: Section 3.8 Planned Unit Development District C-PUD #1 (A) Purpose. The purpose of the C-PUD #1 zoning district is to provide for land uses and performance provisions established by Planned Unit Development agreement and governed by the Public Values Statement approved for Cornerstone Chevrolet, adopted by the City Council on October 8, 2012. (B) Permitted Uses. Permitted Uses shall be Automobile Dealership. (C) Accessory Uses. Accessory Uses shall include those uses listed as permitted uses, conditional uses, or accessory uses in the B-3, Highway Business District, provided such uses shall be clearly accessory to the principal use of the property subject to this PUD. (D) Conditional Uses. Conditional Uses shall include those uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the B-3, Highway Business District which may be subsequently established as principal uses in C-PUD #1 through an amendment to the Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the process identified in the zoning ordinance as a PUD Adjustment, Section 2.4 (P)(10)(b). (E) Plans and Improvements within the PUD. The PUD shall be developed in accordance with the Final Record Plans and other submittals approved by the City Council. Said plans and other submittals shall be 1 ORDINANCE NO. 565 considered a part of this ordinance by reference, and shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. (F) Amendments to the PUD. Amendments to the PUD shall be processed in accordance with Section 2.4 (P)(10) of the zoning ordinance. (G) Other regulations. All other regulations of the zoning ordinance shall apply to activities within the C-PUD #1 District, including administrative and enforcement, unless otherwise specifically modified by the approved PUD Ordinance. Section 3. The following described parcels are hereby rezoned from B-3, Highway Business District to C-PUD #1: Lot 2, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1 Carcone Addition. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by Council. Copies of the complete Zoning Ordinance are available online and at Monticello City Hall. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 8th day of October, 2012. CITY OF MONTICELLO __________________________________ Clint Herbst, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ JCity Administrator VOTING IN FAVOR: VOTING IN OPPOSITION: 2 Public Values Statement Cornerstone Chevrolet Planned Unit Development at: Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2, Carcone Addition This document establishes the “Public Values Statement” for the proposed Planned Unit Development District to be created on property at the corner of Trunk Highway 25, Chelsea Road, and Sandberg Road. The document is the product of collaborative work between the applicant and the City, including a joint Developer - City Council – Planning Commission meeting. The Public Values Statement is intended to lay out the goals and policy standards that the developer will utilize in the design of their project, and the City will utilize in evaluating the various staged applications for PUD approvals. 1. The applicant will design and/or redesign buildings within the PUD that provide proven utility for prospective occupants and tenants, based on a variety of user needs and site conditions. The objective is to modify the existing automobile dealership building by updating its architecture to reflect GM Dealership requirements and branding, and reflect the commercial construction improvements of new development in the area. 2. The plan for building architecture and materials is to address building views from all sides given the high levels of exposure of the PUD site. This objective reflects the needs of the dealership to express its message architecturally, and the City’s objective of encouraging high-value commercial uses on this visible commercial parcel. 3. The City has expressed a desire to consider flexibility with sign allowances on the site, with continuing investigation of new technologies and options. The applicant is seeking a significant departure from the City’s sign regulations, and both parties are working toward an appropriate sign plan that takes advantage of the site visibility, accommodates the applicant’s interest in exposure, and is compatible with the surrounding commercial areas. 4. The City and developer will work together to monitor infrastructure needs, including stormwater management for the area, and traffic patterns around and within the PUD. Traffic at Chelsea and Sandberg will be looked at specifically. 5. The City and developer will work together to evaluate the benefits and potential needs for pedestrian improvements in the area, within the context that pathways currently exist on the east side of Highway 25 and the south side of Chelsea Road. The City will evaluate pedestrian needs in the context of both the existing and future development, its Parks and Pathways planning, and demonstrated patterns of use. 6. The applicant proposes to utilize the property for auto-related sales and service commercial activities. The City endorses this mix based on location of the site and other features of the proposed PUD concept design. 7. The City confirms that the proposed development and its proposed range of land uses are consistent with the intent and direction of the City’s future land use plans for the area. 8. Benefits of the use of PUD on this property include the ability to redevelop a vacant prime commercial site with land uses compatible for the site and area . Other benefits include attractive architecture in this high visibility location, compatibility with nearby newer commercial development, and managed traffic access and circulation patterns that are less available with individually-developed properties. Pursuant to these values and declarations, the applicant has expressed an interest in seeking development of the subject property under the regulations of the City’s Planned Unit Development ordinance, and has received encouragement from City officials to proceed with formal applications and the required public process. The adoption of this Public Values Statement does not bind the applicant to a specific design, nor does it bind the City to