The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 10-02-2018AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 2nd, 2018 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, John Alstad, Katie Peterson Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes — August 7, 2018 b. Special Meeting Minutes — August 7, 2018 c. Special Meeting Minutes — September 4, 2018 C. Citizen Comments D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda E. Consideration to approve agenda 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from `Places to Shop' to `Places to Live' and a request for Zoning Map Amendment for Rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business District) to R-4 (Medium-High Residence Density Residence District) for a 125 unit senior living development. Applicant: Headwaters Development — Michael Hoagberg 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 7th, 2018 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison Present Staff Present: 1. General Business A. Call to Order Brad Fyle, Marc Simpson, John Alstad, Katie Peterson Sam Murdoff Charlotte Gabler Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Matt Leonard, Tom Pawelk Brad Fyle called the meeting of Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Consideration of approvin� minutes a. Re�ular Meetin� Minutes — Julv 3rd, 2018 MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — JULY 3R�, 2018. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of addin� items to the a�enda None. E. Consideration to approve a�enda MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Continued Public Hearin� - Consideration of a request for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Hi-Wav Liquors si�n hei�ht and area allowances Applicant: Citv of Monticello Angela Schumann provided a detailed review of the request for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for the City's electronic message board sign at the liquor store at 511 Pine Street. The item was brought to the Planning Commission in the previous year, but was requested to be tabled due to ownership issues that have since been cleared. The proposal was for the digital message board to be replaced and the top cabinet to be refurbished to include the City's new logo and color scheme. The City requested 32 square feet for the digital message board (an increase of 7 feet above code allowance) with the top cabinet not changing in size. Planning Commission Minutes — August 7, 2018 Page 1 � 5 The request was made to deliver better readability of the sign and would provide City messaging. There are no other City digital messaging boards. Staff recommended approval of the request with a condition identified in Exhibit Z. Brad Fyle asked if the electronic message board would be increased 6 inches around the sign. Schumann confirmed. Fyle asked for clarification for the signage code. Schumann provided the ordinance. Marc Simpson asked if the existing sign still worked. Schumann stated that the sign was out of commission and would need to be replaced in any case. Charlotte Gabler asked if the speed of the messages on the sign would be faster than the existing. Schumann responded the City is subject to MnDOT standards for message speed and movements. Angela Schumann further explained that additional stone architectural at the base of the sign was proposed to reflect monument signage. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Fyle closed the hearing. MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PG2018-024 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO PUD FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR HI-WAY LIQUORS SIGN AREA ALLOWANCES. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. � ` EXHIBIT Z - Conditions of Approval 1. Sign refurbishment is subj ect to applicable building code and permit requirements. B. Public Hearin� — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Professional Office Use in the L-6 sub district of the CCD —Central Communitv District Applicant: Arvola, Chad Steve Grittman explained that the applicant proposed a Conditional Use Permit for a professional office use in the L-6, CCD district at 532 Walnut Street. Grittman clarified the site would not be used for storage of construction materials. Grittman stated that the principal use would be administrative professional office, but minimal retail use may occur. Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions identifying in Exhibit Z. Planning Commission Minutes — August 7, 2018 Page 2 � 5 Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Chad Arvola, Arvola Builders, introduced himsel£ Fyle asked if the applicant was able to review the conditions in Exhibit Z. Arvola confirmed and responded that he would comply with all signage regulations. Hearing no further comments, Fyle closed the public hearing. KATIE PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2018-025, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE USE 1N THE CCD DISTRICT, SUB7ECT TO THE CONDITIONS 1NCLUDED 1N EXHIBIT Z. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Conditional Use Permit for Office Use 532 Walnut Street PID 155-037-000100 1. The applicant completes all building permit and occupancy requirements of the City's building department. 2. Compliance with the City's sign ordinance. 3. Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission. C. Public Hearin� - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Public Use in the F-3 sub-district of the CCD — Central Communitv District Applicant: Citv of Monticello Steve Grittman presented the request for a Conditional Use Permit for Public Use in the F-3 of the CCD at 349 W Broadway. The building would be used for production, class activities, and retail of arts products made on site led by the City's contracting Arts Consultant. The item was brought to the Planning Commission because of the "public-use" component. Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions identified in Exhibit Z. Brad Fyle asked if additional landscaping would be on the property. Grittman noted that the asphalt would not change, but sculptural or other artistic elements would be added to create a buffer edge along Broadway and possibly Linn Street. Fyle asked if there was still a fence on the north side of the building and the quality. Grittman confirmed and stated that it may need some repair. Fyle asked if the EDA would remain in ownership. Grittman confirmed. Katie Peterson asked if there were any environmental concerns with the property. Angela Schumann stated that the EDA completed environmental research of the property including a tank assessment and hazardous materials assessment. The Planning Commission Minutes — August 7, 2018 Page 3 � 5 EDA and the Parks Department would work through on any environmental issues inside the building. Fyle noted the parcel to the north was used as an access for the formal postal office site. Grittman confirmed and added that the remaining property to the north of the site was residential. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Charles Ehlen - 2920 Winnebago Road, Sartell — asked if there would be a lease for the building as he had interest in purchasing the property from the EDA. Schumann stated the EDA would require an agreement with the Arts Initiative and that the EDA was cognizant of the opportunity for redevelopment. The EDA would preserve the opportunity for redevelopment in the agreement with the Arts Initiative. The document would be public and subj ect to the approval of the EDA and City. Fyle added that the value of the property may increase with any additional improvements. Charlotte Gabler asked how often the building would be used. Gabler asked about access to the site. Matt Leonard indicated access would be from Broadway and exiting onto Linn Street. Gabler asked if on-street parking on Broadway was available. Leonard declined and stated that it was mostly driveways. Simpson asked about the condition of the building. Tom Pawelk stated that the inside would need restoration. The bathroom would be remodeled to be ADA compliant. In addition, a ramp would need to be built to get into the front door. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PG2018-026, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PUBLIC USE FOR PERSONAL SERVICES 1N THE CCD DISTRICT, SUB7ECT TO THE CONDITIONS 1NCLUDED 1N EXHIBIT Z. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Conditional Use Permit for Public Personal Services Use 349 Broadway Street PID 155-010-050011 1. Stripe the parking lot for 7 spaces, as shown on the staff-generated site plan, removing the stall located adj acent to the front door and provide parking lot directional painting for one- way routing. Planning Commission Minutes — August 7, 2018 Page 4 � 5 2. Create and implement a landscaping/site amenities plan to treat the boundaries of the site, including the Broadway Street edge and the southern-most driveway curb cut to Linn Street, to be installed by June 2019. 3. Address building improvements, including paint or other treatments. 4. Modifications to the exterior elevations will require amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. 5. The existing fence shall be maintained to continue to create a reasonable and attractive separation buffer to the north of the building. 6. Outdoor activities or events shall occur in the spaces south or east of the building to minimize impacts to the neighborhood, except as authorized by Special Event permit by the City Council. 7. Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Communitv Development Directors Report Angela Schumann provided the Directors Report. 4. Added Items � None. ,,�.� � � � 5. Adjournment MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:41 PM. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: September 4, 2018 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — August 7, 2018 Page 5 � 5 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 7th, 2018 - 4:30 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center City Council Present: Mayor Brian Stumpf, Bill Fair, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart City Council Absent: Jim Davidson Commissioners Present: Brad Fyle, Marc Simpson, John Alstad, Katie Peterson Commissioners Absent: Sam Murdoff Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, Matt Leonard, Ron Hackenmueller Regular Agenda A. Consideration of a report on the CCD Ordinance Amendment and Revision Steve Grittman explained that the City adopted the Downtown Small Area Study Plan in the previous year. The downtown plan created an alternative vision for the downtown. In some areas this plan is conceptual, whereas in other areas is more prescriptive, including land use. The plan talks about implementation, with the most common way to implement land use plans through zoning regulations. The process would also be set if a developer requests to deviate from what the plans envisioned. To begin implementation of the plan, the City initiated a small group of