Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 02-05-2002 . Members: AGENDA REGULAR MEETING _ MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - February 5,2002 7:00 P.M. Dick hie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Clint l-lerbst Council Liaison: Staff: 1. 2. " -, . 4. 5. . 6. . Jeff O'Neill, rred Patch and Steve Grittman Call to order. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 8, 2002. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizens comments. Public I-Iearing _ Consideration of a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for two industrial huildings totaling 187,500 square feet in an ]~ I A Zoning District. Applicant: Allied Properties and Management, LLC Continued Public llem'ing: Consideration of adopting amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to single family residential lot and development standards. Applicant: City of Monticello 7. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing senior housing as a conditional use in a PS, Public Service, district. Applicant: City Staff 8. Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Map re-zoning the John Lundsten property, as identified on the attached map, from 1-2 to 13-3,1-1, I-lA, or a combination thereof. Applicant: City Staff 9. Consideration of calling for a public hearing for an ordinance amendment clarifying rules governing temporary signs displayed in residential districts. Applicant: City Staff 10. Adjourn ~I- . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - January 8, 2002 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Robbie Smith. Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Absent: Chair Dick Frie Staff: Jeff O'NeilL Fred Patch. John Glomski and Steve Grittman 1. Call to order. Acting Chair Richard Carlson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Approval of minutes of the rel!ular meetinl! held December 4. 2001. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4.2001. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion canied unanimously. 3. Consideration of addin~ items to the agenda. Roy Po pi lek asked staff if Dave Peterson Ford was in compliance with the conditions of their conditional use permit. particularly in regard to thcir back lot and storage. Fred Patch advised that they were in compliance. Clint Herbst asked to add discussion regarding the cutTent Library site. Wells Fargo Bank and the former St. Henry's church site. This was added as item #9. 4. Citizens comments. None. 5. Public Hearing ~ Consideration of a ret.luest for a conditional use permit allowing expansion and alteration of existing church in the PZM district. Applicant: Trinitv Lutheran Church. Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the project description for Trinity Lutheran Church who is proposing an expansion of their existing building. The project involves expansion of the existing sanctuary. office space. kitchen space and classrooms. The subject site is zoned PM-z' Performance Mixed Use Zoning District. Religious -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 01/08/02 . institutions are allowed by conditional use permit in this District, subject to the standards outlined in Section 6-4[A]. The site is developed with the existing church and a parsonage. Two single family homes are located at the corners of Broadway and Linn Streets adjacent to the site. Single family uses also exist across the streets from the subject site. Grittman advised that within the PM-Z District, the lot standards applied to the subject site are to be the same as those that would be applied within a conventional Zoning District. In this case. those standards are that applied within the R-3 District and under the conditions applied specifically to Churches within that District. Grittman provided the proposed lot area. lot width and setbacks, adding that the building expansion is within required setbacks. The existing building encroaches into the setback required off of Maple Street. However, this setback is not being further encroached upon or extended by the building expansion. One other encroachment is the parking lot to the northwest corner of the adjacent residential lots. The curb in this area should be revised to provide an area that could be landscaped for additional screening. . Grittman also discussed access to the property. off-street parking. building design, landscaping. lighting. signage, as well as grading, drainage and utilities which he stated are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Dragsten questioned the cut in the northeast corner of the parking lot and Grittman advised that it would be closed ofT. Carlson questioned the circulation pattern and if there were island delineators along the north side and Grittman stated that he felt they were not necessary, also stating that it would reduce their parking supply which they felt was more important. Acting Chair Richard Carlson opened the public hearing. There was no response from the audience and the public hearing was then closed. Popilek asked staff irthere had been any complaints or concerns from the neighbors regarding the expansion and O'Neill advised that there had not been. Carlson asked the applicants if they had seen the conditions for approval and the applicants advised that they had and were in agreement with them. Dragsten asked about the lighting plan and Grittman stated he had just briefly reviewed the plan which looked in compliance. Fred Patch advised that he would be reviewing the plan prior to issuing the building permit. Nicole Thompson. Station Nineteen Architects. advised that the lighting shown was a combination of existing and new. A MOTION \V AS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF . -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 01/08/02 THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT. SUBJECT TO TllE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW: I. l'he curb at the northwest corner of the adjacent residential lots is revised to provide at least a five foot green area to be landscaped to screen the adjacent residential uses. 2. Coniferous plantings are planted along the cOl11l11on lot line with the adjacent residential use to screen the parking areas from view. 3. The easterly curb cut to West River Street is removed and replaced with concrete curb. 4. All grading. drainage and utility issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 5. Comments of other City Statl. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Heminu - Consideration of adootinu amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relatinu to sinule t~lInilv residential lot and development standards. Applicant: Citvof Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the report noting that the City has been experiencing a significant amount of residential development over the past few years, including a record number or single ramily plats. One of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for an opportunity for current and new residents to find .'step-up" housing within the City. as a part ofa full range of housing styles and prices. The bulk of the recent development has consisted of "entry-level"' housing. although the price of "entry-level" has ri sen dramatically. The Comprehensive Plan envisioned that while the bulk of the housing demand in Monticello would initially be in the affordable market, higher amenity sites would lead to more expensive housing due to both development cost and market opportunity. This objective has gone largely unfulfilled, as even wooded properties and hillside "view" properties have seen some relatively uninspired housing construction. Some projects. promoted by their developers as step up housing on prime sites. have evolved from step- up to entry level projects by permitting small houses and almost no amenities. The concern that this raises for the City is that as the market matures and more expensive housing becomes financially feasible for larger developments. the prime sites for such housing will have already been consumed by earlier. lower cost projects. At stafT level. this discussion has led to a set of sometimes competing objectives. The City" s infrastructure bonding requires some level of growth, and the industrial development efforts suggest that restricting aff(xdable housing growth would interfere -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 01/08/02 . with the ability to attract a competitive labor supply to the community. However. doing nothing vvith the zoning allowances in the single hlmily district areas would appear to accommodate the uninterrupted consumption of prime residential land by afTordable housing options, to the detriment of the City's housing goals of providing for a full range of housing choice. including upper end neighborhoods. Staff's proposed solution to this issue is a tiered approach to single family zoning, including the creation of two new single family districts and modifications to the current R-l District. Through a combination of standards relating to subdivision design, housing construction and design, and selective zoning district application, it is believed that the City will be able to accomplish each of its housing goals. This task is accompanied by the concurrent update to the Comprehensive Plan and the future land use plan. The City will expect to apply each of its new districts in a manner that will: . 1. Preserve high~amenity sites for more valuable housing. at the time that the market decides that such housing is ripe for development (sooner or later). ') Maintain the City's interest in accommodating affordable housing opportunities for new development. 3. Provide for redevelopment in the original plat areas and other older subdivisions. 4. Ensure that new housing (vvhether "affordable" or more expensive) is designed to be architecturally attractive and a size that encourages Jong- term neighborhood stability and value. R-1 District. The components of the proposal include three zoning districts in place of the current R-l District. as shown in the chart belovv. R-l A Single Familv District. This District would be located in areas specifically identified as high amenity sites. Tree cover. significant views. water hont or views. or other valuable natural features may cause an area to qualify for R-1 A designation. This new district would establish an averaging approach to its increased lot requirements, as noted in the chart below. The averaging approach for the lot size is intended to provide a built-in flexibility to permit the developer to design a subdivision that takes the natural features into account. Because the R-1 A District will be applied in areas that by definition have natural features to preserve, the City will also make these standards a basis of the plat review- developers will be required to identify the valuable features of the site. then demonstrate that their project meets the preservation objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance. As suggested previously. it is acknowledged that the market for higher end residential housing is limited in scope at the current time. Developers who intend to meet this market would have a designated supply of land. If only a small number of these . ~4~ Planning Commission Minutes ~ 01/08/02 developments are proposed. the ordinance will serve to preserve those prime areas until the market can catch up. . R-2A District. The current R-2 District provides for two-family homes and townhouses at densities of around seven to eight units per acre. Staff proposes the establishment of a new district to permit the opportunity to construct small-lot single family homes as well. There has been a recent market trend in single family development on small parcels. Permitting this type of subdivision would facilitate an affordable single family option at densities similar to townhouse projects. These subdivisions have taken the form of both townhouse associations and traditional neighborhoods. An integral part of this zoning amendment would be the addition of design and architectural standards for housing developed in this district. While most to\vnhouse projects would require Planned Unit Development review due to the base lot/common property arrangement. a small-lot single family subdivision could be developed without PUD on public streets. A part of this concept would permit traditional neighborhood design with some significant departures from the City's typical setback requirements. The R~2A District is intended to transfer development cost in the affordable range fi-om lot development to building construction. since staff has found that "affordable" subdivisions of small houses on larger lots have not led to additions and upgrades in those areas. . Examples of building and architectural standards would be minimum levels of brick and/or stone. size requirements that ensure larger homes on the small lots. I imits on garage Ii-ont exposure. and enhanced landscaping requirements for both individual lots and developments in general. General Standards. The following table provides a comparative view of the zoning- related standards for each of the districts: R-IA R-I R-2A Lot area 16,000 s.1'. avg. * 12.000 sf 7.500 s.1'. avg. * Lot 90 feel, avg. 80 feet 45 feel, min. width House 2.000 s.f. 1.200 s. f. 1.200 s.f. finished sIze fi nished finished + Garage 700 s.1'. 450 s.r. 450 s.r. . sIze Roof pitch Front setback Side setback Rear setback * Average standards will also incorporate minimum quantities and standards 6/12 5/12 5/12 35 feet. avg.* 30 feet. avg. * 10 feel, min. 6 ft. (garage) & 15 ft. 30 feet usable 6ft. (garage) & 15 ft. 30 feet usable 6 ft. both sides 10 feel. min. -)- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 01/08/02 The R~ I A District will also have additional requirements for specitic architectural details. including the following: . I'vlinimum facade material coverage of at least 20% brick or stone. or 10% with all stucco (instead of lap siding). No more than 40% of the facade of any structure may be comprised of garage door. No garage portion of any structure may be more than five feet closer to the street than the principal residential portion. Minimum foundation size for 1,400 square feet, in addition to the finished space requirement to avoid small, totally finished houses that marginally meet the other requirements. . . . In addition to the zoning standards, there will be subdivision review standards that will apply to all new subdivisions. These include the following: . Internalized ponding with street frontage, designed and landscaped to work as an open space amenity for the development in addition to its stormwater control function. Subdivision design that identifies natural ainenities of the site. and positively demonstrates preservation of those amenities. Additional depth to lots that back up to undesirable features, including major road\'iays or negative views, including significant landscaping and berming in those spaces. Creation of naturalized woodland spaces where appropriate. such as the edges of development areas, or as a part of the open space system created by ponding and pathway areas. Additional landscape treatment along designated pathway routes. . . . . These requirements would be established as the minimum standards tl)f any residential subdivision. Planned Unit Development projects would be required to demonstrate design that starts with these minimums. then adds amenities to justify PUD tlexibility. A part of this process is intended to reduce the reliance on PUD generally by adding some tlexibility in building setbacks. The concept would build additional standards into all subdivision design, not just those that require PUD. In summary, the proposed changes would add a significant level of subdivision design standards to all residential projects. The purpose is to raise the level of quality that is "built-in" to the community's residential development and to insist on higher standards regardless of density. Because the highest level of the housing market may be present only in small amounts. an acknowledged result of these changes will be to preserve certain areas that are identitied as having higher natural amenities for future development. The R-2A District will accommodate smaller lots. but will require that the homes will be as large as those in the City's standard single hunily areas. O'Neill advised that they did review these proposed amendments with engineering. especially regarding the setbacks, and they were in agreement. Grittman stated these -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 01/08/02 . amendments would mainly apply to newly annexed areas as the majority of the boundaries of the to\\ln are already platted. Grittman advised that it is very possible that the city would not lOne anything at this time as R2-A: this may come in as an application that the city would revievv' and decide if it would apply. O'Neill advised that perhaps the Planning Commission would like to continue the public hearing to the February meeting and instruct staff to schedule an open house involving developers and bui Iders. Smith added that he liked the standards in the R-IA district, but was curious as to the reason fix upping the standards in the R-l district. Grittman advised that staff had hoped to slightly increase the standards, also giving developers some flexibility in trade for the increased building standards. Grittman added that the houses that are currently being built seem to be on the smaller side. Smith noted that these standards would have worked well in the Wildwood Ridge subdivision, starting out with the R-I standards and. moving up the hill, incorporate the R-l A standards. . Dragsten felt raising the minimum square footage of houses to 1.200 seemed excessive. and felt] .000 sq. n. might be better. adding that the square footage on an 80 ft. lot may be too small. Dragsten also felt that garage and house pitches should be 6/] 2 throughout the City. O'Neill also noted that they bumped