a general approval of a PUD request. However, this statement expresses the good will of both applicant and City in pursuing the current course, in general anticipation of successful project approvals based on current information. ALTAIACSM Land Title Survey For. LE"NQ KAPLANSTRAGIS and KAPLAN., P.A. ound 00 Iron Monument Iran Monument Set F., S* sign PP {'y Power Pat,- of the Monticello Ford—mercury Site, Monticello) MN. 0 PK Nail Set --s-Sanitarl Sewer LP -1F Light Pole FPO Flog Pote, f�ROPERTY DESCRIPWN ---ST—Storm Sewer )so Junction Box PARCEL 1; --- N- Watermain CWXO Cable Box that Pout of lot A of the Southa*0 Quarter of the Southwest illartor (SE 1/4 SW 114) and that part of Lot A of the Southwest Quartor of the Southwest (SW 114 SW 114) of Section Ete"n (11,% To*Rship One Hyd. -6 Hydrant nm 0 Gas Meter Hundred Twenty-one (127), Range Twonty-five (25), City of A#*nticella, Wrio County, Woresoic described as, tbffows� Commencing , t t the Southwest corner of said Lot A of the SE 114 of the SW ?A ftvrce North 0 dagrees 53 ftnuids 09 so-Onds East (aAratured bearing) OW9 the West fire of said Lot A of the SE 114 of the SW 114, a distance of 47.59 fast to the Westerly right of way I -Ad of Trunk Highway Number Gate Valve MHO Manhole E Electrical Transformer TO Telephone Pedestal "I 25 and the actual Point of beginnifg; thence north 19 degrees East along the said right of way line. a dittonc,% of 3,17,78 feet; thence North 14 degrees 28 minutes West a" the said ight of way line, a distance of 165.84 feet to the South&ny fight of way fine Of Inferstate Highway CSO Catch Bas;!" =Concrete Surface i -94., thanes North 47 degrees 56 minutes W600 Wang tho said right of way Fne, a distance of 428.48 fe*t,, thence South 0 degree* 53 minutes 09 seconds West, a distance of 7W.49 feet to a If" LSO Lift Stafior? 1= Bituminous Surface parahlol with and d,,'sfcnt UOO feet North at the South fine of Lot A of the SW 114 of the SW 114; the Norfht 89 dogmas 14 minutes 03 seconds Ease along said parallel line, a distance of 2,58,79 feet to the Wffvt61V right 0! way fine of said Trunk Highway Number 25.� thence North t9 degrees coo Cleanout > Flared -0 Gas T-8uriad East along said right of way line, 0 distance of 75,48f t the Point of at to End Telephone PARCEL Z In, Invert Elevation C—ftried Electric 0 Lot Ona (1), in Stock One 0 1 of Soodtvr South occur Guard Post —Tv— Buried Television 4 EW N _10- to 4h Er A� Go ow s.14hmft sb.M_0 a -f. V *ctnit 4 1 S� ft, Iop 121, iig� 25 I y Map Section 11 Township 121, P- 25 71 and for Wright County, Minnesota,9 0 he Plot and Sur thereof On fife and of record ,*p the a a of the County Recorder A 1:i7l� — I No Scale PARCEL �3, y1 7r J W.0 " ar Lot A of ft intS400040 QwW a M. and for Wright County, Arnnesojo, 1.0 Two (2), in ftc;c one (1) of Sandberg South, accordinq O.W* JJ) In to the piat and sur�y thereof on Ift and of record In the office of the county Roc&rdar I Y0 PARCEL 4: 0 Z, OuWt c; Pro" Partners, according to Plat and s mirftes*tc� 7 1 WV V -- -Vey thereof On file and of word in the Office of the County Recorder, in and far Wright County, or PARCEL 5: N� b060 'Pilo, A and Wfat .9. Outlet a Lots Two (2,. Three (3), Four (4), S'. i`a), Seven (7), Eight (8). Nine (9) and Ton (10)� in Block Thma. (3); and Lot One ftck Ore (1) and 4 County, 46nnesatc. WO P(IftflaM according to the plot and survey thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder In and for Wright 41 I 'W. 1, CfI 'W. 'W. PARCEL 6., Thot part of Lot Three Black one (r), ,ordberg South, according to the plot and v"rvVy thereof On file and Of record ir, the offee f t a C LP Recorder in and for Wright County. Winpowita, described as rallows: Beginning or the Northeast corner of seed Lot J; thence Scuthinty, or h County t said Lot A a distance of 6.94 test; therce Sooth*&qter�, ang he to reronds a distance of 30.40 feet,, thence wastedy 78..?0 feet. along a * fango cas tOngCAtjdf curvehence Westerly deflecting to the right 47 degrees 28 minutes 07 r Building LP "w" I-- deflecting to the right, 47 degrets 27 minutes 16 socondii a distance of 'Of to the left, 110,02 a radruo of 614,15 Wl. a Atrol angle of 7 degrees 17 minutes 44 seconds 'a the Norfhari•f line of SaIa Lot 3 thence Faet*6? a distance of 124-50 fast along said Northerly i1ne to the point of ti#qjnnlng, A 16- LP our "I PARCEL 7: x" 7, 40 LP Et 'nnnola, Plot and survey thereof on file and Of lecold In the Office Of the county Recorder in and for Wright County, Mi actord,'ng to the Lat One (1), 810-'A Two 0, Plaza Partners together with an eassmont for ingress and egress over oultats A. and C, Plaza Partners,dao LP I Nit' S LP 0 M.Es 74,1 Rec"AFT96 shown 011, based an an assumed datum, dt Mic40, Northern Mates Power Company, Minim -Basco, 705 'flides shown are tram womation famished by the City Of M* Telecom and U.S, West in re3porno to Cophar State One C .0 Cod raKwt Na. J498z All Other QtWty companks foiled to teepond. (07r _J ip Contact Gopher S- to a" Cot' at 4."OW2 lcr precise ut;tify kcalta,,jr Wort any lh_zq begin, _Sr a there om 3O8 striped Parting statsan the property. LP LP 1,P /J sr U, Q OR)Perty i* located In Flood Zont C (Arron of UWral Fko&V) per Fvaod Zone Paper No, 27CX94* OW5 8, dated hav*mt 1st, 1979. LP Property is zoned PLO (Planned Lhoit and the site pf%pt was reviewed arsd qppm�wd by the C4 of Uoticatio. Setbacks, height r#gtritr6ans and sWfuc# c0vt%rale was aft approved at pari of this plan, to" —W 4. I / I 3k ff -ate" 19 intceft:00 of Oakwood Drive and At WJ Lbncnmark; lop cr lly's"Ot fir�' - in the SW O'sne" of U Ir ae auWay aV RENCHAAW, 956.21 kat. "Anosoto State Highway �Va. 1p,�- , 2 Misrumaww -S - - - - — - - - - our, L n Area of pro" - 588,014 4 ft of 110M8 Acres to Area Of PmP@y Easterly of Road 289,592 Sq. ft. or 8,6481 Acres A_ fta of 1 11 �l =1-11= Road 278,422 So. ft. or C3917 Acres, E__E _E 4� LP Go (tidi I -Ind) hock of curb I i -I I '; LP .7 49 W —W ilt �WRVEYORS NOTES cis to co I —S t 1P lefer"ad to Commonwooth Land Titia, jOVu,,1q4& Campmy Commitment 10 as Im a, -w- 40 far 'am m3U`cft-* Fun W. 205565, acted Ocfalvr l2th, 2004. LF sf vp C4 Ep. ST Q* Document No. Y042". (As to Parcels 2 3) LP &.vats, eve 5_00; M14 Schedule 8 - Seciton 2 S* tt,�4 