volunteers from the community including staff, property owners, and board members. They began earlier in the year and discussed the function and purpose of the character areas. They also discussed the difference between each of the character areas and how to blend those areas. The small group understood the value of ineeting the obj ectives of the plan, but it was important that any regulations be flexible. Grittman explained that a consensus by the small group was not met and that it was important for the Planning Commission and City Council to direct staff on implementation of the Small Area Study. Staff were also looking for direction on parking requirements. Grittman explained that a few people from the small group as well as downtown business and property owners had concerns with the supply of parking. Discussion between the Planning Commission and City Council occurred. A general consensus of the current parking standards in the downtown was agreed upon with the encouragement of public parking enhancements, signage, and wayfinding. Discussion pursued regarding a process where developers could jointly meet with city staff or city boards to discuss concept projects. Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — August 7, 2018 Page 1 � 2 A draft ordinance would be revised and a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council would occur again before any Public Hearings to amend the zoning ordinance. 2. Adjournment MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:46 P.M. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 8-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: September 4, 2018 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director � Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — August 7, 2018 Page 2 � 2 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 4th, 2018 - 4:30 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center City Council Present Commissioners Present Staff Present: 1. Regular Agenda Brian Stumpf, Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, John Alstad, Katie Peterson Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jeff O'Neill, Ron Hackenmueller A. Consideration of a report on the CCD Ordinance Amendment and Revision Steve Grittman explained that a workshop meeting was held the previous month to discuss possible CCD ordinance amendments. Staff were directed to bring forward a draft amendment per the comments from that meeting. Some of the concerns that were noted were flexibility versus certainty, performance standards as code and/or guidelines, and parking. Grittman noted that the Small Area Study breaks the downtown into "character areas". It was recommended to adopt the sub-districts with specific use and performance standards for each area. A process for dealing with cross boundary projects and the standards in place with the use of public funds was also proposed. When a project abuts a single family neighborhood, a transitional set of standards was proposed. Performance standards were discussed and whether they should serve as a policy/guidelines or code. It was agreed that there should be specific code requirements for development in the downtown. Next, the process for developing in the downtown was discussed. Grittman provided a draft that required a concept plan review for every proj ect in the CCD. Board members discussed not requiring a site plan review if it was a permitted use. Discussion regarding properties that crossed character area boundaries was had. It was asked that the code allow flexibility when dealing with development proposals that were between two areas. An example was provided that if a use was allowed in one area and not the other and the development proposal included both parcels, the use would be allowable, but the standards would be followed for both character areas. Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — August 7, 2018 Page 1 � 2 Grittman noted that the draft ordinance for parking would implement the current parking requirements of the CCD. Grittman proposed that a developer could pay into the parking fund to conduct a parking study to ensure that adequate parking is available. Mayor Stumpf suggested that a parking inventory be completed to understand what is available currently. It was mentioned that one major developer could change the entire scene for parking. Next steps would include revising the draft ordinance per the comments of the meeting. The Planning Commission would review the ordinance with a public hearing in October or November. 2. Adjournment MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:39 P.M SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 10-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: October 2, 2018 � � . Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director � Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — August 7, 2018 Page 2 � 2 Planning Commission Agenda —10/02/18 2A. Public Hearin� - Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from `Places to Shop' to `Places to Live' and a request for Zonin� Map Amendment for Rezonin� from B-4 (Re�ional Business District) to R-4 (Medium-Hi�h Residence Densitv Residence District) for a 125 unit senior livin� development. Applicant: Headwaters Development/Michael Hoa�ber� (NAC) Property: Planning Case Number: Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview Square (southeast quadrant of County Highway 39 and Hart Boulevard) The property consists of approximately 5.2 acres and is currently vacant. 