up the standards in the R-l district so that they could have provisions in the R-2 district for aHordable housing, with smaller lots and larger homes. Dragsten felt that there might be more retirement ages in the R-2A but Grittman stated that there seems to be a trend tor larger homes on smaller lots. Popilek added that he appreciated all the work staff and planning have put into these proposed amendments. Acting Chair Richard Carlson opened the public hearing. John Kautza. resident in the Wildvvood Ridge Addition. approached the planning commission and staff asking if they would consider requiring houses built in this neighborhood to be required to have the same designs such as brick fronts. l-/e noted a home in the neighborhood which has a cedar li'ont and looks very much out of place next to the homes all with brick fronts. He also noted some homes coming in with 4/12 roof pitches and doesn't see this as titting into the neighborhood. He stated he feels that this really lessens the values of the other homes in this neighborhood. Also added that the entrance to the subdivision is not looking very nice and would like to see these standards in place as soon as possible. There was no further response from the audience and Acting Chair Carlson then closed the public hearing. . O'Neill asked Grittman about outdoor storage in the R-1A district. Grittman noted that under the proposed building standards he required detached garages to have the same building materials as the house" including the roof pitch. O'Neill also asked about storage of R V s. boats. ete.. in that district and Grittman stated he rdt"ained li"om that idea and stayed \vith district design standards. Carlson states in the future this may be more of a problem. Fred Patch stated also that storage is a tough issue to deal with. -7- Planning Commission i'vIil1utes - 01/08/02 . They discussed the 6 ft setbacks and the problem it may create with RV's. boats. etc. and where to park them. Grittman noted that they have had good Success in other cities. Smith asked about existing lots and could they incorporate these standards, and staff stated they could as far as the standards in the R-I district being upgraded. however they would not re-zone an existing lot that has not been built on yet. They noted again that the proposed districts are for new developments and newly annexed areas. Popilek was concerned about the smaller lots, feeling that the houses would seem jammed together, and also how should the city control not having such a large area of R- 2A. Grittman advised that they would zone by development, also adding that there is an area in Maple Grove which incorporated the smaller lots with larger homes and while they do have a larger density. they have very nice subdivisions. Popilek was also concerned with the 6 foot setbacks and storage. Grittman stated that the expectation would be that it would be impossible to store an RV or boat in an R-2A district. O'Neill stated they would appreciate direction trom the Planning Commission to call for a workshop/open house which could either be as part of a Planning Commission meeting or separate. The members agreed that it would be good to conduct the workshop. O'Neill advised that they would hold the workshop/open house Wednesday. January 23rd. from 4 pm - 6pm. . A MOTTON WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT AN OPEN HOUSE, CALLING FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMfSSION ON WEDNESDA Y. JANUARY 23RD FROM 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unani mo usl y. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE fEBRUAR Y 5. 2002 MEETING REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SINGLE FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL LOT AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. ROY POPfLEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Consideration of acceptil1!.~ ioint parkin!;!: plan in the CCD district. Applicant: Barrv Fluth/Masters 51h Avenue. Jeff CYNeill advised that this is not a conditional use permit request. but that staff is seeking guidance from the Planning Commission on how to react to requests for proposals that ask for less than required parking. He noted that there is no provision in place stating this. He also noted that the purpose of the Planning Commission is also to forward on to the City Council to decide distribution of the parking deficit expense. noting that the City Council has already stated their approval to pay for the deficit. . John Glomski provided the staff report advising that Barry Fluth has proposed a redevelopment project on Block 36, the existing Amoco site, which includes a restaurant some office space, and some residential units on the second Door. Glomski stated that -8- Planning COlllmission Minutes - 01/08/02 . meeting the parking requirements is often an issue when redeveloping the downtown district. Mr. Fluth, with support of city statl has joined Mr. rJammond. !\IIr. Koppy and !\III'. Paulson in making this ajoint parking project. The ordinance gives the city the discretion of allowing property owners the opportunity to supply parking at a rate that is 60% of the requirement of the ordinance. provided that the owner grants an easement allowing the general public free use of the stalls. The number of parking stalls required under the ordinance (using the 60%) for all parcels together is 79. The proposed parking plan provides for 60 parking stalls, 19 stalls short of the required amount. It is proposed that the deficiency be offset via a contribution of $1,450 per stall which equals $27,550. Staff supports this project. with the deficiency in parking, for the following reasons; . although as a whole the project doesn't meet the parking requirements, the proposed and existing llses (restaurant. office/retail, residential) should mix well as tar as needing parking at different periods of the day. a parking study done approximately 6 months ago by stafT shows that there is an ample amount of on and off street municipal parking within a two block area. Parking stall deficiency is off-set by a $27,550 contribution to the parking timd in the CCD district. . . Brad Johnson. Lotus Realty representing the applicant. provided a review of the project. He also noted that they are prepared to purchase and demolish the Amoco station within the next 10 to 20 days and begin construction. Clint Herbst. Council Liaison. advised that when the City Council heard the proposal previously and were in favor. it was for a dit1erent project and not the one being presented now. After seeing the proposed project. the Planning Commission had concerns on garage spaces for the rental units and it was noted by Johnson that there are 6 garages. but they would assign parking for the other 2 rentals. This was a concern of the Planning Commission due to the restaurant and deli being located there as well. O'Neill asked what part they felt the planning department had played in keeping them enthused with revitalizing the downtown area and he said that statfhad directed the applicant to the Amoco site and the HRA and city arc assisting in paying for the parking. ....... Smith asked about the parking lot behind the adjacent block which is in need of repair. stating that this may be used for more parking as well and it should be looked at tirst. I"Ierbst advised that the EDA has been working with the property owners to improve the parking lot. Carlson asked Grittman about entrances/exits, noting there would be only t\vo. l-Ierbst stated his concern with the applicant not having a formal agreement with the property o\vners regarding easements. noting there could be problems in the future with parking arrangements if no formal agreement was in place. Johnson stated that they have been in contact with all property owners. stating also that this project would only benefit ~ -9- Plann ing Comln ission Agenda - 0 I /08/02 . the other properties. and also that if the Smith property was going to expand their project they would need to come to Fluth tlrst. Herbst stated they are in favor of the project, but he stated again that there is a potential problem with parking on the Smith property. Popilek added that overall the project is great. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO SUPPORT A JOINT PARKING PROJECT WITH THE 19 STALL DEFICIENCY. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Joint parking agreement established and signed by all property owners. · The feasibility of internalizing the trash enclosure be looked at by developer and city staff. · Project is consistent with the requirements of the CCD district. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. Barry Fluth stated his appreciation with city staff: HRA, and the Planning Commission for their support and assistance on this project. ~ Consideration of Calling for A Public Hearinl! on Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. . Jeff <YNeill provided a brief report noting that staff did bring this to the City Council previously. and that the Planning Commission is asked to review the latest information regarding the process of updating the comprehensive plan and consider calling for a public hearing on amending the plan. O'Neill stated that at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission a draft of the amended Land Use Guide plan was reviewed. accepted and forwarded to the City Counci I. Similarly, the City Council accepted the plan and directed staff to obtain input from Tom Salkowski (County Planner and MOAA Zoning Administrator). It was the view of staff that Salkowski was in the best position to provide input necessary to create a plan that would likely be supported by the Township and County officials. "The meeting with Salkowski was held on Friday. January 4th and Salkowski stated he felt they should include input from the Township as well. O'Neill added that they would like to get information out to the Township and MOAA residents so that they are aware of what the City is looking at in it's Comprehensive Plan. Clint Herbst concurred and Popilck added that anything the City can do to keep the Township informed would be good fl.)!' the City. O.Neill added that staflwould set a meeting f()r an open house and advise the Planning Commission of that date. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON Al\iIENDMEN"rS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 5.2002. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED 'rHE MOTION. Motion carried un<lni mously. -10- . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 0 I /08/02 9. Discussion rcgarding the Librarv, Wells Fargo Bank and the formcr St. Henrv's church. Clint Herbst advised that Wells Fargo may be interested in expanding their current facility and may be in favor of swapping the Library building which is owned by the City. for the Marquette building. Another idea was to take the money from the sale of the Library and relocate it to the former St. Henry site. Herbst noted a third alternative which was to locate the Library at the current City Hall and the City Hall would move to the Marquette Bank building, although that may cause problems with records being stored at that building while meetings would still be held at the current site, etc. Also noted was that this would take the Marquette Bank site off the tax rolls. The Planning Commission members felt the Library would fit well at the old St. Henry's site. They also noted that there is an interested party for the old St. Henry's site so this may be a mute point. Herbst stated that there would possibly be a public outcry if the City were to re-do the CllITent City Hall with it being as new as it is. O'Neill stated that Wells Fargo is very interested in purchasing the Library property and it could be very profitable for the City. Herbst advised that he wanted to get the Planning Commission's feelings on these ideas. 10. Adiourn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:40 PM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimollsly. Recorder -11- . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 2/5/02 5. Consideration of a Conceot Stal!e Planned Unit Development for two industrial buildings totalinl! 187.500 SQuare feet in an [-lA Zoninl! District. Applicant: Allied Proocrties and Manal!cment. LLC. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Allied Properties and Management, LLC is requesting approval of a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the construction of two industrial buildings upon a 12.9 acre parcel of land located west of Oakwood Drive between Interstate 94 and TIl Street. The proposed industrial buildings measure 135,500 and 52,flOO square feet in size respectively. The subject parcel is zoned I-I A, Light Industrial. Adjacent lJses. The subject site is bounded on the north by high-density residential development, on the south by interstate 94 and on the east and west by vacant properties zoned for light industrial use. The proposed use is considered compatible with existing uses in the area. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is generally consistent with the provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan that suggests light industrial use of the subject property. Zoning. The subject parcel is zoned I-lA, Light Industrial. To accommodate the placement of two princi pal bui Idings upon a single lot of record, the processing of a PlJl)/Conditional Use Permit is necessary. Section 22-] (D) requires the Planning Commission to consider the possible adverse efTects of the proposed conditional use. The judgment of the Planning Commission must be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: ] . Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 4. The character of the surrounding area. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. PUD Proccssing. As previously indicted, the placement of two principal buildings upon a single lot of record requires the processing of a PUD. The processing of PUD applications occurs in three stages; Concept Plan, Development Plan and Final Plan. At this point. the applicant is seeking approval of the Concept Plan which involves a general determination of plan acceptability. Planning Corn III ission Agenda - 2/5/02 . Performance Standards. The following table illustrates lot performance requirements of the I-IA zoning district and the proposed development's compliance with the applicable requirements. -_.'- ._--"._'-'-" ---,._.,-,~_.-- -.-.--.--..'-.-..- Pro losed 12.9 acres. 730 ft. Lot Area Lot Width Setbacks* Front Side Rear Re uired 30,000 sc. ft. 1 00 ft. * Setbacks apply along the perimeter ofthe development for PU 0 -..---...-..-.----..- --.-.-.-..-..-."-..---...-. 50 ft. 30 ft. 40 ft. 65 ft. 85 ft. 88 ft. .-".--.----"- Access. The proposed development is to be accessed from the north via two points along 71h Street. 'roprovide more efficient (and safe) ingress and egress from the site, it is suggested that the two access points be relocated to align with Wright Street and Ramsey Street to the north. To he noted is that such realignment may prompt the reconfiguration or relocation of the proposed buildings. This issue should he suhject to further comment by the City Engineer. . Off-street Parking. Off-street parking supply requirements relate directly to the proposed use of property. The specific use of the proposed buildings has not been indicated. As a result, a specific off-street parking supply requirement cannot he determined. If the buildings arc to be used for warehousing or the handling of bulk goods. a total of 346 off- street parking spaces would be required as calculated below. -,--"_._._'-'-~'-- -.-.-.-..--..--..-'-.-...---. Warehouse 168.750 nsf (lB7 ,500~f x~,L____ 8 spaces plus one space for each 500 sq uare feet of 1100r area Required s aces 346 Use Ratio _.._,-,--,~,_.._"_.,_.-'-"_. With a total of 494 spaces being provided the off-street parking requirement for a warehouse-type use would he satisfied. For service/retail type uses with 50 percent or more of the floor area being devoted to storage. a difCcrent off-street parking standard applies. Such uses are required to provide 8 spaces or one space devoted to sales/service plus one space for each 500 square feet devoted to storage. In order to calculate the supply requirement for such use, a breakdown of service/warehouse areas would need to he provided. As a condition of a pun the mix of uses, including level of retail use, will need to be established. Also. as a condition of PUD approval, the proposed use will be required to comply with the applicable ofT-street parking supply requirement. . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 2/5/02 All off-street parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet the minimum dimensional requirements or the Ordinance. . Site Circulation. Generally speaking, the proposed site circulation system is well conceived. Service and loading activities are confined to an interior truck court while customer/employee parking is provided along the perimeter of the site. The interior service court has been sized appropriately to allow for turning movements of tractor-trailer trucks. As mentioned previously, it is suggested that the two access points to the property be relocated to align with Wright Street and Ramsey Street. Such modification may prompt the rclocation/reconfiguration of the site's bui ldings. Landscaping;. The submitted site plan illustrates various landscaping throughout the site including a "landscape area" in the extreme southwest corner of the site. While tbe proposed landscaping is considered positive, it is suggested that additional landscaping be provided along the outside perimeter of the two buildings. As part of the forthcoming Development Plan Stage submission, a detailed landscape plan should be submitted which identifies the location, size and variety of all site plantings. . Building; Materials. As part of the Development Plan Stage submission, preliminary elevations should be submitted which specify building heights, exterior design and finish materials. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. As part of the Development Plan Stage submission, the applicant will need to submit a grading and drainage plan and utility plan. Such plans will be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. The City Engineer should provide specific comment in regard to the need for on-site ponding. Trash. Specific trash handling locations have not been identified on the site plan. The City prefers that trash receptacles be stored indoors. Therefore, a condition of PUD approval shall be that all trash handling equipment be stored within the principal buildings. Lighting. The submitted site plan docs not indicate exterior lighting locations. As part of the forthcoming development stage PUD submission, specific lighting locations should be indicated. The Ordinance states that any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street may not exceed one footeandle from the center of the street. . 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 2/5/02 . Site lighting will be subject to review and approval by the Building Official who will certify that lights have been installed and perform according to the lighting plan. Such certification shall occur prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued. Signage. As shown on the submitted site plan, four freestanding signs have been proposed upon the subject property (two along 1-94 and two along 7th Street). According to the Ordinance, two signage options exist for buildings within I-IA zoning districts. Option A allows only wall signs with an area not exceeding 20 percent of the area of the hont ofthe building up to 300 square feet. Option B allows a combination of wall signs and a maximum of one pylon sign. The area of the wall sign may not exceed 10 percent orthe area of the front of the bui Iding up to 100 square feet. A pylon sign along a freeway (1-94) may not exceed 200 feet in area and 32 feet in height. While sign details have not been provided, concern exists in regard to the location of two of the freestanding signs. The sign near the Th Street access point is shown to lie within public right-of.-way while the sign in the southeast corner of the property is shown to lie within a drainage easement. While the pun could potentially allow for some flexibility form the sign ordinance provisions, signs in these locations are not acceptable under any circumstances. . As a condition of pun approval, all site signage will be required to comply with the appl icable requirements of the sign ordinance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUD subject to the following conditions: a. A discussion of level of retail activity needs to be identified and determined to be within the intent of the I I-A regulartions. b. Prior to Development Plan stage approval, the following plans are submitted: l,andscape Plan Grading and Drainage Plan Building Elevations c. The two access points along 71h Street be relocated to align with Wright Street and Ramsey Street to the north. . 4 d. . e. f. g. 4. . c. Planning Commission Agenda - 2/5/02 Additional plantings be provided along the perimeter of the proposed buildings. All off-street parking supply requirements or the Ordinance are satisfied. 'J'rash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal buildings. Site lighting I be subject to review and approval by the Building Official who will certify that lights have been installed and perform according to the lighting plan. Such certification shall occur prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued. h. Applicable signage requirements of the Ordinance are satisfied. 1. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to access, grading, drainage and utility issues. Potential findings supporting this decision would be: The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is compatible with existing land uses in the area. The proposal satisfies the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the City's use of Planned Unit Development with appropriate landscaping and architectural design. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD. Potential findings supporting this decision would be: The proposed land use is not compatible with the existing residential land uses existing to the north of the subject property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed project is generally consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, stall recommends approval of the Concept Stage PU 1) with the conditions cited in alternative action # I. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Area Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - II-A regulations Exhibit D - Aerial photo . 5 ~~: ~~~~-~r, # l~,lo' , 'c:.W:' ~ I '/~ . ~ ~ V'/Z ". ~~" ,'llJ), ~ r; "'"~~, :--. ~.' "~ · '. ," ,~~,. - , ~47~' '-'---" ~ /is;;. "Vi"!!fl:ll I " ~ ~... ' ' , , ~~{lJj) !Jll;p/!!!!!'~1ffIj~. . 'f f!JiD . _~ ~< ,'(}Ij;Jii:." ~ ? ~.:z( ~ '8~ _~~.,': . ,t;!!lt/!. ,0 /, .~.'l1~~~~ . ~<. .,af l"I"~ I , . :"'"h; -- W- ,-i.\'f" H ., V f?;:' 1'X " :;:!(/~" . .. n-~"'~~ ' '\' \ 'I ,.; , '{f.l;l-l j ''j W~ ' 'I) ____ '~OO1ilCl'l.W~g;, I, i... ~. . .....,1:r ' ' ...' '~..,,' ~~ <~j HIGH '- _ ~ '. I ,Ii,' !\'. 01 my ~ ~ "S;: ~ ,.>:-~" ,",~D< ~. 7n~vrll}~ ...~ _ ...........~ '.~ .11 ~~..... -~ ,1 ~ B 3 ............ 9 " " ",,--' ----.. _ ___' ~ " _ / 1 ? SITE ~ r--t==== CS~ T\ NO. '7 ~ 5 .' L-1 ~ - --- ",,: ~W~T'RI ImMA~r-rt~~" P S " ~ ,..Jj" p~rK /~. \0' ~,J flit- 1=" - -, / ~--~ , \'3 ~, 1/ ~ 'I' ,~ '# I "', .;?-h 'i'i;.r :ii ~ ~ ~V" ",.,cl'IIj~" \ t/ ~ ,i< · ~.c~' ,~/ ' , J ~ .- 1 __N . L-.--r ~Sl A rm . o~\(~ SECOr /, . ,~ _~ _' """1"7 ,.<'- tjl J' ' . . , 'I 2 ' ~.. R /\ I I 1 - \ 0, , . ~ ':::::-.....:. ~ o 7 kdEHl'"-- ~ TIT) CSTMES _ l~\ UA~ ~ . ;OJ... _ i: . T ~ 011111 Z J <I ~II~ ~~I ~,:jf41... ~ ) ~"YI' II'" ;,..7..~t+ '- '-I I 1 - A D-~"': ,:," ", '::.', ~ tI Jl _ ;' 1'- ..<;;[ u ','~ '~. '., ':...It It R /1 ~ ~ I' "~"'~'S~ ,..; · ~ ~ f::l_ ' 1\'1'1'< c, ............ -., .....- . . w ""." ~." :\ , . ~i ROI>>AL L:J ~iRb.1 " \) ! <?- ~ ~~~ . ". ~ ' , f1J" JJ <0 i- /'~' . . .... ....;.q (. , ., "J 'J' " ,'" ...... I I...r--.... '\ I,.~ ~'%\: -,;; ." 1:11'1: _~_'. . _~ f " ~\'.(.T; ,tX1 S C: HOC t.= ____rE_ - I y,. ,,~ EXHIBIT A - AREA LOCATION MAP ;{ II Ifl ~ I 0", . i a:w i t"'~ p dri'" il i . (f)S2.:::.::: i g o!1io h ~~"-~ - .... ...... OJ "''''' '-'--"'f'N / , ,/' ---~-- ~ ..~,. ".."~' S I J I t- -----:-::::-~--------~---7 i , I.. ! III! , , / , , / , , / , , - / / , , I . .......~ ' '...........,~J' ~s ......., --->>& ". '........... c., '/~ / ~ ..... I Iv~ , ..\,. , Iv I", ~ (;j ~ rf ~ ~ ~ 'Y , , IJ , 'I I. /1 '.......J ~s ............... "" " ~ ~ c, ...... .:t- Ii u =J i VI'" 1-;0 <0 <0 ~ " Z '<t "t- .- ....JWo '<t ! OJ C Lj~<('<t I ftJ IO~~~ ~ :<;: Q. II Z ....J If) '<t I >-~ E <(~~If)_____ i ::'(0' 0 > Zzl") . U o:J:::;:<O . I' ; 3S:[j -:> 0 ,..... , " (f)(f)u .'---' J I .:ill kJ~ " wf3 (f)" 'I ~ .- ~~g5~ ! rid !--:::<;: .a <((f)<ot.'Jo ~ :~: Ii! II G~ I:::JOOI h ...,. uCDC'\I~n. It lu I.., '.. t..., ..... '" ..... '" Q:- t..., ..... ~ ...... &hIt> it PJ - 5i\t- ?\o..n 5l ~!> Ie ~ r!f~i~l --I ij ~'~* ~.'2Jft :> ., u[J , ~ (;)' ~ I I ! r i I ! ~ II ~ J J !n )" ).1 ~ " ~J J II J!i ~ 3;. ~ &:\ I . SECTION: 15A-l: 15A-2: 15A-3: 15 A -4: 15A-5: 15A-l : 15A-2: . . CHAPTER 15A "I-IA" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Purpose Permitted Uses Permitted Accessory Uses Conditional Uses "I-IA" Design and Site Plan Standards PURPOSE: The purpose of the I-IA, Light Industrial District is to provide for the establishment of limited light industrial business offices, limited light manufacturing, wholesale showrooms and related uses in an environment which provides a high level of amenities, including landscaping, perservation of natural features, architectural controls, and other features. (#298, 10/13/97) PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a I-IA District: (#298, 10/13/97) [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H] [I] [1] [K] [L] [M] [N] [0] [P] [Q] [R] [S] [T] [U] [V] Radio and television Research laboratories Trade school Machine shops Paint mixing Bus terminals and maintenance garage Warehouses Laboratories Essential Services Govenunental and public utility buildings Manufacturing, compounding, assembly, or treatment of articles or merchandise Manufacture of musical instruments, novelties, and molded rubber products Manufacture or assembly of electrical appliances, instruments, and devices Manufacture of pottery or other similar ceramic products using only previously pulverized clay and kilns fired only by electricity or natural gas Manufacture and repair of electrical signs, advertising structure, light sheet metal products, including heating and ventilation equipment Blacksmith, welding, or other metal shop Laundries, carpet, and rug cleaning Bottling establishments Building material sales and storage Broadcasting antennae, television, and radio Camera and photographic supplies manufacturing Cartage and express facilities MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE ~ibi+ L,. 15N1 [W] [X] [Y] . [l] [AA] [BB] [eC] [DD] [EE] [FF] [GG] [HH] l5A-3: Stationery, bookbinding, and other types of manufacturing of paper and related products but not processing of raw materials for paper production Dry cleaning establishments and laundries Electric light or power generating stations, electrical and electronic products manufacture, electrical service shops Engraving, printing, and publishing Jewelry manufacturing Medical, dental, and optical laboratories Storage or warehousing Wholesale business and office establishments Commercial/professional offices Wholesale showrooms Conference centers Commercial printing establishments PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES; The following are permitted accessory uses in a "I-IA" District; (#298, 10/13/97) [A] Commercial or business buildings and structures for a use accessory to the principal use but such use shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross floor space of the principal use: . I5A-4; 1. The parking requirements of Chapter 3, Section 5, are complied with in full. 2. The off-street loading requirements of Chapter 3, Section 6, are complied with in full. CONDITIONAL USES; The following are conditional uses in a "I-IA" District; (Requires a conditional use permit based Upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) [A] Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that; (#298, 10/13/97) 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 15A/2 [)Chi blt e-.. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. . [B] Industrial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. [C] Indoor limited retail sales accessory to office/manufacturing Uses provided that: 1. Location: (a) All sales are conducted in a clearly defined area of the principal building reserved exclusively for retail sales. Said sales area mUst be physically segregated from other principal activities in the building. (b) The retail sales area must be located on the ground floor of the principal building. 2. Sales Area. The retail sales activity shall not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the gross floor area of the building. 3. Access. The building where such use is located is one having direct access to a collector or arterial level street without the necessity of using residential streets. . 4. Hours. Hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The provisions of this section are considered and satisfactorily met. 15A-5: "I-IA" DESIGN AND SITE PLAN STANDARDS: The fallowing minimum requirements shall be observed in the "I-IA" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in this chapter: [A] Lot Coverage. There shall be no minimum or maximum lot coverage requirements in this district. (#298, 10/13/97) [B] Building Type and Construction and Roof Slope (#298, 10/13/97) 1. Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited to no mare than fifty (50) percent of anyone wall if it is coordinated into the architectural design. Any metal finish utilized in the building shall be aluminum of twenty-six (26) gauge steel, the roof slope shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) in twelve (12) slope. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE E'Y.h \ 'ot t V 15A13 . . . 2. In the "I-IA" District, all buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum, or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick, wood, stone, architectural concrete case in place or pre-case panels on all wall surfaces. (#298, 10/13/97) [C] Parking. Detailed parking plans in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 5, shall be submitted for City review and approved before a building permit may be obtained. [D] Loading. A detailed off-street loading plan, including berths, area, and access shall be submitted to the City in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 3, Section 6, for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. [E] Landscaping. A detailed landscaping plan in conformance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], shall be submitted to the Council and approved before a building permit may be obtained. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2 [0], all parcels developed along the boundary between the I-1A zone and a residential zone shall include planting of evergreens as a screen between 1-1 A and R -1 uses. The evergreens planted shall be planted every 15 feet along the property boundary. (#298, 10/13/97) [F] Usable Open Space. Every effort shall be made to preserve natural ponding areas and features of the land to create passive open space. [G] Signage. A comprehensive sign plan must be submitted in conformance with Chapter 3, Section 9. Lot Requirements: 30,000 sq ft 100 feet Lot Area - Lot Width - Setbacks: Front Yard - Side Yard - Rear Yard - 50 feet 30 feet 40 feet (#221,2/24/92) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 15A/4 b >Ch, b-t- e,.. . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/05/02 6. Public Headn .: Consideration of are uest to amend the Sin Ie Famil b lot sizes setbacks and erformance standards. A Monticello. (NAC) A. REI"ERENCE AND BACKGROUND Staff has previously submitted material related to a new zoning district known as the R-IA District, as well as changes to be discussed relating to the existing R-I District and another new district known as the R-2A District. Comments relating to some of the highlights of those districts arc contained in a previous report to the Planning Commission. Since the time that those ordinances were first discussed, the City Council declared a moratorium on the construction of certain homes that would be affected by the proposed zoning changes, and an open house was held to receive comments from builders and developers in the community. The open house was well attended, particularly in regard to the moratorium. The comments received at the open house broke into those addressing the moratorium application, and those addressing the ordinance changes. Staff will be prepared to address a summary of the comments at the public hearing on February 5, and copies of the Council report and comments arc included as attachments. Essentially, concern was expressed that the house size requirements were overly restrictive, and that the City would be compromising its housing market and affordabiJity by adopting the changes. In general. stall's response has been that the objective of the changes that have been discussed was to increase value, and raise the level of housing construction that has occurred in the community over the past ten years. One of the consistent issues raised by the housing being built is that due to design and small size, i~lmilies move into housing that does not accommodate growing families. Staff has observed that few, ifany, of the recently built neighborhoods have seen building additions to expandlivab\c space. Instead, families choose to buy other housing as they move up in space needs. The concern is that the move up market is locating outside of the area, affecting hoth the City's housing stock and the School District's enrollment. Toward this end, the three districts are designed to work together to do the following: I) Raise the standard for housing construction and value in the basic R-l District. 2) Increase the likelihood that neighborhoods in the R-l areas are comprised of families that will stay in the neighborhood, instead of heing forced to move as family size grows. 3) Preserve high amenity areas for higher-end housing. The draft ordinances anticipate that these areas may encourage the market in the short term, but if not, Planning Commission Agenda - 02/05/02 5) will prepare such areas for future market maturation. Provide for alTordable housing through increased housing sizes in the R-2A, trading the (slightly) larger house size and construction cost for smaller lot size and development cost. Develop objective criteria for subdivision design and review, and accommodate f1exibility and averaging by Planned Unit Development. PUD has been difficult to apply to residential subdivisions due to low or vague standards. It is hoped that the standards proposed in the materials will provide either improved subdivision and housing design, and provide a basis for further improvement through valid PUD projects. . 4) B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Dccision 1: Amend the R-1 Zoning District by adopting new setbacks for front and side yards, house and garage sizes, and building standards. 