2f'- MH Its Rem 117 - P'uP&IY If, subject to terms and cancalaps of Order 199-012 Granting Variance, dated 12-14-9g, I Ane filed of record 3-1 4_9� Existing Building liern J18 Property is subject to terms and conditions of Order JW -006 orantirq 60,rdlaariai use 0 25 50 100 11-11 record 8 's"'A at RIO" PamnA dated 8-21-00, tied of J -30-00, as Doirainent No. 71911& M to Paral 7) Rem 119 --Prop" is 5upjact to terms and Of Order LP -a4- 'n Feet 102-076 OrOr-Ung COriritasst Use Pani f. do ted 10-25-02, road or record LP 10-29-02, as Dovomant No, 813710. is LP A ...... + 100.08 4 r to' The undersigned hereby certifies to Cennis E. Hecker, S 06 U r Sydney Holdings of Monticello, UC, tp DcimirtrChrysler Services North America LLC and Commonwealth Land title Insurance Company 3t that this Is a true and correct representation Of 0 survey of the above --described realproperty 41 -it showing; t X A A (a) the location Of all visible buildings or structures thereon a (the 'Project") 4 C (k) the location of all easements and encroachments onto a,, from such real property that are visible on the real tl& property, known to the undersigned or of record; IL (c) any flood haZold areas; and -7 L /M Z�, (e I (d) all visible service roads. highways, bicycle oath,3, Walkways, 4 16 and parking areas on or serving the Project A I I i J, I The undersigned hereby further certifies that the Project Is both in connplionce with art C X setback requirements Of the City of Yonticello in which the reel property is located; and h' f !s map or plot and the survey on which it is based were made (i) in accordance With 'MinmumStan - - - - - - no Standard Detail Requirements for ALTAIACSM Land Title 4L - - - - - -- - - � 0 Suf`VOYS," jointly estob);S114d and adopted V by ALTA and ACSM in 1999, and includes Items 1, 2, J, 4, 6. 7(c), 7(b)(1), 8, 9 1 1 Je L - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - 962.75 14 and 16 at Table A thereof, and (h) pursuant to the Accuracy Standards (asOdop d to by Go ALTA and AGSM and in effect an the date of this certification) of an urban Survey. owA ROADUH Dated this 13th day Of December, 2CO4 Not4fo'nd'+ 16' . PP PCHDCR AND ASSOCIATES, INC. -MARVIN A A 4 EX19ft By.- David C. Croigie, Land Surveyor 4 UH PP PP Minnesota License Number 42618 Rehder and Associates, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 3440 Federal Drive - Suite 240 - Eagon, Minnssofo - Phone (651) 452--5051 JOB. 044-1430,01 t OFFF CARCONE ADDITION KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That CF Monticello 11 RE Holdco LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, fee owner of the following described property situated In the County of Wright. State of Minnesota to wit: That part of Lot A of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and that part of Lot A of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot A of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence an an assumed b -sarins of North 0 degrees 53 minutes 09 seconds East aiono the west lines of sold Lot A of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 47.59 feet to the westerly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 25 and the actual point of beginning. thence North 19 degrees East along said right of way line, a distance of 331.76 feet; thence North 14 degrees 28 minutes West along said right of way line, a distance of 166.84 feet to the southerly right of way fine of Interstate Highway 1-94; thence North 47 degree* 56 minutes West along sold southerly right of way line, a distance of 428.46 feet; thence South 0 degrees 53 minutes 09 seconds West, a distance of 780.49 feet to a line parallel with and "distant 33.00 feet north of the south line of Lot A of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 14 minutes 03 seconds East along sold parallel fine, a distance of 258.79 feet to the westerly right of way line of said Trunk Highway Number 25; thence North 19 degrees East along said right of way line, a distance of 15.48 feet to the point of beginning. Also: Lots 1 and 2, i3lock 1, SANDBERG SOUTH, according to the recorded plot thereof, Wright County, Minnesota. Also: Lots 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. 8, 9 and 10. Block 3, Lot 1, Block 1, Lot 1, Black 2, Outlot A. Outlot B and Outlot C, PLAZA PARTNERS. according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota Also: That part of Lot 3, Block 1, SANDBERG SOUTH, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County. Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the northeast caner of sold Lot 3; thence southerly along the easterly line of sold Lot 3, a distance of 6.94 feet; thence southwesterly deflecting 47 degrees 27 minutes 16 seconds right, a distance of 20.35 feet; thence westerly deflecting 47 degrees ,28 minutes 07 seconds right, a distance of 30.40 feet; thence westerly 78.20 feet along a tangential curve to the left. having a radius of 614.15 feet, a central angle of 7 degrees 17 minutes 44 second to the northerly line of said Lot 3; thence easterly a distance of 124.50 feet along said northerly (I ne to the point of beginning, Has caused the some to be surveyed and platted as CARCONE ADDITION and does hereby donate and dedicate to the public for public use forever the public way and the easements as shown an, the plot for dralro§e and utility purposes only. In witoess. whereof sold CF Monticello If RE Hoidco LLC, has caused these presents to be signed by Its proper officer this0_a4day of Juhea 20...x• t tevenrn or 0. real estate manager STATE OFA" �i�-,aaL aA� COUNTY OF C) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �� day of c_I,rsolt 20.1 :L— by Steven Carcone, real estate manager of CF Monticello 11 RE Hoidco LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, on behalf of the company, (Signature) (Name Printed) jk: M Notary Public, Oa� County, My Commission Expires �,14_ r, TOR LAND SURWYOs, IVC. mavrlcam mwwwrA I Dennis V. Taylor do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I cast a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plot havee been. pr will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3. as of the date of this certificate ere shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plot. Dated this �A€" day of -1040 ff Dgmirs V. Taylor, Land Vmyor Minnesota License Number 15233 STATE OF L a COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2040 by Dennis V. Taylor„ Land Surveyor, Minnesota License Number 1 (Signature) • _ -- ' (Name Printed) r Notary Public, County Minnesota My Commission Expires Q 3/—.W-"44 This. plot of CARCONE ADDITION was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota at a meeting. held this .., day of �l1 20-10 Chairman SeecretRy This plot of CARCONE ADDITION woe approved and gccepted in compliance wit Minnesota Statutes Section 505.03, Subdivision 2 by the City Council of the Citwoonticello, Minnesota at, o meeting held this _. day of April Mayor Citpellcw Reviewed and approved this ____ doy of20 t Q Wright County Surveyor Taxes paid for off years through year .200 and transfer entered this day of A rst.....