2018-038 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Deadline for Decision Land Use Designation Zoning Designation Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live", Rezoning from B-4, Regional Business to R-4, Medium-High Density Residential District The proposed use will require a conditional use permit in the R-4 District, for which the applicant may apply the outcome of the current considerations. October 29th, 2018 Places to Shop B-4, Regional Business, and the Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District The purpose of the `B-4" Regional Business District is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region. The purpose of the Mississippi Wild Scenic and Recreational River district is to protect and preserve the scenic, recreational, natural and historical values of the Mississippi River in the city by carefully controlling development of this river corridor consistent with the state Wild and Scenic River Act Planning Commission Agenda —10/02/18 Current Site Use: The site is currently undeveloped. Surrounding Land Uses: North: County Highway 39, Single Family Residential, R-1 East: Church and Twin Homes — R-1 South: Retail and Service — B-2/B-3 West: Retail and Gas/Convenience - B-4 ANALYSIS The applicants seek to reset the land use and zoning designations on the property — currently designated for commercial uses (Places to Shop)— to high-density residential (Places to Live) and R-4, Medium-High Density Residential. The proposed project would consist of a single building containing senior housing units of approximately 125 units — 92 in the initial phase, and a subsequent second phase of 33 units. The applicants indicate that the initial proj ect would include 14 memory care units on the first floor, with a mix of 78 assisted and independent living units on the upper two floors of the three-story building. Underground parking would serve the tenants who drive, and a surface parking lot would accommodate staff and visitors. The applicants have prepared a sketch plan of the project to illustrate the general intent of their layout, although a final Conditional Use Permit is not ready for consideration as the CUP requires full civil engineering site planning and architectural design submissions. However, the concept site plan conveys the intent, which is to site the building in the north portion of the property, with access points along Hart Boulevard across from both the partially developed Broadway Market property and the Kwik Trip site (formerly O'Ryans). The Zoning Ordinance identifies a series of conditions under which the City might consider amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Those are as follows: (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or addresses the need resulting from some changing condition, trend, or fact arising since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; (b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan; Planning Commission Agenda —10/02/18 (c) The extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; (d) Whether the proposed amendment will protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public; (e) The impacts on the natural and built environments, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, water quality, vegetation, drainage, streets, and other engineering design or environmental factors; (f) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subj ect property; whether the proposed design and land uses are appropriate for the land; and whether the proposed amendment will maintain or improve compatibility among uses and ensure efficient development within the City; (g) Whether the proposed amendment will result in a logical, orderly and predictable development pattern; and (h) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose of this ordinance. The zoning ordinance also provides criteria for consideration of map amendments (rezoning) as follows: (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error in the original text or map; or (b) Whether the proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area. (c) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the comprehensive plan. In 2013, another developer sought approvals for a residential project on this site — similar in some ways, but distinct in a critical aspect. While that proj ect was multiple family, its market focus was for general market rate apartments, rather than restricted and designed for seniors. The City denied that proj ect, and the developer moved to a separate site with a larger market-rate proj ect. In regard to the comprehensive plan amendment evaluation criteria, staff has provided analysis below. Consistencv with the Comprehensive Plan and Rezonin� Criteria. One of the primary objectives for housing in the Comprehensive Plan is to "Provide for housing suited to the needs of an aging population." The Plan also includes a number of policies related to life-cycle housing incorporating a significant accommodation for housing stock that Planning Commission Agenda —10/02/18 address the full range of life-long needs, specifically, adequate quality housing for elderly persons requiring additional care and/or reduced maintenance. Densitv. The proposed full build-out proj ect would have 125 total units, many of which are likely to be occupied by only single tenants. This is a gross density of 24.9 units per acre, and a likely population on the site of fewer than 150 persons. For the adj oining Mill Run twin homes, the developed density of this