1. Motion to recOlnmend approval of the amendments to the R-I District, based on a finding that the changes will ensure higher quality single family development consistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendments to the R- I District, based on a linding that the changes will have a negative effcct on the pace and/or style of housing in the community. Decision 2: Amend the Zoning Ordinance by establishing an "R-IA" Zoning District which requires large lot and house sizes, and incorporates new building standards for single family housing. I. Motion to recomrnend approval of the establishment of the R- I A District. based on a finding that the district is needed to ensure step-up housing in the community, and to preserve high-amenity sites for such housing. I Motion to recommend denial of the establishment of the R-IA District, based on a finding that the district will interfere with the market for housing developrnent. Decision 3: Amend the Zoning Ordinance by establishing an "R-2A" Zoning District which allows for small-lot single family housing, and incorporates building standards that permit "detached townhouse" or "traditional neighborhood" design. . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 02/05/02 . 1. Motion to recommend approval of the establishmcnt of the R-2A District, based on a finding that the district will complement the other zoning in the City to allow for high-quality, atTordable housing in neighborhoods that will maintain value over time. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the establishment of the R-2A District, based on a linding that the district will allow single family housing at a density that is too high. Decision 4: Amend the Subdivision Ordinance by adding new design standards f()J' subdivision layout, natural amenity preservation, and other requirements. I. Motion to recommend approval of the subdivision ordinance amendments, based on a finding that the amendments will help ensure that future subdivision design will increase quality of neighborhoods both in the short and long term. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the subdivision ordinance amendments, based on a finding that the changes would be overly restrictive and inhibit flexibility in subdivision design. . C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION S talT recommends adoption of the amendments, as a part of the City's overall approach to housing development and growth. As noted in the analysis, one of the great concerns relating to the City's growth has been the value and quality of the new development, both at the time ot'the construction, and as the neighborhoods mature. StalTreviewed several building permits in various subdivisions, and spent time observing how earlier developments had matured. It was found that the size of the lots had only marginal influence ovcr whether residcnts had maximized the value of the properties, and whether residents tended to add rooms and remodel, or move out to other housing. One of the strategies that the City had relied on in the recent past was anticipation that the combination of highcr development costs and higher amenity sites would result in step-up housing opportunities, and several developers had indicated that they had planned such housing. After finding that the high amenity sites were being developed with housing that differed little 1'1'0111 the lower amenity sites, staff believes that the changes proposed in these amendlnents will help to achieve the housing goals in a more "proactive" fashion. I t should be noted that staff does not believe that the market fiJr housing in Monticello will . 3 . Planning COlllmission Agenda - 02/05/02 suddenly change to a majority of $250,000 homes. The great pressure is expected to continue to be dominated by the "entry level" homes, now commonly priced in the $160,000 range. However, it is believed that the step-up J11arket will grow as the housing market continues to mature. The changes proposed here are intended to identify sites that will eventually be well suited to such housing. If a developer wishes to huild in that market immediately, the land and zoning will be ready. In not, the most attractive land will he preserved until the market ripens. In the meantime, the amendments are structured to be sure that there are ample supplies of R-I and R-2A lands to fuel the affordahle market. D. SUPPORTING DATA 1. January 8 Planning Commission StaLT Report 2. January 28 City Council Staff Report 3. Open I louse Comments 4. Summary of Zoning District Standards . - 4 - . . Planning Commission Agenda - 01/08/02 6. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City has been experiencing a significant amount of residential development over the past kw years, including a record number of single family plats. One of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for an opportunity for current and new residents to find "step-up" housing within the City, as a part of a full range of housing styles and prices. The bulk of the reeent development has consisted of "cntry-level" housing, although the price of "cntry-level" has risen dramatically. The Cornprehensive Plan envisioned that whilc the bulk of the housing demand in Monticello would initially be in the affordable market, higher amenity sites would lead to more expensivc housing due to both development cost and markct opportunity. This objective has gone largely unfulfilled, as even wooded properties and hillside "view" properties have seen some relatively uninspired housing construction. Some projects, promoted by their developers as step up housing on prime sites, have evolved li-om step- up to entry level projects by permitting small houses and almost no amenities. The conccrn that this raises for the City is that as the market matures and more expensive housing becomes financially feasible i()I' larger developments, the prime sites for such housing will have already been consumed by earlier, lower cost projects. At stafC level, this discussion has led to a set of sometimes competing objectives. The City's infrastructure bonding requires some level of growth, and the industrial development efforts suggest that restricting aiTordable housing growth would interfere with the ability to attract a competitive labor supply to the community. However, doing nothing with the zoning allowances in the single family district areas would appear to accommodate the uninterrupted consumption of prime residential land by aHordable housing options, to the detriment of the City's housing goals of providing for a full range of housing choice, including upper end neighborhoods. Stan's proposed solution to this issue is a tiered approach to single family zoning, including the creation of two new single family districts and modifications to the current R-] District. Through a combination of standards relating to subdivision design, housing construction and design, and selective zoning district application, it is believed that the City will be able to aceOlnplish each of its housing goals. This task is accompanied by the concurrent update to the Comprehensive Plan and the future land use plan. As shown in the accompanying draft exhibits, the City will expect to apply each of its new districts in a manner that will: I. Preserve high-amenity sites for more valuable housing, at the time that the market decides that such housing is ripe for development (sooner or later). ') Maintain the City's interest in accommodating affordable housing opportunities for new development. 3. Provide for redevelopment in the original plat areas and other older subdivisions. 4. Ensure that new housing (whether "alTordable" or more expensive) is designed to be architecturally attractive and a size that encourages long- term neighborhood stability and value. (Q-A Planning COIllIll ission Agenda - 0 I /08/02 . R-] District. The components of the proposal include three zoning districts in place of thc currcnt R-I District. The R-l District would retain 12,000 square foot lots and 80 foot lot widths. Instead of a uniform ten foot side yard setback, the requirement would changc to a "5 and IS" approach used by many communities - five feet on the attached garage side and 15 feet on the other, although the actual ordinanee uses six feet as the minimum standard due to the City's requirement for six f()ot wide drainage and utility easements. This results in side building spacing between twelve and thirty feet, giving a developer more llexibility to maintain views or preserve side yard trees whcre possible. The R-I District would be located in most of the City's single family land use areas. To avoid a development pattern that is exclusively entry level, the R-l District would also incorporate new housing construction standards. Staff is encouraging a minimum roof pitch of 5/12, a minimum 1100r area of 1,200 square feet finished, 2,000 square feet total space at no lower than the "lookout" level (up to 800 square feet may be uniinished at the time of initial construction), and an attached garage of at least 450 square feet (increasing li'om the bare minimum of 400 square feet). . R-l ^ Simde Family District. This District would be located in areas speciiically identified as high amenity sites. Tree cover, significant views, water front or views, or other valuable natural features may cause an area to qualify f()I' R-I A designation. This new district would establish an averaging approach to its increased lot requirements. Lot sizes would be required to average 16,000 square feet in area (no less than 12,000, and no fewer than 40% of all lots must exceed the 16,000 square foot size). Average lot width would be 90 feet, with similar minimum standards (SO leet, and no fewer than 40% exceeding 90 feet). Side setbacks would mirror the new R-I standard (6 and 15), and tl'ont yard standards would also be averaged - 35 leet, with a minimum of 25 feet, and no fewer than 40% exceeding 35 feet). House sizes would be set at 2,000 square feet finished. The averaging approach for the lot size is intended to provide a built-in flexibility to perInit the developer to design a subdivision that takes the natural features into account. Because the R-l A District will be applied in areas that by definition have natural featurcs to preserve, the City will also make these standards a basis of the plat review _ developers wi] I be required to identify the valuable features of the site, then demonstrate that their project meets the preservation objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance. As suggested previously, it is acknowledged that the market for higher end residential housing is limited in seope at the current time. Developers who intend to meet this market would have a designated supply of land. If only a small number of these developments are proposed, the ordinance will serve to preserve those prime areas until the market can catch up. R-2A District. The current R~2 District provides for two-family homes and townhouses at densities of around seven to eight units per acre. Staff proposes the establishment of a new district to permit the opportunity to construct small-lot single family homes as well. There has been a recent market trend in single Lunily development on small pareels. Permitting this type of subdivision would facilitate an atlcmiable single family option at densities similar to townhouse projects. These subdivisions have taken the form of both townhouse associations and traditional neighborhoods. . 2 ~A: Planning Com nl ission Agenda -,._- 0 I /08/02 . An integral part of this zoning amendment would be the addition of design and architectural standards for housing developed in this district. While Illost townhouse projects would require Planned Unit Development review due to the hase lot/common property arrangement, a small-lot single l~Hllily subdivision could be developed without pun on public streets. A part of this concept would permit traditional neighborhood design with some significant departures from the City's typical setback requirements. The R-2A District is intended to transfer development costin the al1<:m:.iable range fi'om lot development to bui Iding construction, since staff has found that "atlordable" subdivisions of slnall houses on larger lots have not led to additions and upgrades in those areas. Exanlples of building and architectural standards would be lllinimum levels of brick and/or stone, size requirements that ensure larger homes on the sl11alllots, limits on garage lI'ont exposure, and enhanced landscaping requirements for both individual lots and developments in general. General Standards. The following table provides a comparative view of the zoning- related standards l<:)r each of the districts: . Lot area Lot width House sIze Garage sIze Roof piteh Front setback Side setback Rear setback * ^ verage standards will also incorporate minimum quantities and standards R-JA 16,000 s.r. avg. * 90 feet, avg. R-J 12,000 sf 80 feet R-2A 7,500 s. f. avg. * 45 feet, min. 2,000 s.L finished 700 s.f. 1,200 s.1'. finished +- 450 s.f. 1,200 s.f. finished 450 s.L 6/12 5/12 5/12 35 feet, avg. * 30 feet avg. * 10 leet, min. 6 ft. (garage) & 15 n. 30 feet usable 6ft. (garage) & 15 ft. 30 feet usable 6 ft. both sides 10 teet, min. The R-I A District will also have additional requirements for specific architectural details, including the fl)lIowing: · Minimum f~l<;ade material coverage of at least 20% brick or stone, or 10% with all stucco (instead of lap siding). · No lllore than 40% of the fa<;ade of any structure may be comprised of garage door. · No garage portion of any structure may be more than five leet closer to the street than the principal residential portion. · Minimum /<:)Undation size for 1,400 square feet, in addition to the finished space requirement, to avoid small, totally finished houses that Inarginally meet the other requirements. In addition to the zoning standards, there will be subdivision review standards that will . .., .J (pA Plann ing COI11I11 ission Agenda - 01/08/02 apply to all new subdivisions. These include the f(Jllowing: . . Internalized ponding with street frontage, designed and landscaped to work as an open space amenity for the development in addition to its storm water control function. Subdivision design that identifies natural amenities of the site, and positively demonstrates preservation of those amenities. Additional depth to lots that hack up to undesirahle features, including major roadways or negative views, including significant landscaping and herming in those spaces. Creation of naturalized woodland spaces where appropriate, such as the edges of development areas, or as a part of the open space system created by ponding and pathway areas. Additional landscape treatment along designated pathway routes. . . . . These requirements would be established as the minimum standards f(x any residential subdivision. Planned Unit Development projects would be required to demonstrate design that starts with these minimums, then adds amenities to justify pun flexibility. ^ part of this process is intended to reduce the reliance on PUD generally hy adding some flexihility in building setbacks. The concept would build additional standards into all subdivision design. not just those that require PUD. . In summary, the proposed changes would add a significant levcl of subdivision design standards to all residential projects. The purpose is to raise the level of quality that is "huilt-in" to the community's residential devclopnlclH, and to insist on higher standards regardless of density. Because the highest level of the housing market may he present only in small amounts. an acknowledged result of these changes will he to preserve certain areas that arc identified as having higher natural amenities for future development. The R-2A District will accommodate smaller lots, hut will require that the honles will be as large as those in the City's standard single family areas. If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the proposed amendments, the Planning COlmnission may wish to table this item pending additional study <md/or input from developers and huilders. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Decision 1: Amend the R-I Zoning District hy adopting new set hacks for fi-ont and side yards, house and garage sizes, and huilding standards. I. Motion to recommend approval of the alnendments to the H.-I District, hased on a finding that the changes will ensure higher quality single fi.lmily development, consistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendments to the R-I District, hased on a finding that the changes will have a negative eirect on the pace and/or style of housing in the community. Decision 2: Amend the 70ning Ordinance by establishing an "1{-IA" Zoning District which requires large lot and house sizes, and incorporates new huilding standards for single family housing. . 4 lPA Planning Commission Agenda - 01/08/02 . I. Motion to recommend approval of the establishment of the R-I A District, based on a finding that the district is needed to ensure step-up housing in the community, and to preserve high-amenity sites for such housing. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the establishment of the R-I A District, based on a t~nding that the district will interfere with the market for housing development. Decision 3: Amend the Zoning Ordinance by establishing an "R-2A" Zoning District which allows for small-lot single family housing, and incorporates building standards that permit "detached townhouse" or "traditional neighborhood" design. I. Motion to recOlnmend approval of the establishment of the R-2A District, based on a finding that the district will complement the other zoning in the City to allow for high-quality, affordable housing in neighborhoods that will maintain value over time. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the establishment of the R-2A District, based on a finding that the district will allow single Lllnily housing at a density that is too high. Decision 4: Amend the Subdivision Ordinance by adding new design standards for subdivision layout natural amenity preservation, and other requirements. . 1. Motion to recommend approval of the subdivision ordinance amenchnents, based on a finding that the amendments will help ensure that future subdivision design will increase quality of neighborhoods both in the short and long term. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the subdivision ordinance amendments, based on a f~nding that the changes would be overly restrictive and inhibit flexibility in subdivision design. S"IAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the amendments, as a part of the City's overall approach to housing development and growth. As noted in the analysis, one of the great concerns relating to the City's growth has been the value and quality of the new development, both at the time of the construction, and as the neighborhoods mature. Staff reviewed several building permits in various subdivisions, and spent time observing how earlier developments had matured. It was found that the size of the lots had only marginal influence over whether residents had maximized the value of the properties, and whether residents tended to add rooms and remodel, or move out to other housing. One of the strategies that the City had relied on in the recent past was anticipation that the combination of higher development costs and higher amenity sites would result in step-up housing opportunities, and several developers had indicated that they had planned such housing. After finding that the high amenity sites were being developed with housing that differed little from the lower amenity sites, staff believes that the changes proposed in these amendments will help to achieve the housing goals in a more "proactive" Llshion. It should be noted that stafTdoes not believe that the market for housing in Monticello . 5 lPA Planning Commission Agenda - 0]/08/02 . will suddenly change to a majority of $250,000 homes. The great pressure is expected to continue to be dominated by the "entry level" homes, now commonly priced in the $160,000 range. However, it is believed that the step-up market will grow as the housing Inarket continues to mature. The changes proposed here are intended to identify sites that will eventually be well suited to such housing. Ifa developer wishes to build in that market immediately, the land and zoning will be ready. In not, the most attractive land will be preserved until the market ripens. In the meantime, the amendments are structured to he sure that there are ample supplies of R-I and R-2A lands to fuel the affordable market. SUPPORTING DA'fA: Exhibit A - H.-I Zoning District (Revised) - to be provided at the meeting. Exhibit B -- R-] A Zoning District (New) Exhibit C - R-2A Zoning District (New) Exhibit D - Subdivision Ordinance Amendments - to be provided at the meeting. . ...-r.. 6 ...... {pft . . . Chapter 6A "R-1A" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SECTION 1: 6A-1: Purpose 6A-2: Permitted Uses 6A-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 6A-4: Conditional Uses 6A-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R-1A" single family district is to provide for low density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. The R-1A District is distinguished from the R-1 District in that it has more extensive development standards and is to be located in areas of higher natural residential amenities, including such conditions as woodlands, wetlands, and significant views. 6A-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an "R-1A" District: [A] Those uses permitted in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 6A-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an "R-1A" district: [A] Those permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 6A-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "R-1A" District (requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance). [A] Those conditional uses as allowed in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 6A-5: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: The following standards shall be made of uses and new subdivisions in the R-1A District, in addition to those that may be applicable under other sections of the City's codes and ordinances. [A] Lot area: 16,000 square feet, average*. For any subdivision in ,,~ . an R-1A District, no lot may be less than 12,000 square feet in area, and no fewer than 40% of all individual lots in the subdivision shall be equal to or greater than 16,000 square feet in area. [B] Lot width: 90 feet, average*. For any subdivision in an R-1A District, no lot may be less than 80 feet in width, and no fewer than 40% of all individual lots in the subdivision shall be 90 feet or more in width, as measured according to this ordinance., [C] Setbacks: Front yard, 35 feet average*. For any subdivision in an R-1A District, no house may be placed closer than 25 feet to any street right of way, and no fewer than 40% of all individual houses shall have front setbacks of 35 feet or more. Side yards, interior: 5 feet minimum on the attached garage side, total setback widths for the two side yards of 20 feet. . Side yards, corner lots: 20 feet on the street side, and no less than 5 feet on the interior side. Rear yards, 30 feet minimum usable. The rear yard shall include a space of at least 30 feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands, ponds, or slopes greater than 12 percent. [0] Building Standards: 1. Building Materials. No less than 20% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1 A District shall be covered with brick or stone. Any accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 10%. 2. Garage size. An attached garage of at least 700 square feet shall be constructed as a part of any single family home. 3. Garage frontage. From side building line to side building line of any single family structure, no more than 40% of such building width shall consist of garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded garages are not subject to this . &It . . regulation. An exception shall be made for garage doors that face the street, but are set back at least ten feet in back of the front building line of the principal use. 4. Garage location. No portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal single family use. 5. Roof pitch. No portion of any roof of any structure in the R- 1A district shall be less in pitch than 6/12, that is, 6 inches of vertical rise for each 12 inches of horizontal length . 6. Building size. No single family home constructed in the R- 1A District shall be built that does not consist of at least 2,000 square feet in finished floor area, exclusive of mechanical, garage, or unfinished storage space. All such finished space shall be at or above the finished exterior grade, or in the case of lower levels, no less than 42 inches below such grade. Basements that are neither "walk-out" or "look-out" levels may be finished, but shall not be included in this calculation. To qualify as "finished", such space must have heat, flooring such as carpet, vinyl, tile, wood or other similar floor covering, and ceiling and walls covered with gypsum board, plaster, or wood, and be stained, painted or covered with other residential wall covering prior to occupancy. *Averaging of lot dimensions shall be considered to be the arithmetic mean, not the median. For example, lot widths in a five lot subdivision could be 80 feet, 80 feet, 85 feet, 90 feet, and 115 feet: (80+80+85+90+115 = 450 feet, divided by 5 = 90 feet average lot width, with 40% of the lots (2 of 5) 90 feet or more in width). . (PA; . . . Chapter 7 A "R-2A" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SECTION 1: 7 A-1: Purpose 7 A-2: Permitted Uses 7 A-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 7 A-4: Conditional Uses 7 A~ 1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R-2A" single family district is to provide for medium density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. The R-2A District is distinguished from the R-2 District in that it has more extensive development standards and is intended to accommodate small lot residential development in traditional neighborhood arrangements with high levels of amenities. 7 A-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an "R-2A" District: [A] Those uses permitted in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 7 A-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an "R-2A" district: [A] Those permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 7 A-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "R-2A" District (requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance). [A] Those conditional uses as allowed in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 7A-5: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: The following standards shall be made of uses and new subdivisions in the R-2A District, in addition to those that may be applicable under other sections of the City's codes and ordinances. [A] Lot area: 7,500 square feet. Ct'ft . . . [B] [C] Lot width: 45 feet. Setbacks: Front yard, 15 feet. Side yards, interior: 6 feet minimum. Side yards, corner lots: 20 feet on the street side, and no less than 6 feet on the interior side. Rear yards, 20 feet minimum usable. The rear yard shall include a space of at least 20 feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands, ponds, or slopes greater than 12 percent. [0] Building Standards: 1. Building Materials. No less than 20% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-2A District shall be covered with brick or stone. Any accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 10%. 2. Garage size. A garage of at least 450 square feet, attached or detached, shall be constructed as a part of any single family home. 3. Garage frontage. From side building line to side building line of any single family structure, no more than 50% of such building width shall consist of garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded garages, or detached garages in the rear yard, are not subject to this regulation. An exception shall be made for garage doors that face the street, but are set back at least ten feet in back of the front building line of the principal use. 4. Garage location. No portion of any garage space may be more than the front building line of the principal single family use. 5. Roof pitch. No portion of any roof of any structure in the R- 2A district shall be less in pitch than 5/12, that is, 5 inches of vertical rise for each 12 inches of horizontal length. 6. Building size. No single family home constructed in the R- Coli . . . 2A District shall be built that does not consist of at least 1,200 square feet in finished floor area, exclusive of mechanical, garage, or unfinished storage space. All such finished space shall be at or above the finished exterior grade, or in the case of lower levels, no less than 42 inches below such grade. Basements that are neither "walk-out" or "look-out" levels may be finished, but shall not be included in this calculation. To qualify as "finished", such space must have heat, flooring such as carpet, vinyl, tile, wood or other similar floor covering, and ceiling and walls covered with gypsum board, plaster, or wood, and be stained, painted or covered with other residential wall covering prior to occupancy. 7. Landscaping. Lots in the R-2A district shall be required to provide significant landscaping. Within front yards, no less than 60% of the yard shall be landscaped garden area. No private driveway leading to a garage may be more than 18 feet in width. For the portion of the lot that is not covered by the structure, the property shall be landscaped with plant materials equal to one ornamental tree per each 1,500 square feet and one ornamental shrub per each 150 square feet. Lot area that is not covered by shrubs and trees may be covered with lawn, gardens, and patios or decks. A landscape security shall be provided to ensure the landscaping of each lot in accordance with this section. lJJPr . . . City Council Agenda - 0 I /28/02 9. Consideration of Adopting Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting the Approval of Buildin2: Permits for llomes that Do Not Meet Proposed Single f<'amilv Residential Standards. (.10) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND At the previous meeting of the City Council the City Council acted to establish a short term moratorium on construction of homes that do not meet the draft single ti.nnily residential standards presented to the Planning Commission for review. The City Attorney suggests that the City follow-up this action with an ordinance. Subsequent to the Council establishtnent of the moratorium, the Planning Commission conducted a pre-planned information gathering/feedback session with builders and members of the public. The meeting was well attended by builders and developers. The primary purpose of the meeting was to gather inf(H'mation regarding the proposed ordinance amendment. At the meeting we wanted to explain the rationale and purpose behind the ordinance amendment, obtain feedback on the impact of the ordinance on builders/developers and identify possible improvement to the draft language to present to the Planning Commission a the public hearing on February 5. To some extent the presence of the moratorium tended to cloud the discussion and give developers/builders the sense that the preliminary draft regulations would ultimately become the final language. On the other hand, the moratorium got the attention of the building community which probably enhanced the meeting turn-out. following arc the biggest issues that came out of the meeting relating to the Moratorium. 1. Establishment of the moratorium and or adherence to the minimum building standards is poorly timed relative to the 2nd Addition of the Groveland Development. · The Groveland development currently has about 75 lots left in the second addition. This particular addition will be the most dinicult t'(.1r the developer to complete due to the presence of the power lines, gas lines and nearby commercial. There is a strong concern that the 1,200 square foot minimum will bring home prices significantly above the market at this location and thus have the unintended result of completely stopping development. The city has financed the itnprovements via the assessment process so there is a vested interest for the city to have the project completed. 06 . . . City Council Agenda - 01/28/02 The developer and builder agree that the homes in this addition are relatively small, but feature three car garages and arc designed to have some street appeal. The developer believes that he and his builders have met city expectations and should not be punished for problems created by other developers. . The developer feels that it is unfi.lir and illegal to make changes to the R-] standards after a project/development agreement has been approved. A num bel' of purchase agreements bet ween huyer and builders were in place prior to the moratorium. Builders will be forced to default on these agreements. The Oroveland development is in the Parade of I Iomes event. Some of the models identified in the Parade will not meet the standards as proposed. The builders have a speciJic model that they need to be ahle to duplicate. 2. Issues relating to the proposed ordinance amendment to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the next meeting. rollowing arc comments or issues raised at the informational meeting that will be included in the Planning Commission discussion that could have an impact on the draft ordinance. · Regulation of building size will not necessarily assure quality construction or resale value. Architectural detail, curb appeal, required three car garages add value but do not always relate to building size. · The ordinance as written will encourage split level homes. The R-I standards as written will result in homes that cost Inore than most people can afford. All aftcmiable homes will be pushed into the new R-2A district. . Limitations on garages in the front of homes will add expense to home building. . See other detail provided in comment sheets and in letters provided by Mapkwood Development and Bruggenlan Homes. 2 &Jr? . . . City COllncil Agenda - 01/28/02 " -) . There were positive observations by developers as f()lIows: · Establishment of an R-l A standard preserving high arnenity areas made sense to everyone. No objections to the R-2A district however there were some suggestions regarding set-back, building sizc and lot dimensions. Application of the 1,200 square foot minimum could work if based on an average home size. · Appreciation for the opportunity to provide detailed input on development of the ordinance. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting the Approval of Building Permits fiJr Homes that Do Not Meet Proposed Single Family Residential Standards. This is the alternative Council should select if it wishes to formally follow-up with the same action that was completed at the previous meeting. 2. Motion to adopt Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting the Approval of Building Permits for Homes that Do Not Meet Proposed Single Family Residential Standards - but exempt homes from the moratorium that have a minimum square footage of 960 square feet (current code is 864 with two car garage), three car garage and brick covering 15% of the facade facing the street. Under this alternative, the City Council would allow hOll1eS to be constructed that might not meet the eventual R-I regulations in terms of size only if the home is at least 960 square feet, includes a three car garage area, and if 15% of the front of the building includes brick. Exempting homes from the moratorium under the conditions above would be based on the notion that the presence of the additional garage area serves to increase the value of the home and provide storage area necessary to maintain a quality neighborhood. Under this alternative Council would be making the conclusion that smaller homes with these attributes should be allowed to be constructed until there is an actual code change that would dictate otherwise. Under this alternative, the Groveland Development homes vvould be exempted fronl the moratorium. " j ~b . " _J. Motion to waive otfthe rnoratorium City Council Agenda - 01/28/02 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative 2 because it will aeeOlnplish the m;:~jor intent of the moratorium without unduly restricting development on existing approved plats. SUPPORTING OAT A Draft Ordinance Parade of Home requirements for builders. Information from Residential Standards - Open IIouse. . . 