�...r�- 20__L0__ Wright CourvtV Auditor 7lh I hereby certify that taxes payable in the your _,_ on lords herein described are paid this [ day of fight Co Treasurer I hereby certify that this Instrument was filed In the office of the County Recorder for record on this 9+6 day of —At i%A CA _,.., 2016 - at 1%99 o'clock _.__.. ..rn., and was duly recorded In Cabinet Sleeve as Document Number�e3 Wri4ht County Recorder o, i ~%j p ��'. �e� eynat�l.a.k.tl t Lit Tule. -=r+5. Co. 6 56.bo cj-!* Q5355>J IRON MONUMENT FOUND A 1/2 MICH x 14 (NCH IRON MONUMENT SET MATH A PLASM CAP NARKED R.LS. NO. 15233 o -- DENOTES Ei0STWG CONTRO LED ACCESS i DENOTES FA dGHT COUNTY MONUMENT Ki1RtHG Uff1TATtt7N : t+IiNATE F(icrAYNOs2 BEARS NORTH 18 DEGREES 59 M MS 24 SECONDS EAST. Vicinity Map 25 AND 2 oirrimptu PLlkT' CARCONE ADDITION \k: � STA 5.. Joao W o' }6 1065141-2 r� sq j' °r4 1 `�`-•.,,, ,r to a �- o...ro,,,� tcrr,t .�� V lit Nom _. •� r ��'""'"'' � � t� �� f'��s- i ! �n� •_ I —M£ST Lar air i r A dr—W SE4 I4 IT SW f/f om - r14e \ i Eyyss�, ar'� 4` �' •�'�w` \` `�` -4 ' 4759 v ev#r., 1 lit 34 1 Mrx oG" W M- 4e r• , a r\ rt r—rt ev 4i, r / 11 p lit •!{ r { f � �� ,i r Yf f t r< r• rl�t . rr f a �i r r � ; ,�„�rb. � \... •�' � � � rF rla ra L/4.r 6.. E t f1♦/<.[� f,'L/� i /,j�p .'� . i!riihJ4R w xa*7 - �`.. "'�' ^r...s r OPINION,, III, DR"AGE AND UTk ITY EASEMElF (S ARE SHOW THUS: er' f ri7 i,4 _ _ . �.. . _ . _. ._ r'.. / 'R �' ii l av 6-4 30 KM B FEET IN MAOTH, tNLM OTHERIMSE INDICATED, AND AWOMING COT r rr r + { W { { { c+��t' UNES,, AND 12 "ET IN M1DTH AND ADJOWM STREET ttNM AS WP7 MAs ON MPLAT. `a� " to +Z�" { t i tK Iy 1 31 3'43 45W 5, ------------- t' tw T— w _ r, Pv r, r`+r-r x • ,r♦ r, r-• ,-r r^ry t,rrf t 1+J --t , ftt! 1 r r-Jtr r w• rP ... r i ,r r v. c.. + +. f r ,. •r ,r v. r r a m_ f t ((( A 61xM+rY cWk A4dV r r 4 U YL OR LAND SURVEYORS, INC. MM71 EU4 A#M*WrA l r 0 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: Ittir ,A A R(11[411T C',"I T J JU44 4 INT1,311OR DESIGYN INSIDE OLY17SIDE' ARCHFIEC"' URE, INC. , r Ixa-H. Katips 18601 152nd AVF', N DAW(W. MN 55127 763,428-5870 CONSULTANTS PROJECT MONTICELLO CHEVROLET BAC #271946 MONTICE110, MN CONTENTS UPPER LEVEL PLAN CERTIFICATION PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION State Registration Date 08-06-2012 PUD COLLABORATIVE SUBMITTAL * COPYRtGUT 2012 C* This Plan is copyrighted and shall be used only for the building shown and is not to be copied or reproduced without written Permission from Inside Outside Architecture, Inc. Planning Commission Agenda – 10/02/12 1 6. Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to changes to the R-3, Medium Density Residence District, including consideration of establishing an R-4, High Density Residence District. Applicant: (NAC) Planning Case Number: 2011-010 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Amendment to the Zoning District to strengthen performance standards and related zoning requirements for multiple family housing Deadline for Decision: NA Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential (Places to Live) Zoning Designation: R-3, Medium Density Residence District The purpose of the R-3 District is to provide for medium density housing in structures up to 12 units. Current Site Use: NA Surrounding Land Uses: NA Ordinance Requirements: The current R-3 District provides for attached housing in structures of up to 12 units per building. This is a relatively modest density allowance for attached housing, and limits the City’s opportunity to attract higher-quality attached housing options. Although occasionally limited due to location and demand, there is a market for luxury attached housing, and as more adults enter a market where attached housing becomes more attractive, higher-end multiple family options would be important to avoid losing those community members to other locations. In presenting the material, the City is handicapped by a lack of higher-end multiple family housing, and as such, it is tempting to assume that all rental housing is the bottom of the market. With a stated Comprehensive Plan goal of increasing housing stock quality, the zoning regulations in place default to assuming that lower density is the only way to increase quality. There are numerous examples of higher-end attached housing in the area, and especially in other parts of the Twin Cities. These examples are marked by specific elements, however. The approach taken in the attached table is to create an increasing expectation Planning Commission Agenda – 10/02/12 2 on housing quality as density increases, and place up-front expectations for any housing – similar to the approach taken with the R-1A zoning district in single family housing – greater emphasis on open space, architecture, building materials, and general site design. This objective is possible to achieve, and many times, permitting greater density can help a developer deliver this type of product. In the past, however, the ordinance has not been strong enough to insist on the quality sought by the City, and the PUD process has been difficult to negotiate in an objective way. As a result, even PUD projects have not come close to the City’s intent for “step-up” housing quality. The attached table addresses housing by type, rather than zoning district, in an attempt to identify the requirements that each style of housing would require for it to meet the City’s objectives. The three categories uses are (1) Townhouses (currently possible in the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts), (2) Small-building multi-family of 6-12 units (similar to the current R-3 allowance) and (3) Large-building multi-family of 13 or more units (not available under the current code). There are two ways to think about how the three categories of housing can be clustered for zoning purposes. One approach would be to add this table to the R-3 District, and establish under that zoning category the eligible uses and associated requirements. As such, a property owner with R-3 zoned land would be able to choose which of the three, or possibly what combination of the three, would part of a project and design accordingly. The second option is to pull out the third column of Large-building multi-family and create a new R-4 zoning district. The advantage for the City with this approach is the level of discretion at the rezoning level. If all options are clustered in the R-3 District, the City may have more difficulty declining an application for the higher density option in an area that seems inappropriate, even though the required performance standards would require a reasonably quality project. If an applicant must seek a rezoning to R-4, the City has a much greater review authority to deny a rezoning request for locational reasons. In any case, the performance standards are intended to increase the requirements for this type of housing in the community. The higher density projects would have the greatest level of performance standards to qualify as a minimum project, ensuring that any project proposed would exceed the standards of the City’s current multi-family housing stock. Finally, the table incorporates considerations for permitting densities on the greater end through performance standards, and provides that all senior housing would require a PUD approach – in this way, the densities, unit sizes, parking supply, and many other senior- specific housing designs would be addressed under the PUD zoning approach, allowing Planning Commission Agenda – 10/02/12 3 the City to respond to what is a varied and dynamic market, depending on level of services and/or care. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for 1. Motion to approve Resolution #2012-82 recommending approval of Ordinance No. 566, amending the R-3 Zoning District (Section 3.4(H)) through the addition of performance standards and higher density allowances, along with associated changes to Sections 4.1 - Landscaping, 4.8 - Parking, 4.11(C) – Building Materials, and 5.2(C)(2) – Attached Dwelling Standards. 2. Motion to approve Resolution #2012-82 recommending approval of Ordinance No. 566, amending the R-3 Zoning District (Section 3.4(H)) through the addition of performance standards and the establishment of the R-4, High Density Zoning District, related performance standards, and higher density allowances, along with associated changes to Sections 4.1(J) - Landscaping, 4.8 - Parking, 4.11(C) – Building Materials, and 5.2(C)(2) – Attached Dwelling Standards. 3. Motion to deny Resolution #2012-82, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 4. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 2, although Alternative 1 would accommodate similar objectives, with only the loss of some locational control for the higher density zoning option. The Planning Commission, if considering approval, may add a finding that the provision of multiple family housing at higher densities is a reasonable zoning allowance, provided the project quality is sufficiently upgraded to accomplish the City’s objective of increased quality and “step-up” housing, and will add balance to the City’s housing stock in the higher-density range through higher value projects. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Zoning Map (see Agenda Item 5) B. Resolution #2012-82 C. Comprehensive Plan Excerpts: Land Use 3-6, 3-7 D. Zoning Code Excerpt: R-3 Medium Density Residential District Planning Commission Agenda – 10/02/12 4 E. Table 1: R-3 Development Standards (for R-3 Only Option) F. Table 2: R-3 Development Standards (for Split District Option) G. Table 3: R-4 Development Standards (for Split District Option) H. Draft Ordinance No. 566 identifying changes to related Code Sections 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2012-082 Date: October 2, 2012 Resolution No. 2012–82 Motion By: ________________ Seconded By: ________________ A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 566 REVISING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted a zoning ordinance providing for the regulation of land uses in various zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the ordinance provides limited opportunity for high-density housing; and WHEREAS, the provision of high-quality multiple family housing is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for high-value step-up housing; and WHEREAS, the general population is expected to increase its choice for attached housing in the future if quality housing is available in the community; and WHEREAS, the zoning ordinance regulations require additional performance standards to ensure compatible, compliant attached residential development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on October 2, 2012 to review the requests and receive public comment on the rezoning; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the revisions to the R-3 zoning district are necessary and proper to meet the market demand for balanced housing, and the quality standards of the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the zoning ordinance amendment revising the various performance standards and requirements for multiple family housing in Ordinance No. 566. 