4 t.,h . . . CIIAPTER 30 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARIL Y PROIlIBITING THE APPROVAL OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR HOMES TIIAT DO NOT MEET PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS WITH EXCEPTIONS SECTION: 30-1: Intent 30-2: Exceptions 30-3: Temporary Prohibition 30-4: Effective Date 30-1: INTENT: This ordinance is intended to allow the City of Monticello time to study and adopt appropriate land use controls regulating the construction of single f~lll1i1y homes. 30-2: EXCEPTIONS: This ordinance shall not apply to homes with a square foot living area equal to or greater than 960 square feet and have a three car garage containing a total square footage of 640 square feet and have a Iront f~1cade treated with brick. Brick area to eq ual 15% or more of facade area. 30-3: TEMPORAR Y PROHIBITION: Pending the adoption of appropriate oiTicial controls, no building permit application for single family residential structures not 111eeting exemptions above shall be accepted, processed, or approved. 30-4: EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. It shall remain in eiTect until the adoption of the otlicial controls contemplated herein or 45 days, whichever first occurs. ~/; ~ i JAN. 25. 2002 10:21AM NO. 544 P. l' . I I I I ~ i Tony EmmeriCh Construction Inc. 1875 Commercial Blvd. NW 'Andover, MN. 55304 Phone (763) 755-6554 Fax (763) 755-6311 Date: Company: ~~ 0 ~ Attention: (.~ Fax If: 2 ~ ~ ~-r/o 4- Phone #: Pages including cover sheet: From: Memo: Uj.{ t'1- I~I'~I!/ ~~vI Me- /t?Iut- ~ .<f'vr Id ed. ~ ~ ~ / v- ~~ ~/.f hl-vd ~hllH- - 'Ti /<5 / ~ tfE'0'/L. ... I ~ Rz/H. ~ l1t.n /:::e;h A/~ Ib f/"~ r iP--w-e ~ jj:p ~ ~~.z. ff::!;.AU"-~~ p...--.e5 ::z~ - A:/ ~t:!.;/..eLA:- ~;wz..s .5,. r-,e"p.P'.4 ~:;;'7" d.r 5~ff o//H:G~ i:;p"/~$ 5~ .:? K/ 4:/~ /P c#?J-$ 7' . (of; JAN. 25.2002 10:21AM F 5 12 19 ~ii f 4 11 We.dnesday, October 10: · i 2 Noon - Entry Deadline. Wednesday, October 17: &\ Late t;ntry deadline - $100 per day maximum fivE: day/$500 penalty. Thursday. November B: · First proofs maned to builders. nursday, November '15: ;:irst proof5 must be returned to the BATe. ,-as! di:Jt€ to pull a heme (entry fee less. S 1 00 returned). Written notification must be received by the BATC office on Dr be ore I~ <) · Last chance to subQitute or move entries more than one mile (mu~ submit $100 with new entry form, Hudson's or King's map photocop~~ and blueprint to the SATQ. ' Monday, December 3: · Builder-submItted camera-ready art due (oniy line art accepted), Thursday, December 6: · Flna) proofs mailed to builders. NO. 544 P. 2 M F , 4 5 6 7 B tt 12 13 ,,, 15 20 21 22 F 1 7 S Thursday, December 13: · Final proofs must be returned 10 the BATe, . Last cnance to subStituTe or move emries less than one mile. but within the same city (must submit $100 wrtll f1E'W enuy form, Hudson or King Map photocopy and blueprint to the BATe). If your site is not repre~emed in the Hudson or Kings map books, please subrnli: SOME SORT OF MAP - cITy, county, MNDOT, ete. It Final price-change deadline. . Last date to banner a home nNot Available for Showrnf(. Written notification due tcr SATe on or before this date. Mu e of an approved building permit, February 9 . March 3: .. 2002 Parade of Homes Spring Preview'~ Di>ys and hours: Thursday - sunday, 12 noon. 6 p.m. onday, March 4: . Dire m must be remolled by 5 p.m. (Encore Event partidpants please refer to Encore guidelines coming soon.) Friday, Mardl1 5: .. Directional signs must be returned to, the BATe office on or before this dare. · · · · · .. · · .. · " · " .. .. · · · · · · · · " CHECKLIST · · · · · · · '. · · .. · · · .. · " .. ... · · · · To enter a home in the Spring PrevjeWo!, the following items must be submitted to the Builders Association of the Twin Cilies by Wednesday, October 10, 200'. ~. NOATORY Builder Listing En'Oy Form ONE. ORIGiNAL FORM PER ENTRY. PI.EASE PRINT OK TYPS! Thi5 form includes map, lE>" and price.. Please call Linda JaccbsOll at 65 Hi97. 7558 if you need additional ~ form.. 'ylb.{ CHECK for $1.900 for ead'! horne. payable to: BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF THE TWIN CITIES (or BATe). You may include all entries on one check.. . \-j' SIGNED PAIUlCIPATlON AGREEMENT (the rules) . one per builder BUilDER INTERNET INFORMATION FORM BL.UEPRINT ELEVATION of the home (do not supply il blueprint if you iilre reusing B/i elevation from a prevlOll$ ev.em or are proviciin9 . professional carnera--rsady arr). ~ ~ X ~ CERTIFICATE OF UASllITY INSURANCE c..oJ.kt d }D}.3 showing coverage through 313/02. - . (~ f\S Pho'tDcopy of your current MN RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTORlREMODELfR LICENSE . one per builder Hud50n or King.<; map photocopy or please submit SOME SORT Of MAP - city. county, MNDOT, etc. WITH MODEL SITE INOICATED (for each enTry. r@-t/ses, TOOl. ~ONAl.. : RODUCT SHOWcASE ENTRY FORM EA.TURE HOMES ENTRY FORM ~NTERNET .OPPORTUNITIES FORM 4th JAN. I!). 1001 10: nAM NO, 544 P. 3 2002 BUILDERS ASSOCIATION DFTI"IE1WlN cmES PARADE OF HOMES SPRING PREVlEW'" Parade of Participation Agreerrlent HOmet; . III order tb be eligible to participate ill the Parade of Homlls Spring F'reViewlI<, building lIrmi must h<lVIl completed rille names tor &atislicd l:ustllme~ and Ilill$l be ill member In good standing (a member in good modillg mean tlult you Iwve no accollnts FecailfB.ble balance and due. are cluR:nt aoo you beve prmtioed tire PATe with a photo~py or your ~rrenl MN ReslJJel'ifla! CIIntracllllfRemodJOleT license}. CJflii C blllldtlrs are II0t eligible tor participation, I hereby agree to abide by llle followiog rule; and relJulafiollt: 1. The entry deadline Is Wednesday, October 10, 2001. ~ my entry Is not received by October 10. I agree to pal' a $100 per day pelillltf, with a maximum or Ii five (5) daylS500 penalty. 2. ) understand that all builders or developers who have an a,tive OWllerthip lntmst in the PMacteof H[)m~ entry, or who share in the profiis from thB saJ& of the Parade of Homesill entry. must be members in good standing ot tile SLfilclers Association of tlTe Twin Cities and a.ahere to GmcmbershlP guidelines for panlelpa:lon. 3. understand that the price in the Parade of Homes-&- magazine is the reprodu~ible price of the house and lot eIltered .as shown," excluding only furnIture, window traatmems, tree-standIng appliances and free-standing audiolViaeotvisual components. A11.built-illS,. including built-in appliances, wBllpaper. landscapIng and lawn sprlnkler systems are Included In the Parade price as well as amhltecturaJ or interior design tees, paid spec!a.ls, financlng and commissions. There wllI be no misleading or confusing pricing. The pel1alty for VIolation of thk 1111e may ill=lode Iou c:.1 ellgfbnlty far tl~ to tllIo Parade of Homes'"' evelitl: aid probation for up 10 ~tlaee yelU~. 4. understand that if I am in violation due to a price discrepancy O.e., price on haM-outs. brochures, !he inteme~ or MLS higher than the published maga2ine price), Ills penalty may lnelude loss of eligibirnv for lIP to two Parade iiI Hamef'M evelll. aliI! probatioD for op to three years. A disqualified entry will be inellgible tor the 2002 RIlllgie/2003TrWium AwardS14 eompetition. I AGREE TO OFFER MY PARADE HOMP OR OUPLlCATlON OF PARADE HOUSE FOR SALE FOR NO MORE THAN THE PRICE APPEAR1NG IN THE PARADE OF HDMESSI< MAGAZINE ON AN EQUALL V-VALUED J.OT (LOi COST & REQUIRED SITE IMPROVEMENTS) Tl-lROUGH THE lAST DAY OF THE EVENT (nitS INCWOES BANNEREO KOMES). G My home entry Is new, has never been occupied, and will be slaffed and open tor pUblic viswlng during ill Parade of Hom~ hours. I also agree that my home will be complete and ready for showing by 12 noon, Saturday. February 9, l:!ls opening day of the 2002 Parade of Homes Spring PreviewSll. If my house 1/.1111 be incomplete. Unsafe. or not available for shOWIng at the time the Parade of Homes"'! Op8f1S and I fail to meet the December 13. 2001 deadline to banner a home. I will notify the BATC In wrttlng that my home wHt be unQvailabJe for showing aod not put up any relmd sigrlage.. I am stillln violation and sUbjeCt to penalties. Tlle penalty for vio[alioo oUhls rule may Include pmbaUon far BII to three year.;. If I don't notify the SA TC In writing prIor to the event stating the home IS incomplete, J will not be allowec to\Dpen during the evant with Parade of . Homesr.&l signage. even it I get the Certificate ot Occupancy. The penally tor UtlSale tllno'lUons may include InS!< of eligtbilit1r far up to two Parade 01 HomesSM eVlln~ mid probation for lip tlllhre~ year:;. 6. If the entry is bannerlld and I complete the home during the event I will be able to open when i receive tIle Certificate at OccupalU:Y. completed and returned ttre BATe GUtitleatlon form and a member of the Parade ot HomesQ/ Committee has confirmed completion of the home. Tile deadline for noting "incompletes' Is Thursday, December 13, 200L A Cllmplete house is OM on whIch all ttems aIll complered and the builder lias saCtireo a certifieatEl of OCCLlpancy from the city. For the PArade of Homes Spring Prevjev;ll! the only exception to this rule are sidewalks, dnveways and sweeo appfication. Ada1tlonill~', 2 "class 5" raad....'ayand 'class 5' driveway or boardwalk must be in place to provide safe access to the home-. jf I cannot (;IJrrrplete my home for any reason, I wlIJ notify the BATe in wrlrlng five (5} days before the event starts. It ffij'l1ome is 'completely finished. but does not have final hook-ups 10 aledric, sewer, water or gas, the house may still be shoVJll, if no'safery hazards are presentea. and the BATe Is not'fied in writing. Temporary heaT and electric must still be provided to the home A copy at the certificate of occupancy will not be' requested by the BATe unl~s ii home is aJlsged to be incomplete under nArC rules, 7. If a home needs to be bannered "not available for showing", a lstisr must be submitted along With evIdence of ,m approved building permlL to show that your en1ly was made in good faith. Tnere Is, no penatly for banns ring your enlJ'y wlth en approved buuding permiL Lack of good faith about the completion of this horn~ is 2. rule violation and ,Subject to )Jenalties. ' E. I will ensure mat the grounds surrounding my entry, Within my control, are ne3! and orderly. I will not work on the home. inside or outside, during Parade of Homesil/. hot.trs, g, I agree thzt all information on the entry and TrilfiumlfleggiB fOrms will eome frorr, the builder ami mat lis accuracy will be my responsibilit,Y. The illustration and description must accurately mleet the homs as shown and not be I'I1lsreading to the consumer. The pellilly for Violalion Dr Uti. rUle may InCllldt jlrllbaf.iDn lor up l(J Il1tee yem. 10, For Parade of Homes F;:;Ji Showcaseilll partleipatlorl, Reggie Award>><" Winning entries are not Wglele for participation in the 2002 Fall Snowtase91 Reggie Award of Excellal'lcer.&l competition. 11. I agree to carry liability insura~Gs on my Paraae Homel>< from F;bruary 9. March 3. 2002. I understand that a 'copy of this certificate of Insurance Is a reqUIrement for entry arid that the' cllrtificate muSi be submine6 by final ~roof Deadline. 12. Proofs shollfd be signed by the builder representative and must be rell.lmed to !he BATc office by the date noted on tile proofs. ff sIgned proofs are not returned. any mistakes In the pTillt"d book will be my responsibility, j agree thaI any errors or omissions concerning my home(s), me maps, or my firm In the magazine, or ;n any related aDvertiSing, press releases, 81c., will be limited to a maximum refund of my event entry file. I agree to call any errors to the atten~on ot the BATe In wriUng by February 71, 2002, page (Jn~ part!t:/p"6t1on AgnJemal11 lP~ JAN. 25. 2002 10: 23AM . 13. D:rO-~ti(lna! si:ms ShoUld be pl2.::;ed friday, February 8, 2002, and must be removed by Monday, ",.arch 4, ZOD2, by 5 p.m. Builders who have signs remaining mer 5 p.m. will be penaliZed SlO per siQn, wlth ~ muimum per.alty of $5e: per entry. I agree to abide by tile current sign pla:;emenr po liey of the BhTC as described in the Parade 01 Homes Spring Preview"" IntormaUon GuIde. 14. The large metal yard sign must be placed near the entrance oi the Parade mode: in orcier to better direct consumm to your entry. Your metal sign maJ1 be llS6d after the event as a marketing tool until one month prior to the start at the 2002 Parade of Homes Fan Showcase$ll, '15. Included in my entry tee is a $50 sign escrow fee which win be returned to me after j return my djrec~onal signs to the BATe offics 2960 Cantre Pointe Or" RDssville MN 55113. I will return my signs by Fnday. March 15.2002. No refunds will be made for si~ns returned after Friday, March 15, 2QQ2. The r:irectior.a! signs remain tne piOpei1'j of the Builders AssocWlan 2nd can be removed tor cause. 16. iii ChOOSE not tD ernsr my Parade home in the Trllllum/Reggie Award~ judging, my home may still be inspected by a representative from the BATe to ~r.SiJr6 !hat the home is open during Parade hours, is tho E.arn priu as listed in the magazine, guide, and is complete. These homes wi I not be published or rcocognlzeti In the Trillium/Reggie Awards"" program lundsl'SW1d mat the representatives have a eamere. and have the right to lake p!ttures of any sllSp~ed rule violation inside or outside of my Paiade home . il. If I sell my ;,eme prior to the stm of the event but after final proofs are returned an6 aHow the buyer 10 add upgrades atter the price ohange deadline, J !mY still tle judgeclln the TrUliumlReggie Awardlllo compdltlon at the new sale price of trIe ~ome. A letter and a copy of the purchase aQraem~nt must be submitted to the fATe office ten days prior to the start . NO. 544 P. 4 of the event. An 6lill"natory sign with the new prIce must be provided by the 6A TC and must be displayed io my home. Thera is no penalty if you follow thJs procedure. I cannot change the price aftar the price change deadlinE tf I sell my home to anyone employed by ml' company. 18. III have solO my home and the buyer wants to move in prior to Dr during the eveIlll wm prOVide the BATe wltll a cop}' of the purchase aareemenl ShOWing the closmg date and the dates the home will not be open to the public. I understand I must provide c. BATe ap'proved 5ign notltylng the consumer tile home is sold and unavailable for showlno. 19. I agree that the pullout dais for removing my entl}' from th~ Parade of Homes Fall Showcase~ magazine Is ThUrsday, November 15, After !hat date, my entry fee will not be returned and the Ilome wlU appear in the magulne. A typewritten IBttBr must be recllived by the SA TC office by November 15. There are lie. exceptions to this Nle! Prior to November 15, I will racsivB a refulio of all bll~ the $100 administrative fee. By sIgning lhis form, f acknowledge I bave rud and Ilndlll$!and tlJe rules af partlcipation I~ the Paraoe of Homer'w event and the violaliDn of these rule may 19ad 10 los. ill eUgibm~' fDr fulllre 'Parade of Homes'" llvent.. 10 of llliflIbllily tor TrltllllmJReggie Award or fII;aUllIlCE'" awards alllll 'Oll flf Tied of prl1bdi[Jn.. (P{; . 1I!1aIJlewood DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUcnON INC. 3030 Granada Avenue Nor-th . Suire A Oakdale, Minnesota 551.28 (612) 777-6869 Office (612) 777-8007 Fax January 18, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Jeff O'Neill City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362-8831 Re: Proposed amendments to the residential district standards. Dear Jeff: The following will summarize my comments relative to the proposed amendments to the residential district standards dated January 8, 2002, as shown on the City's Planning Com/Tlission Agenda. Although arranged by topic, these comments are in no particular order, and are confined to the R-2A standards now proposed. LOT SIZE The proposed standard is a 7500 square foot lot area minimum, with a 45 foot lot width minimum. This seems a little out of proportion, since a 45 foot lot width would, in effect, dictate a 165 foot lot depth. This would result in very long and narrow lots. I would like you to consider a smaller lot area of 6000 square feet as a minimum, but with a 50 foot minimum width requirement, resulting in a standard lot size of 50 feet by 120 feet. This is much more consistent with the standard we have seen in other cities, and really provides for a more efficient use of land. Please also note that in the proposed site plan on the Ken Schultz property, we are showing a 60 foot minimum lot width to accommodate three car garages, and greater space between the units. SETBACKS The front setback should be set at a 20 foot minimum, to allow for proper driveway lengths and potential sidewalks. The rear yard setback should be 25 feet, to allow for patios, recreation areas, and some sense of green space LAND DEVELOPMENT. CONSTRUCTION. DESIGN CONSULTATION MN Builder U<ense #1011 {P/3 between the homes. I would further suggest that the side yard setbacks be set at . 