2 ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2012, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ William Spartz, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director R-3 District R-3 District R-3 District via performance or PUD Townhouse (4-10 du per building) Multi-family( 6-12 units per bldg.) Multi family (13+ units per bldg.) Base Lot size 20,000 sf 30,000 sf 30,000 sf Gross Density 3-7 du/acre 8-12 du/acre 10-25 du/acre Max Density w/o performance/PUD 4.0 du/acre 8.5 du/acre NA Net lot area per du 4,500 sf/du 3,500 sf/du Max 1,750 sf/du Front setback 30 feet 40 feet 100 feet Corner side setback 25 feet 30 feet 40 feet Interior side setback 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet Rear setback to building 30 feet 40 feet 40 feet Clear open space setback from ROW 25 feet 30 feet 60 feet Clear open space setback from PL 10 feet 30 feet 40 feet – no more than 50% of any yard facing a street covered with parking/drive aisles Buffer to SF B buffer B buffer C buffer Common open space per du NA 500 sf/du 500 sf/du Landscaping 16 ACI/acre +2 shrubs /10 feet bldg. perimeter 16 ACI/acre +2 shrubs /10 feet bldg. perimeter 1 canopy tree/ 2,500 sf open space +4 shrubs /10 feet bldg. perimeter Parking requirements 2.5/du, with 2 enclosed 2.5/du, with 2 enclosed 2.25 spaces/du, with max 1.1 space/du uncovered Architecture 20% street min frontage covered with enhanced materials 20% street min frontage covered with enhanced materials 20% street min frontage covered with enhanced materials, horizontal siding of steel or cement- board only (no vinyl or aluminum) Roofs 5:12 pitch 5:12 pitch 5:12 pitch, plus roof ridge line articulation of 3 feet min. Unit square feet 1,000 floor area 1,000 sf floor area 900 sf floor area Garages Attached Covered, may be detached Attached or Underground – no detached Garage Setback 30 feet from ROW (35 feet from curb of private street) May not access street directly – must be served by interior driveway May not access street directly – must be served by interior driveway Garage Doors Maximum 16 feet width facing street – no smooth panel doors No smooth panel doors – detached buildings must match principal building materials and include architectural fenestration on sides facing residentially zoned property Must include glass and decorative panels if visible from public street or adjoining residentially zoned property Performance/PUD options for Multi- family buildings Landscaping Special landscape features including water features, recreational structures, patios, etc. Increased landscape quantities and/or Sizes beyond code minimums; Special landscape features including water features, recreational structures, patios, etc. Increased landscape quantities and/or sizes beyond code minimums; Special landscape features including water features, recreational structures, patios, etc. Open Space Increased open space areas per unit beyond code minimums of 10% or more Increased open space areas per unit beyond code minimums of 10% or more Parking All required garage parking attached to principal building All required garage parking underground Building Materials Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or on other exterior walls Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or on other exterior walls Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or on other exterior walls Architecture Extensive use of ornamental features, building and/or roofline articulation, fenestration and building wall undulation atypical of other buildings in similar zoning districts Extensive use of ornamental features, building and/or roofline articulation, fenestration and building wall undulation atypical of other buildings in similar zoning districts Extensive use of ornamental features, building and/or roofline articulation, fenestration and building wall undulation atypical of other buildings in similar zoning districts Site Work Use of decorative paving materials in parking, sidewalks, etc.; Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or similar features. Use of decorative paving materials in parking, sidewalks, etc.; Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or similar features. Use of decorative paving materials in parking, sidewalks, etc.; Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or similar features. Housing for Seniors restricted to 55 years of age or more Accommodations to design and density through PUD process only Accommodations to design and density through PUD process only Accommodations to design and density through PUD process only R-3 District R-3 District Townhouse (4-10 du per building) Multi-family( 6-12 units per bldg.) Base Lot size 20,000 sf 30,000 sf Gross Density 3-7 du/acre 8-12 du/acre Max Density w/o performance/PUD 4.0 du/acre 8.5 du/acre Net lot area per du 4,500 sf/du 3,500 sf/du Front setback 30 feet 40 feet Corner side setback 25 feet 30 feet Interior side setback 20 feet 20 feet Rear setback to building 30 feet 40 feet Clear open space setback from ROW 25 feet 30 feet Clear open space setback from PL 10 feet 30 feet Buffer to SF B buffer B buffer Common open space per du NA 500 sf/du Landscaping 16 ACI/acre +2 shrubs /10 feet bldg. perimeter 16 ACI/acre +2 shrubs /10 feet bldg. perimeter Parking requirements 2.5/du, with 2 enclosed 2.5/du, with 2 enclosed Architecture 20% street min frontage covered with enhanced materials 20% street min frontage covered with enhanced materials Roofs 5:12 pitch 5:12 pitch Unit square feet 1,000 floor area 1,000 sf floor area Garages Attached Covered, may be detached Garage Setback 30 feet from ROW (35 feet from curb of private street) May not access street directly – must be served by interior driveway Garage Doors Maximum 16 feet width facing street – no smooth panel doors No smooth panel doors – detached buildings must match principal building materials and include architectural fenestration on sides facing residentially zoned property Performance/PUD options for Multi-family buildings Landscaping Special landscape features including water features, recreational structures, patios, etc. Increased landscape quantities and/or Sizes beyond code minimums; Special landscape features including water features, recreational structures, patios, etc. Open Space Increased open space areas per unit beyond code minimums of 10% or more Parking All required garage parking attached to principal building Building Materials Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or on other exterior walls Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or on other exterior walls Architecture Extensive use of ornamental features, building and/or roofline articulation, fenestration and building wall undulation atypical of other buildings in similar zoning districts Extensive use of ornamental features, building and/or roofline articulation, fenestration and building wall undulation atypical of other buildings in similar zoning districts Site Work Use of decorative paving materials in parking, sidewalks, etc.; Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or similar features. Use of decorative paving materials in parking, sidewalks, etc.; Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or similar features. Housing for Seniors restricted to 55 years of age or more Accommodations to design and density through PUD process only Accommodations to design and density through PUD process only R-4 District with optional performance or PUD Multi family (13+ units per bldg.) Base Lot size 30,000 sf Gross Density 10-25 du/acre Max Density w/o performance/PUD NA Net lot area per du Max 1,750 sf/du Front setback 100 feet Corner side setback 40 feet Interior side setback 30 feet Rear setback to building 40 feet Clear open space setback from ROW 60 feet Clear open space setback from PL 40 feet – no more than 50% of any yard facing a street covered with parking/drive aisles Buffer to SF C buffer Common open space per du 500 sf/du Landscaping 1 canopy tree/ 2,500 sf open space +4 shrubs /10 feet bldg. perimeter Parking requirements 2.25 spaces/du, with max 1.1 space/du uncovered Architecture 20% street min frontage covered with enhanced materials, horizontal siding of steel or cement-board only (no vinyl or aluminum) Roofs 5:12 pitch, plus roof ridge line articulation of 3 feet min. Unit square feet 900 sf floor area Garages Attached or Underground – no detached Garage Setback May not access street directly – must be served by interior driveway Garage Doors Must include glass and decorative panels if visible from public street or adjoining residentially zoned property Performance/PUD options for Multi-family buildings Landscaping Increased landscape quantities and/or sizes beyond code minimums; Special landscape features including water features, recreational structures, patios, etc. Open Space Increased open space areas per unit beyond code minimums of 10% or more Parking All required garage parking underground Building Materials Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or on other exterior walls Architecture Extensive use of ornamental features, building and/or roofline articulation, fenestration and building wall undulation atypical of other buildings in similar zoning districts Site Work Use of decorative paving materials in parking, sidewalks, etc.; Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or similar features. Housing for Seniors restricted to 55 years of age or more Accommodations to design and density through PUD process only ORDINANCE NO. 566 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTERS 3, 4, AND 5 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 3.4 (H), R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, CHAPTER 4.1(J) LANDSCAPING, CHAPTER 4.8, PARKING, CHAPTER 4.11(C) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, AND CHAPTER 5.2(C) PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND LAND USE PROVISIONS FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 3.4 (H), Table 3.8 is hereby amended to read as follows: Table 3.8: R-3 Development Standards R-3 District R-3 District R-3 District via performance or PUD Townhouse (4-10 du per Multi-family( 6-12 units Multi family (13+ units building) per bldg.) per bldg.) Base Lot size 20,000 sf 30,000 sf 30,000 sf Gross Density 3-7 du/acre 8-12 du/acre 10-25 du/acre Max Density w/o 4.0 du/acre 8.5 du/acre NA performance/PUD Net lot area per 4,500 sf/du 3,500 sf/du Max 1,750 sf/du du Front setback 30 feet 40 feet 100 feet Corner side 25 feet 30 feet 40 feet setback Interior side 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet setback Rear setback to 30 feet 40 feet 40 feet building Clear open space 25 feet 30 feet 60 feet setback from ROW Clear open space 10 feet 30 feet 40 feet no more than setback from PL 50% of any yard facing a street covered with parking/drive aisles Buffer to SF B buffer B buffer C buffer Common open NA 500 sf/du 500 sf/du space per du Landscaping 16 ACI/acre +2 shrubs 16 ACI/acre +2 shrubs /10 1 canopy tree/ 2,500 sf /10 feet bldg. perimeter feet bldg. perimeter open space +4 shrubs /10 feet bldg. perimeter 1 ORDINANCE NO. 566 Parking 2.5/du, with 2 enclosed 2.5/du, with 2 enclosed 2.25 spaces/du, with max requirements 1.1 space/du uncovered Architecture 20% street min frontage 20% street min frontage 20% street min frontage covered with enhanced covered with enhanced covered with enhanced materials materials materials, horizontal siding of steel or cement- board only (no vinyl or aluminum) Roofs 5:12 pitch 5:12 pitch 5:12 pitch, plus roof ridge line articulation of 3 feet min. Unit square feet 1,000 floor area 1,000 sf floor area 900 sf floor area Garages Attached Covered, may be Attached or Underground detached no detached Garage Setback 30 feet from ROW (35 May not access street May not access street feet from curb of directly must be served directly must be served private street) by interior driveway by interior driveway Garage Doors Maximum 16 feet width No smooth panel doors Must include glass and facing street no detached buildings must decorative panels if smooth panel doors match principal building visible from public street materials and include or adjoining residentially architectural fenestration zoned property on sides facing residentially zoned property Performance/PUD options for Multi- family buildings Landscaping Special landscape Increased landscape Increased landscape features including quantities and/or Sizes quantities and/or sizes water features, beyond code minimums; beyond code minimums; recreational structures, Special landscape Special landscape patios, etc. features including water features including water features, recreational features, recreational structures, patios, etc. structures, patios, etc. Open Space Increased open space Increased open space areas