5 feet, provided that the 50 foot minimum width be adopted. ROOF PITCH The 5/12 minimum is acceptable, but it does not provide for anything of significant architectural interest. I would propose a 6/12 minimum. GARAGE DIMENSIONS Garage sizes should be based on 2 foot increments, since that is how houses are really built. This would mean reducing the square footage minimum from 450 square feet to 440 square feet (20 feet by 22 feet) for all garages. The requirement that imposes a maximum of 40% of the fagade as garage door is a little puzzling. Its ultimate effect may be to discourage three car garages, which was the reason we were compelled to propose 60 foot lot widths on the Schultz property in the first place. This may be bad for values, and I think it is a requirement that is a little presumptuous of architectural and aesthetic beauty. I think this requirement should be eliminated. If it cannot be eliminated, I want to clarify that the 40% maximum applies to the garage door only, and not other areas of the fagade of the garage. . SQUARE FOOTAGE MINIMUM The 1200 square footage minimum is fine as described in your proposed standards. The exclusion of mechanical areas in this calculation is too restrictive and, in my opinion, is unnecessary. I would like you to consider eliminating this clause from the calculations. INTERNALIZED PONDING WITH STREET FRONTAGE This requirement limits site plan design too much. An access via easements to ponding is sufficient and appropriate. MINIMUM FACADE-20% BRICK OR STONE I would suggest that this restriction allow for materials made of "fiber cement" ( i. e. Hardie Board) so that different front finishes can be allowed and encouraged. GARAGE The proposed requirement places garages at no more than 5 feet closer to the street than the house. Again, requirements as broad and restrictive as this . 2 lP(3 . . . presumes too much about aesthetic value and beauty. It does not help to promote better projects. LANDSCAPING The ornamental shrub requirement should be changed to a "shade tree" with a list of approved trees provided by the City. The requirement for 60% of the front yard to be landscaped garden area is hard to understand as a requirement that is necessary or even appropriate. The 18 foot maximum width on driveways is fine if that is the maximum width at the curb. But this should be allowed to be altered with architectural approval. In summary, I think the attempt to establish architectural standards is a very worthy effort. I do think that sometimes it is best served by the City's control over and requirement for restrictive covenants that include a set of architectural standards. This allows for an evaluation of each development proposal, and an approval based on the merit of that individual neighborhood design. It is my hope that PUD proposals, such as the one we are contemplating for the Schultz property, will be met with a sense of cooperation that results in achieving the building of a neighborhood that we all will be proud of now and twenty years from now. Thank you for your attention to these matters. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss these issues further, please feel free to call me. f~occ~4? 3 /.of) . ~BRUGG~MAN H. 0MES . . , . . ,..-. '. ", "", ., ~: . ...... .... -. .., .. ." Building Quality Since 1959 January 23, 2002 Mr. Jeff O'Neill Deputy Administrator City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: Proposed changes to zoning ordinance Dear Jeff, . Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft zoning ordinance amendment as outlined in your letter dated January 11, 2002. As we are not currently developing property or building homes in Monticello, our review was based on a limited understanding of the issues. As you are aware, we are purchasing property in Monticello Township with the intention of annexing the property into the City. Upon review of the draft ordinance, we assumed the R-1 A zoning will not be applicable to our project due to the site and market constraints created by the adjacent interstate freeway and the "lack of tree cover, significant views and water frontage". Therefore, our review of the ordinance was focused on the proposed changes to the R-1 zone and new R-2A zone. In general, we believe the changes to the ordinance are appropriate and consistent with the City's objective to fI ensure new housing is architecturally attractive. fI However, the standard to increase the finished square foot size to 1,200 could result in unintended economic impacts to the City. As part of our due diligence process, we recently completed a market study for new single family homes sold in the City of Monticello within the last year. The study involved 135 homes sold as listed properties for a price less than $300,000. The study revealed the following: 1) The average home sold for $162,000. 2) Sizes ranged from 912 FSF to 2,140 FSF. . 3) The average size was 1,200 FSF. (gf; "~~~,~,--,..-==---- 3564 Rollingview Drive' White Bear Lake. Minnesota 55110 . 651.770-2981' Fax 651-770-9273 www.bruggemanhomes.com . MBU 4062 . . . Mr. Jeff O'Neill January 23, 2002 Page 2 We conducted a "what if" analysis of the impact of eliminating houses with less than 1,200 FSF. This analysis resulted in: 1) an average home price of $185,100 (an increase of $23,100). 2) elimination of 101 homes from the market (75 % of the market). 3) an average home size of 2,000 FSF (an increase of 800 FSF). The study included only listed homes, and thus covered about 1/3 of the total market. It is reasonable to assume the study is probably indicative of the entire market. Potential elimination of 75 % of the market and increasing the average home price by over 14% could have a severe impact on affordable housing and employment growth in the City. Reductions in permit fees and area charges collected could also have a strong financial impact. This information is provided to the City to assist in its review of the ordinance. I trust this information will be helpful in evaluating the City's decision. Please contact me if you have any questions or if we can provide further assistance. Sincerely, d ./ .~J'/ Cc.:, C: Mike Gair, MFRA Paul Bruggeman, Bruggeman Properties LLC IJf> . ~.T:r.~.RU.G. GEMAN ~~10MES Building Quality SincE' 1959 January 23, 2002 Mr. Jeff O'Neill Deputy Administrator City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: Comprehensive Plan Dear Jeff, . Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the City of Monticello's proposed revisions to the comprehensive plan. We understand the City is considering a revision to the comprehensive plan which may include the property we intend to purchase at the Southwest Corner of Haug Ave. and 95th Street in Monticello Township. We respectfully request the City to consider a land use designation for the property which would allow low to medium density residential development. As discussed previously, we have prepared a sketch plan for the property Showing a mix of residential uses. It is our preference to develop the property as a master planned community with a mix of single family, twin family, and town homes. The project would be similar in concept to our Summerfield development in Forest Lake. Product types in Monticello may differ according to market conditions, but amenities will include -a City park, wetlands and natural open space, a walking trail and street landscaping. We encourage you to view the Summerfield project and would welcome the opportunity to provide a tour to anyone interested in seeing the project. We have reviewed the Feasibility Report for Maplewood Development and Southeast Area prepared by WSB and dated December 5, 2001. The report indicates sanitary sewer may be available to the parcel with some modifications to the existing system. We further understand some of these system improvements will support development efforts in other areas of the city. We would agree to participate in our pro rata share of the sanitary sewer improvement costs. . ".__.._-..~..-.__.._.._..~.._..._---_._,,---..~._-._-_.--.'___.._n.___.___ 3564 Ro]lingview Drive' While Bnr Lake' Minnesota 55]10 . 65].770-2981' fax 651-770-9273 www.bruggemanhomes.com MBL# 4062 w(!J ..... . . . Mr. Jeff O'Neill January 23, 2002 Page 2 We also understand some additional improvements to the City's water system may be required to the serve the property, and will require further study in the future. As the property is currently within Monticello Township, we intend to petitIon the City for annexation upon approval of the comprehensive plan revision. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the land use issues with you in more detail and strongly encourage the City of Monticello Planning Commission and City Council to consider this request. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, A~ Cu_ d Greg ry . Schlink 8ru~e an Properties LLC C: Paul Bruggeman, Bruggeman Properties LLC Greg Smith, Tyler South LLC Jim Cassidy, Tyler South LLC Gene & Lois Bauer Earl & Virginia Husak Mike Gair, MFRA 1J8 . . . Comment Card............ Residential District Design Standards Name D ~\.L \ _'--{\lvv"'""\C<kAc\ X Phone (705 ;\0'S' ?Z~(L___ :t:-y 7'- 3 ; ~ j -- 0 61} c Address -L--2LS:Ll._~ '-:;.\)L1\~ t/V'v--...~_,,,_~ Citv Zip -' ~'.~-~-'~-~.'._-- -.. 1. What are your Issues I Concerns with the proposed standards? L ,I /I I - .I:uJ-cJe _/1 ,/~,f1c,_R C>\.o Ot. rhONX'-'L(' ('">1 ---tAc. /O-~ (~....-..<. L~>'<J - - OVLl:'U if U ~i'tC, OffQ..(J: '1J G.~ ~. ~ CNv1.~ +'-~ arQo.-f! a.o 6~ rmL~vU:< ". ft:fJJ1.JJ:..'1 '-::70-c,be:Q( o--cOdJ ~(:;"7"'"'::> U.f-{J\..L',~~ ~;J1;.-L-L.e Dc>C.t o<<:"'-<:,,ff)f)i.J.\ l.;>\~~) q..o.-~ . - -, I ., 2. Gcnd'al Comments: ~ i~.ft','1 "..., C\_ <' A..0,d JljeJJ U~ 0 ~)l .O{LtL,kv-k_i'-J,:;,6 U) ."-~~ .~ LN'Zjl.cb~'~ l"-1~~ C a}s L~ 0 C/( I. ~?c, C'-J-i~ ItS ~"I -~.J~, \D f-"\S.>';;)s~ ~.(<'"::> C>-\_ ('k~4.t;"0' 4'"\ jV~: Dr"op 01'1'01' Mail to City Hall 505 Walnut Street Suitt. 1 Monticello,\1\f.55313 ~/; Comment Card............ . Residential District Design Standards Name '!:;Jk.Lf/ /;:/"2 ._'~7./rf.-E'C..e~ ( . Phone (it0) _/ )"--E-_~:C:~ S..-~'"i~C--1 __ / Address City___ _ Zip . 1. What arc your Issues I Concerns with the proposed standards'? &a-f/ -Atu"Lct!l.:-.-;..-,;;7 /td-c~--~"t"2c_,-0 7:50C:' F ere- !JiJ.-1 /' dA-c.<._~_~ ;F/IZ/dd ~r:;d.x:. ~.~ Y--?L~ f..::C--t-#'.-Ct2c ~- /to,?-;t~ ,u/i'U-.:::~ <-.::l '7'--4-<:_ ~-tt,;,,~~t??-~O ;P/~ /:77 ct.~...{";';" '1 d cP r~-z-i.c~~&7 '- YP0.' --d""<::..LM-t-o- .~..~ C"c ,...c2f2-evc.~.~ p-VC?A c:2-t--€.. "'<:~---< c-P /z .<l<A.-e- C:i c:;,e-y'~~4l'..t<_ 2. General Comments: . ,_ . /{/T ~. ~< --el~~ ) //) <>-c.d~-, --C~-(,;.? ~--<:-t-C::::.-",,,Z~-..^__ CL+J~-c~/) ...?:~) . /(./,/(:lLE7l.. CtY,,<-~-{..-.-6:-1.....~ __.e./'-? ':'::~~-7-:'- F2-..e.i:::_~'/~ jL--C:_. ~.. ,-g--:<~-I d?e-~; ./ -, / . ~ ,..-'" . ,--,,'/ /1 1 .L!<j..n q>' t-C-4[ X:-z,t..< ~'<;..'-_'-C~)c::.:;_~_I'-C-<_d~-'"",--'__" r ~L_-<- rdt ", -",c",,--_ 74 /Z4}.-n. '.-<:.:<:; 4,'e"'a-L-...s - -I__-t;C:7- rt c;?) C-'( /::1 ~~ k'if._",_ ___~.: ~-.?-?;C-L___ ~r ~ . t: (/ ./' Signatu,'c (/ !. /fl" - ",F,-( /-v~'-/J r/'-"VU-1 / . Drop off or Yhlil to City I-Jall 505 \Valnut Street Suite 1 Monticello, ;VIN. 55313 c...,JZf.... /' jL</c< /,_"..-;.' '!--4"}"'l.Zj a-1---C~ ~A~"?'~",,-~j: eX. PT:.~<".--... C::~~~~i fj-..z---t )t-~.c r?~L ~'.-"'--<'LIZ; ;ff) Q~.y >':Z::_,~__ ,&'''--"7-"1 _~4-".c:-<-,~~>"l.."- ~_.-,-- ?f) ~____-C:/"V~-"Zl>'", /"-t.:."" '// -"1. r.'-r-''-''ic;:-;:,,~.<_.:"_.-.J; .;: (/ /L-DL."'---.. 1/ C;_C c..l...L--;7 ,/~ 1 ~_~1 >-7C/;:-; ),(J1c.e . &8 Comment Card............ . Residential District Design Standards Name Phone ( Address City Zip t. What arc your Issues / Concerns with the proposed standards'? 2. General Comments: .,..--.-. -- --- -- -~ .~.~-~ - . /) ... '. ~ i .. ,. t'/<1 ~-/p ;/ fl ' '1 \ " t",(', k1 ,'" . j ../^ t , I !/"J ' fJ , (; 0/' ) / ,/ e e ! )/(, v'j' r. d f/l ~/ \.r"'- .-fit f .f': (/ f c)' { 0-" r1 .;)5 \' Jl. JJ~!j' ( i A\cr , I"~. \.\ ....r (c>./- I/Ol '~-1~' ~ / \/[/ r\ cV ~;U' V l!(; \ \()- L / I v' _ J I li--,cX i) \) \y .\~, r)tr ,- n \ \ J~' \})~)- I / \1. '{ ". \. ,J/v' . 5 ~l \ I...}' I Jv-' /,.) ". \ '-)~ "L)i' '-..r' \. Drop off or Mail to Cit~y Hall 505 \Valnut Street Suite 1 Monticello, MN. 55313 1/" I tAg1,e,. Signature /; ,j." D "^-'f \. C (1-' tlJl J -S6 0 (, \2-/ J'll [) L Y-; ;"\ r, " U 1 (..-f ~ / i\ 0 .. / "') .....-_..... I ! . (pf3 . . lY'C~\ ~l\ .e J (<./\ <;~ Q...e- ".-' 1-0: {f /?7uo (}-.v'U\JJ J..( '-rb .' Comment Card............ Residential District Design Standards De "-1\ Y --1JLkCd\ \),o't,us i V~ rs,,~l~S' -_ /'-, }~~~ UvVy City 3, ~"__ W~___ Zip _,_.. 5'S-jui Name Aduress 1'0 Phone rfeJ.) _~)~- e,f? 7 ~ 1. \Vhat al'e your Issues / Concerns ,,'ith the proposed standards? f{--f J.-l.l1<-~~'f- !tP~ ~-~.s to 6;- /}CJc, ~ "5h.c"J)" 1:J..iL Cu r h '\Pi' "<<.,t ('fVt>X '; M/l.f>&J/' ktvf i ~. '1. 51J "t....'V:.... 4:0 <1" (,,'-7<- :;-; 'ZA--.. ",:e .' ~pl i(.. wd ~ [\$""'<> ({) -' (('1 l"!,-'-''t!. :;:;:-" C-.:>I'I<JL /..)-'0 J h..e 4l-'e (0 <V~ ~ i/IJ vU t" /Vit.>A)f;cc !!r;; Ii 2. General Comments: U .\..<l:!L- -1- hL P""'F<' ~'t{ R - i C h~_I'1,..L . -- Fcv-~.Jc <Y r- l+V ~S S}r-vf-s G0rre,J- w-t. U..A-J- ii\l\..W-~r,-v 1"""\ tp fY\.iL-S -;1'1.. ',roc~€_ ~vJ t'WD~VJ -",. ,..,.;,- ({AI ) , -Iv OJ: oJ \M(kt T-="~ .'leV-"I.C' "'V S;f~ 1 1/" iM. (J..V~_ ! 6 ~ 7 OJ Ax) .'JJ.- {.uV L~j;.' rU'---. - .LQ (/7'-> UL .5 I - Ho ~ keD _::;-j;'\{ v M.L.5 !\ t;jJt;rrX ~tV\t , _ [\ L/.'\..{)LQ.r- tA.- L- '1t!:o /-Iv ~. f.-t... ~,9~ -~..- (", tl, f"-- L\..t-<J{-'j-N) '"1 Drop off or Mail to City Hall 505 \Valnut Street Suitt 1 iVlonticelIo, M~, 55313 ll,\ fV1..w .,;+r r-:-tJJr /'v)......-i J" -- /'0, (;~") 1/0., r\ l/JJ v W!.. h :Cv--L H /2J:(_ 70 c>O D / -+ ~.Jt. f -of'V;xJJ 8.. , <.06 . . . Comment Card............ Residential District Design Standards Name .A'C) )./ 1--~ 1/-1/ C7 ttR-J~>1f Phone (7(.f' ~7S-'$~~' &:' sna Address ! ? 75~____.C~::t/7-Lik?~-- (~. ( /!S!t--<'r,{ _..________ C i t Y J'~/'/(~, i/'e' ;r-2 Zip SS-3 & t:./ -' f 1. What are yom' Issues / Concerns with the proposed standards'? tlu /)1~T~"2-'< a? Cj;'4_?tY'~ t1:v.t.L-t" /u,.f 407 ."P-;:/ f ?~7 /tf1-c~V:.u-:'7-1 ~t:>:"-' /--1 :!-,<:'--rl:ZCC-L-tC'c-. _C~7~;,L~4'[A,-::-Ci ~;~ CfI..-.f'- ....".-:.._ lj;.--~ . /....... L' 1"",._ /-0 (:<./!2-.... A_d'--<--C-< C-.-&.__--v~~---e__-c::-<'. ,,~>.-_t L'.-c. "'7"~~"':" --<< '2'.'.- ----::JA .' 'A."'-<<-C'- ,,' .. .' /. ~~--<--9 ",.r;>-1 /,.;:2'",. dc,; ,~z <::.J/L.?w. :-<'<.-c /7....,'r ?<:-.- d /<..<: ~-; k~4--7 2')" Cr"-, ~?.. 0./-/ 1.. C.ene.ral Comments: P' ,,"- "'- ~ 1(-<....-. u/c Ii. d.c",-..e... ~;;,/ /) ~1-,(./e/L--. t:'~,~. A>~ c1/ &j ~t _,./ (/ --:. / / " v ?'-<--)-...~e ;<-------t:-t , "" --.:.-< c: z-,- ft<- /)/1. 11},?'V7{J .' (c.../J'. .Iz d---(--<-e_ /~'-0' B .-A-t:~JCi&'<-;7 _",.-_.-;7 ';C:~m /~4-f <",P'c,oz,01-'" y---l...<- -€. ":&--7<-.~~-<-0 .~::7 ~.;/fLr - "7'tf ' ~'-C:i.:.;" tY / .. <--'/,.-/. tf /., I; --r- :.'. . " ..p /? . / ';' c~' /C,1::.{.. . --C<-..L ~-; .c-. L?t ._.~"- (...1.' C:L'l ?"it-......... ,:ff,v<<-~-- -----z.7 ..l;;;:'A~7.-,,:t'~[/~':-... a . ..' . --.~ , Signature )., ./)I,.ti.;:(6[..u,-t. It c.e ",.~1.A /{/ ~~,.:.-<~ ""'-<"-00--7' 't-c' /2 --i-- ,-;7:. --t',. " . a- . ..+ LV / ~_. ---. ( . · d'~"'<>~ .--"~""'.-- <-<-__L=-i:,....,..-..-e..-..{ , u- f'eA:-~' ~::.-<:: c~.+t,-;:'4~,-;,:- Y...,(c<:. /)",:1:12---{;>t. rc-Y..--~,;;...<-~ /t:L"'/-"..z....Uit...:::Uc. a/t~C (~., -#--'v'?'PL.<-"A:~..'2""-~cf~< ,::-:l.. ~'...-(c"'--C..IL. _...(;':'(1--<"'-. ~.~ /7'-<"--:'-- /to' .02,,,,,......-'[': "ZZ, /<J./f...t.t:.-t;.-L...d_.~_ /~4 .:e-"1h_.{..........:~ ~'O/) off 0 r Ma iI to City H a II /,/ ' /'-"". ;r '. I ...t. Lc.~~ <>--c- 505 Walnut S.'trcct Suite 1 f"/~~., ,---<::{...<.. d-_,.,-.--"!:,. /~/.J---;,-,-<,..? /. .' ~ . 7 .. ../} L./. i\..lollticello, MN. 55313 ,-1 - /) -1 ;f" '"7 ~,?t ...-cj.C"/---~I7.,€- j:/' /L,r'u..: t--;t::.cc:J ....?/ / -0 /' "- .- j' / '.., . d '.~ '. .-? .. .....-:-__,- ?<" ~-4----tJ-e-"-<--<--r-~ &-t.d~" .c.- T ~<J /,xA. (../l. <<<L.--<" c: t' /'" I ,_ . . .' A .'. -,'.1. . /.. /. j""",.;.-i.--C _' //.i:~ ?{>i...__c:..d <o<'-.:::..c: c!:7.L" U1f~~~~..e . ...-::4 ./' ,d t:!CC"L_" ,.L/ /- i ,(.'. ,/ .... ./ LA./.i!..-. .. .''7 A:-.(>~",... --c"--..... . ~.... <... ,__ _ y 7':;"- 4 ~... ,,,....,'., a!'--t ..(.r....' ,}L-r::tt-<-.i. _..kc/// ...L-C c(J-H'..--4..('..f <<J /L.,p~.. /i,t:. --t:f.:-;1U .0'( ~., /&.... /'. ,/ 7)/'A:':z-C~>-?/f 6'-., Y-4_..:...: /Lc..f--t:..-<<."'.....--1 .::/4 ,./i.C"'-r'C-c:,l!:,.- ( 1'/ U ? ' t1, )..:....i/ d:C /:.' K~1 .----:1."<,;c-->--. /j7 t'A:...!?r c:/ ,:i<J ....r;};e,..<".~-~~, ",~~;7 /J.r'L-'~IY'-2.,~{ y /7 d-(,L..r~-r:;- 4--t.c... ( lPf; Summary Sheet - Proposed Zoning District Standards . R~ I A District Standards a. b. c. . d. e. f. g. h. . a. Lot Arca - 16,000 square feet, average b. Lot Width - 90 feel, average c. Front Setback - 35 feet, average d. Rear Setback - 30 feet usable e. Side Setbacks - 6 feet garage side, 15 feet house side f. I{.oof Pitch - 6/12 g. Garage Size ~ 700 square feet h. House Size - 2,000 square feet finished The R-l A District also would include a series of architectural standards applying to front facade, garage door size in relation to house width, garage front location in relation to house location, and a minimum foundation size of 1,400 square feet. R-l District Standards I _at Area - 12,000 (no change) Lot Width - RO feet (no change) Front Setback - 30 feet average (changed from 30 feet firm) Rear Setback - 30 feet usable (changed to add requirement fix usable area) Side Setbacks - 6 feet garage side, 15 feet house side (changed from 10 feet both sides) Roof Pitch ~ 5/12 (new standard) Garage Size - 450 square feet (changed from "two-car garage") House Size - 1,200 square feet finished, 800 additional square feet finishable (changed from 960 square feet) R-2A District Standards a. Lot Area ~ 7,500 square feet average b. Lot Width - 45 feel minimum c. Pront Setback - 10 feet minimum d. Rear Setback - 10 teet Ininimum e. Side Setback - 6 feet. both sides f. Roof Pitch - 5/12 g. Garage Size ~ 450 square feet h. House size - 1,200 square feet (no additional square footage required) Lou . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/05/02 7. Consideration of callin!! for a public hearing on an amendment to the Zunin!! Ordinance allow in!! seniOl" housing as a conditional use in a Public. Semi-Public District (PS). Applicant: City Staff (JO) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND This is primarily a housekeeping matter. It has come to our attcntion that the PS Zoning regulations do not provide for development of senior housing which was intended to be possible in conjunction with church development. As you know, S1. Henry's Church and associate S1. Benedicts, was developed sometimc ago in the PS District. Amending the code by allowing senior housing in the PS District will result in an ordinance that matches what the city has allowcd and it will enable other church campuses such as Resurrection Church to develop senior housing on thcir property. Planning Commission is asked to call f(n a Public llearing on the proposed amendment. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion calling for a public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing senior housing as a conditional use in the Public, Semi-Public District. 2. Motion to deny calling ft.)r a public hcaring on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing senior housing as a conditional use in the Public, Semi-Public District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative 1. SUPPORTING DATA Public, Scrni-Public District regulations .""r~..,~ .J SECTION: 19B-1: 19B-2: 19B-3: 19B-4: 19B-5 : 19B-1: 19B-2: 19B-3: 19B-4: . CHAPTER 19B "P-S" - PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC USE DISTRICT Purpose Permitted Uses Permitted Accessory Uses Conditional Uses Lot Requirements and Setbacks PURPOSE: The Public/Semi-Public Use District is established to provide for the unique locational and development needs of public and semi-public uses. These uses have operational characteristics which can be as intense as commercial uses and which can impact residential areas but have varying peak periods of activity" In addition, they may comprise a single parcel in an area of other land uses, requiring special treatment. This District establishes standards which the City can apply in the consideration of new Public/Semi-Public use proposals. PERMITTED USES: The following uses are allowed as permitted uses: Public Parks. Public regulated, unoccupied utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Cemeteries. Governmental administrative offices. PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following uses are allowed as accessory uses: [A] Recreational buildings and facilities accessory to Public Parks. [B] Parking lots and garages for temporary parking of licensed, operable passenger vehicles. [C] Public pedestrian trails and pathways. CONDITIONAL USES: The following uses are allowed as conditional uses. Where not designated, the uses are allowed as either principal or accessory uses. [A] Storage of such vehicles, equipment, materials, and machinery which are accessory to permitted or conditional principal uses in the Public/Semi-Public Use District, subject to the following conditions: MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 198/1 'fA ~\ .' ,,~"""::"" -J . .~ ::j:~." Ii ~.;";'.,,~'..r.; ,: '.~\:.'~.. ,"::".'",~ ,,,,,,,. . . ;~~;~,.- . 1. Such storage is fully screened from neighboring properties and the public right-of-way. 2. The storage area is treated to control dust, drainage, and maintenance of ground cover vegetation. 3. The storage area is set back from adjoining residential districts a distance no less than double the adjoining residential setback. 4. Compliance with the requirements of Section 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. [B] Public and Private educational institutions, subject to the following conditions: 1. Educational institutions on parcels exceeding 20,000 square feet in area shall be located with direct frontage on, and access to, a collector or arterial street. 2. The buildings are set back from adjoining residential districts a distance no less than double the adjoining residential setback. 3. Parking areas are developed to accommodate the most intense concurrent uses of the facility so as to minimize overflow parking onto the public street. 4. Accessory outdoor recreational facilities provided with lights for night use shall be located no nearer than 500 feet from a residential district. >f '-';'\:,';'.,.':,J;~\;:;;.'"':~';;~:':',:'~:<<.,,, "i<':;' ',: 5. Compliance with requirements of Section 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. [C] Religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples, and synagogues, subject to the following conditions: 1. Religious institutions on parcels exceeding 20,000 square feet in area shall be located with direct frontage on, and access to, a collector or arterial street. 2. The buildings are set back from adjoining residential districts a distance no less than double the adjoining residential setback. 3. Parking areas are developed to accommodate the most intense concurrent uses of the facility so as to minimize overflow parking onto the public street. 4. Compliance with requirements of Section 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (DJ J_c /. /I e J 0..+ 3/;; IUd MeeD '7A 198/2 '" D ""'-. I C0CJ 1+ LO", <'" J 0 ~ e ~)"",. rto-..\..."'t~ L.-- l MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE I~-'''' i. .. . 19B-5: LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a Public/Semi-Public Use District. subject to additional requirements. exceptions. and modifications set forth in this Ordinance. [A] Minimum Lot Area: None [B] Minimum Lot Width 150 feet [C] Setbacks: 1. Front Yards: Not less than forty (40) feet. 2. Side Yards: (a) Not less than ten (10) feet when abutting non-residentially zoned property . (b) Not less than twenty (20) feet when abutting residentially zoned property. 3. Rear Yards: Not less than thirty (30) feet. (#259. 10/10/94) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE '7 A 198/3 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 2/5/02 8. Consideration of callin!! for a public hearing on an amendment to the Zonin!! Map re-zoning the .John Lundsten property. as identified on the attached map. from 1-2 to B-3. I-I. I-IA. or a combination thereof. (JO) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND This property known as the "Lundsten" property is currently located in the 1-2 district. It consists of about 15 acres bounded on the north and west by B-3, and bounded on the south by I-I A properties. If one reviews the type of uses allowed in the 1-2 district, it appears that 1-2 zoning district at this location is out of place. The types of uses in the 1-2 district are not compatible with B-3 uses, therefore in the event an 1-2 was developed in this district, it could result in a devaluation of the adjoining B-3 parcels. City Stall requests that the Planning Commission review the zoning designation ofthe Lundsten parcel and consider calling fiJr a public hearing on a potential zoning map amendment. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion calling for a public hearing on rezoning of the Lundstcn property, as identified on the attached map, from 1-2 to B-3, 1-1, I-lA, or a combination thereof. 2. Motion to deny request to call for said public hearing on the proposed zoning map amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative I. SUPPORTING DATA Map showing Lundsten parcel and zoning designation 1-2 regulations i\ City of Monticello ZONING MAP I LiA/\Jsk VI ?r o~ i;}; o 350 1000 2000 3000 _____' ' I SCAt-E "IN FEE' . Rl @ L ,_ .1 I ,w . <0 " eA ~ , , CHAPTER 16 "1-2" HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT SECTION: 16-1 : Purpose 16-2: Permitted Uses 16-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 16-4: Conditional Uses 16-5: Interim Uses 16-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "1-2," heavy industrial, district is to provide for the establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing development and use which because of the nature of the product or character of activity requires isolation from residential or commercial use. 16-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an "1-2" district: [A] Any use permitted in the "1-1," light industrial, district. [B] The manufacturing, compounding, assembly, packaging, treatment, or storage of products or materials including: Breweries, cement, stone cutting, brick, glass, batteries (wet cell), ceramic procucts, mill working, metal polishing and platting, paint (pigment mfg.), vinegar works, rubber products, plastics, meat packing, flour, feed grain milling, milling, coal or tar asphalt distillation, rendering works, distillation of bones, sawmill, lime, gypsum, plaster of paris, glue, size, cloth, and similar uses. [C] Automobile assembly and major repair. [D] Creamery and bottling plant. [E] Adult Use/Principal. (#217,1/13/92) [F] Foundry. 16-3: ACCESSORY USES: [A] Permitted Accessory Uses: The following are permitted accessory uses in an "1-2" district: 1. All pennitted accessory uses allowed in an 1-1 (light Industrial) district. 619 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 16/1 ~ , , [B] Interim Accessory Uses: The following are interim accessory uses in an 1-2 district: 1. One temporary structure as an interim accessory use, subject to the following conditions: (a) The interim accessory structure is not to exceed 700 sq ft. (b) The property owner(s) sign a development agreement with the City controlling site development and use, including a date upon which the interim use is to terminate. (c) The termination date is established at a point not longer than two (2) years following City Council approval. (d) The property owner supply adequate security to ensure removal of the interim structure and use upon reaching the termination date. (e) All other standards of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance are met. (f) Any Interim Accessory Use or Structure approved under this section will not be considered to constitute an expansion of a pre~ existing legal non-conforming use where applicable. (#241,10/11/93) 16-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "1-2" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance). [A] All conditional uses allowed in an "1-1," light industrial, district. [B] The following uses provided they meet all requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 1. Auto wrecking, junk yard, used auto parts (open storage), and similar uses. 2. Incineration or reduction or waste material other than customarily incidental to a principal use. 3. Poison, fertilizer, fuel briquettes. 4. Kilns or other heat processes fired by means other than electricity. 5. Creosote plant. 6. Acid manufacture. 7. Storage, utilization, or manufacture of materials or products which could decompose by detonation. ~ 16/2 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE . . ~ 8. Refuse and garbage disposal. 9. Commercial stock yards and slaughtering of animals. 10. Crude oil, gasoline, or other liquid storage tanks. 16-5: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in an "1-2" District (requires an interim use permit based on the procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance): [A] Outdoor storage of trucks and trucking equipment as an accessory use, provided that: 1. A specified termination date is documented. 2. The applicable requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2, General Building and Performance Requirements, are met. 3. The permit prohibits the parking of automobiles. 4. The permit specifies a gravel surface, suitable for the parking of trucks. 5. The permit specifies that the intensity of visual screening shall be related to the location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim use. 6. The permit specifies that appropriate setback of necessary fencing and/or setback of storage shall be related to the location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim use. (#268, 5/8/95) e 6 16/3 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/05/02 9. Consideration of calling for a Jlublic hearing for an ordinance amendment clarifying rules governing temporary signs displayed in residential districts. Annlicant: City Staff (JO) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The current ordinance governing temporary signs (40 day permit) is written in a manner that does not expressly prohibit such signs in residential districts. Therefore businesses sueh as ServieeMaster and West Side Market. which are in residential distriets, are not expressly prohibited from displaying temporary signs. Lawful nonconforming businesses in residential districts sign systenls are currently only limited by the code provision that says such uses can not expand. We have enforced no temporary signs at ServiceMaster under this limitation. StaiT believes that the ordinance should be amended to more directly prohibit temporary signs in residential areas. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion calling for a public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance clarifying rules governing temporary signs displayed in residential districts. 2. Motion to deny calling fi)f a public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance clarifying rules governing temporary signs displayed in residential districts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative 1. SUPPORTING DArA Excerpt from ordinance. ." il it: ~ . the property o\vners and the ad\'ertising sign owners and all signatures notarized, may continue as a non-conforming Llse until such time as the lot 01. record above is developed or improved, in which case. the non-conforming advertising sign must be removed within 60 days after \vritten notice t1'om th<.: Building Official. (h) Advertising signs as defined in Chapter 2 of this ordinance of 199 square feel or less in area, except that those signs which were in place on or before 8/15/75 may continue as a non-conforming sign. (i) Except f()r Electronic Message Board Signs as allowed in Section 3 [E]4.( f} No sign shall display any moving parts, nor shall it be illuminated with any tlashing or intermittent lights. nor shall it be animated. Exempt are time and temperature inf()rmation and barber poles. All displays shall be shielded to prevent light to be directed at on-coming traffic in such brilliance as to impair the vision of any driver. No device shall be illuminated in such a manner as to interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. (1/ 10/00, #340) (j) Roof Signs. (k) Projecting Signs except as hereinafter provided. (#334. 9/13/99) [C] GENERAL PROVISIONS: . ~Jt6Q 0, J\ <;\0 QlCv <. \ 1 ~ r0; + I D.. 0 .... c c...../\ )\ 'J 1/l. vV' \ /) Q 'S ; 1\ 1'-_ ",i I ,J' ot . L All signs shall comply \vith tvlaintenance Section 5-305 of the 1970 Edition of Volume V of the Uniform Building Code as promulgated by the International Conference of Building Officials. 7 When electrical signs are installed, the installation shall be subject to the City's Electrical Code. " ..J. No signs other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily placed \vithin any street right-or-way or upon any public lands or easements or right- of-\vays. 4. The temporary use of portable signs, decorative attention-getting devices, and searchlights shall require an annual or daily permit. (a) An annLlal permit fiJr purtable signs. as dctinecl herein. shall be granted for a maximum period of fort~i (40) days per calendar year. As a condition uf the annual permit. applicant shall maintain a daily record of the use of portabl!.: signs on a form provided by the City. (#231),6/14/93)(# 150.5/27/86) (b) A permit fl.)/" decorati\c attention-gctting d!.:\ices shall be issu!.:d [ill' a maximum period of kn (10) days \Vilh a minimum period of one hundred eighty ( 11)0) days between consecutive issuance of such pennits for any property or parcel. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 0A 3/42 (c) All portable signs and attention-getting dev'ices must be \vel] maintained and kept in good repair at all times. The Building Official shall order the immediate removal of any device considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non-compliance shall bejust cause for revocation of the permit without refund. . (d) All portable signs and attention-getting devices shall be allO\,ved only on the property or site where the business or enterprise is situated. No placement shall be allowed on public rights-of-way. (e) A]] portable signs and attention-getting devices shall be on ground level except that banners and streamers may be affixed to a building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other permanent fixture. Airborne innatable devices shall be tethered on site. (f) Not more than tvvo (2) portable signs shall be displayed at the same time. (g) Not more than two (2) attention-getting devices shall be permitted to be displayed in conjunction with any portable sign. (h) A decorative attention-getting device may bear the name of the business. but shall not bear any service, product. price. ete.. advertising message. (i) Permit fees shall be set by the City Council and shall be payable upon application for said permit. (#150,5/27/86) . (j) Public banners may be bung from city street light fixtures for a period of up to one (] ) year. Design nnd placement of the public bnnners shal] be consistent with the following standards: ] . Design and placement of public sign/decorative banners must first be approved by the City Council and annually thereafter. Prior to Council consideration, applicant shall submit a banner placement plan which shows proposed banner design. size, pole location/elevation. duration. and pl:6posed manner by \vhich the banners shall be hung. Banner placement plan sha] I also describe financing sources for purchasing and installing public banners. 2. Public banners may be hung from parking lot light Jixtures or from other structures on pri\'ate property only in conjunction with a City Council appro\'Cd public banner system. Except for requirements outlined in section 4.(j) of this ordinance, said banners are e\Cmpt from sign rl.?gulations. The City shall not participate in financing any portion of the cost of public banners placed on pri\ate property. City ere\\s may assist \\ith the installation of public banners placed on pri\ate !Xl)perty if compensated at actual cost to install banners. . MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE qA 3/43