per unit beyond areas per unit beyond code minimums of 10% or code minimums of 10% or more more Parking All required garage All required garage parking attached to parking underground principal building Building Materials Increased use of stone, Increased use of stone, Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or brick beyond front, or on brick beyond front, or on on other exterior walls other exterior walls other exterior walls Architecture Extensive use of Extensive use of Extensive use of ornamental features, ornamental features, ornamental features, building and/or roofline building and/or roofline building and/or roofline 2 ORDINANCE NO. 566 articulation, articulation, fenestration articulation, fenestration fenestration and and building wall and building wall building wall undulation atypical of undulation atypical of undulation atypical of other buildings in similar other buildings in similar other buildings in zoning districts zoning districts similar zoning districts Site Work Use of decorative Use of decorative paving Use of decorative paving paving materials in materials in parking, materials in parking, parking, sidewalks, etc.; sidewalks, etc.; sidewalks, etc.; Extensive use of Extensive use of Extensive use of ornamental site lighting ornamental site lighting ornamental site lighting or similar features. or similar features. or similar features. Housing for Accommodations to Accommodations to Accommodations to Seniors restricted design and density design and density design and density to 55 years of age through PUD process through PUD process only through PUD process only or more only Section 2. Chapter 4.1, Table 4-4 is hereby amended to add the following: Multi-Family Dwellings with five (5) or more units 16.0 ACI of canopy trees (including at least 3 evergreen trees) per acre + at least 2 shrubs per each 10 feet of building perimeter, or as may be otherwise specified in the zoning district Section 3. Chapter 4.8, Table 4-7 is hereby amended to add the following: Multiple Family In general 2.5 spaces for each dwelling unit, of which two (2) must be enclosed, plus one (1) guest parking space for every four (4) units, or as may be otherwise specified in the zoning district Section 4. Chapter 4.11(C) is hereby amended to add the following: 4.11 (C)(4) R-3 District and other Districts with Multiple Family Housing (4) R-3 District and other Districts with Multiple Family Housing shall be subject to building materials standards as follows: All building walls facing a public street shall be covered with stone, brick, cultured masonry simulating brick or stone, or other enhanced materials acceptable to the City Council to an extent not less than 20% of the exposed wall silhouette area. In addition, multiple family structures of thirteen (13) or more units shall, when lap horizontal siding, be constructed of heavy gauge steel or cement-board, with no use 3 ORDINANCE NO. 566 of vinyl or aluminum permitted. Natural wood or species that is resistant to decay may be permitted where approved by the City Council. Section 5. Section 5.2(C)(2)(d) is hereby amended to add the following: (d)(v) Multiple family housing in the R-3 District shall be subject to the requirements found in Table 3-8 of Chapter 3.4 of this Ordinance. Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by Council. Copies of the complete Zoning Ordinance are available online and at Monticello City Hall. th ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 8 day of October, 2012. CITY OF MONTICELLO __________________________________ Clint Herbst, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ , Administrator VOTING IN FAVOR: VOTING IN OPPOSITION: 4 Planning Commission Agenda: 09/04/12 1 7. November Planning Commission Meeting Date. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The 2012 General Election falls on November 6th, Planning Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting date. The Veteran’s Day holiday (an observed Federal holiday) falls this year on November 12th , and as such, the City Council meeting will be moved to Tuesday, November 13th. Therefore, the Planning Commission has the following dates available for a rescheduled meeting. Both of these dates offer availability in the Mississippi Room. Wednesday, November 7th Tuesday, November 20th B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to reschedule the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 6th, 2012 to November ____, 2012. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff defers to Planning Commissioner schedules on this decision. D. SUPPORTING DATA: November Calendar Planning Commission Agenda: 09/04/12 1 8. Community Development Director Report. (AS) MnAPA Conference Staff attended the 2012 Minnesota Planning Conference this year in Alexandria. The perspectives of other planners on both small and large scale planning issues affecting Minnesota communities is always a valuable experience. Conference brochure is attached. Subdivision Ordinance A reminder that Planning Commission’s comments on the subdivision ordinance are due at the end of October. Comments will be assembled and given to planning consultant MFRA for the preparation of a first round draft, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in November. Planning Commission Training In conversations with other planners at the MnAPA conference noted above, an idea was raised regarding the opportunity to have Government Training Services host a half-day training session for Planning Commissioners and other appointed community representatives. GTS has a specific course titled “Land Use Planning Workshops for Local Government Officials—Appointed, Elected and Staff—and Interested Citizens.” GTS does offer these types of training services on-site if multiple communities can attend together. Staff approached Big Lake and Becker and can contact other communities to attend, if Commission is interested. This training is especially valuable for newly appointed or elected officials. Economic Development Chapter – Comp Plan Just a note that staff has not yet set a date for the review of the Economic Development Chapter of the Comp Plan. Information on that workshop will be forthcoming.