neighborhood is roughly 5.0 units per acre. Traffic and Parkin�. Senior Housing of the mixed type proposed by the current developer differs from market-rate housing in a few critical ways. First, its tenants are far less likely to drive, and as such, many do not own cars. Thus, parking demand is significantly reduced for these proj ects, leaving much more of the site in green space rather than occupied by parking lot. While the City has significant strictures on surface parking for multiple family development, the overall quantity of parking is as little as 30% to 40% of market rate housing. The concept plan illustrates a significant supply of underground parking as well, limiting the need to construct large surface lots, and following the direction of the R-4 zoning requirements. This provision not only limits surface parking it increases green space (thereby reducing stormwater), and is notably more attractive. Finally, it is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan policies of improving quality of housing choices, not merely quantity. This (the reduced impact of senior housing) is also true, in a related way, of trip generation. The bulk of the traffic generation for mixed senior housing is from staff and the independent living seniors in the building, although even then, independent units often have just one driver occupant rather than two or more in market rate housing. Thus, expected traffic volumes generated both to and from the site are expected to be reduced. The more relevant comparison, however, is to the current zoning, which would support a five acre commercial development, including retail, office, or restaurant. Trip generation for senior housing would forecast approximately 5.5 trips per unit, a total of approximately 500 trips per day for the initial phase, and just under 700 trips per day for the full build-out of 125 units. Retail projects on a five-acre site would likely range from more than 1,000 trips per day for an office use to over 3,000 trips per day, depending on the type and intensity of retail traffic. As such, a senior housing proj ect would generate only half to less than one-fourth of the traffic volumes for Hart Boulevard. In the past, traffic volumes on Hart Boulevard and congestion/sight lines at the County 39 intersection were raised as points of concern for previous development proposals. Senior Housing is likely among the least generators of traffic from this standpoint. Market Need. The applicants further note that current market studies show a high rate of demand for senior housing in the community. Long-term demographic studies indicate Planning Commission Agenda —10/02/18 that this demand is likely to continue to grow, both to existing population trends and local migration from rural to more urbanized communities. Monticello's retail and medical services are both factors that are likely to fuel additional demand for senior housing. Environmental Factors. The project site is located within the Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River District, a special overlay district that is designed to protect the riverway from encroaching development that is incompatible with natural river use and restoration. It is important to note that Department of Natural Resources staff tasked with monitoring the City's enforcement of the Wild and Scenic regulations supported the previous land use proposal, with an understanding that final development plans would be reviewed for consistency as well. In this case, the building would likely require a height variance. DNR staff has indicated in other non-riparian situations that such height variances were reasonable, although the specifics of this proposal would need to be judged on their own merits. Compatibilitv with Existin� and Proposed Uses. Of primary concern in the previous application was the compatibility issue, largely related to traffic concerns, but also related to building massing and bulk The surrounding buildings largely consist of single and two-story buildings. The applicants in this proposal seek a three story building but one which covers a significantly lower percentage of the site. The proposed building has a 31,000 square foot footprint, with three stories over that area. Reducing the height of the building to two stories, but retaining the same total square footage, would require a footprint of approximately 47,000 square feet. With a two story design, roof area would also increase, resulting in a building with more mass overall. With a smaller footprint, the applicant is further able to keep the building to the north of the site, maximizing its separation from the medium density twin homes to the south. This design, as previously noted, also accommodates more open space on the property. Further, the senior-living use provides an appropriate transitional land use between the Mill Run residential neighborhood to the east and the commercial uses located to the west and south. Summarv. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is a policy-laden decision for the Planning Commission and City Council. The elements noted above are designed to help the City officials determine whether a proposed change is needed and justified. It is important to note that as the site has sat vacant for a number of years, the relevant question is which land use is most appropriate for the site — the proposed, or the existing land use designation (commercial). There is often a tendency to measure impacts of the current proposal against vacant land — this should not be the Commission's standard. Instead, the site could accommodate an Planning Commission Agenda —10/02/18 intense commercial development at any time under its current land use designation and zoning — this is what the change should be measured against. Future A�lication Requirements. A multiple family building in the R-4 District is allowed by Conditional Use Permit. As noted above, adequate information for a full CUP consideration is not yet available and would be required pending the decisions of the present Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning considerations. However, staff would make the following notes for the benefit of the Planning Commission and applicant in considering both the land use changes and potential subsequent CUP consideration. 1. Setbacks. The R-4 zoning district requires a 100 foot setback from the principal frontage, and a 50 foot setback from the side street on a corner lot. Technically, the principal frontage for this parcel is County 39 (even though it can not gain access from that minor arterial). As a result, the street setbacks shown on the concept plan should be reversed. 2. Building Height. As noted previously, the building will likely require a height variance to the Wild and Scenic height limitation of 25 feet. It is noted that building height is measured from the average grade to the average building height (not to the peak), so the applicants can factor this in to their design. Staff encourages the developer to consider architecture that minimizes building bulk and height, and meets the R-4 requirements for variable building fa�ade and roof- lines. In addition, the proposed three-story height will minimize the footprint on the site, providing more open space and minimizing impervious surface. 3. The plan shows additional parking to the south side of the property if needed. Staff would encourage the bulk of the parking to be concentrated in the north end of the property. 4. There is a service area on the west side of the building, facing Hart Boulevard. It will be important this this area is architecturally screened to present a more appropriate view from the roadway. 5. Screening overall will be a consideration to ensure compatibility and to minimize impacts to the neighboring properties. 6. It is noted that the south driveway aligns with a driveway that serves the Kwik Trip property. While this access point appears to serve as a public street, and minimizing traffic flow to County 39 is positive, this drive is private property, and should not be seen as a public route to Broadway. 7. Civil engineering — utilities and stormwater management — are critical considerations of future CUP consideration. It is presumed that additional work on this aspect of the plans will add detail as needed. The City's discussion at this point should be focused on land use and impact. Planning Commission Agenda —10/02/18 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for Comprehensive Plan amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live", and Rezoning to R-4, Medium-High Density Residential. Motion to approve Resolution PC-2018-027 recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment reclassifying the subj ect property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live", and Rezoning to R-4, Medium-High Density Residential based on the findings identified in the Resolution. 2. Motion to deny Resolution 2018-027 recommending a Comprehensive Plan amendment reclassifying the subj ect property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live", and Rezoning to R-4, Medium-High Density Residential, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Land Use amendments and rezoning applications are policy-heavy decisions, for which there are rarely right or wrong choices. As noted above, the proposed land use change from commercial to multi-family residential would have observable changes in traffic and other impacts, and in some cases would likely lessen the impact on the City's infrastructure. The Comprehensive Plan, as now amended with the Monticello Small Area Downtown study, can be read to support the rezoning by taking steps that have the impact of focusing commercial development toward the downtown area, away from competing nodes. While this does not require the City to rezone undeveloped commercial land in any way, the proposed rezoning for this site can at least be viewed as being consistent with the City's land use policies in that way. As noted in the text of this report, the Comprehensive Plan is filled with objective and policy direction to seek opportunities to provide for a full range of housing choice in the community, specifically noting the need to accommodate senior housing choices for an aging population. In some manner, the subj ect site should be able to function well under either commercial or high-density residential regulations. While there are several areas of the community that are zoned and can accommodate commercial land uses, the options for multiple family residential are limited. Existing development patterns can often inhibit infill higher densities, and finding compatible high-density sites can be a challenge. This "alternative locations" factor supports the idea that rezoning to residential can be viewed positively. Planning Commission Agenda —10/02/18 Moreover, senior housing is both in high demand, and creates fewer traditional land use conflicts. The proposed site has sat undeveloped as a commercial site for many years, and indeed, a more high-profile commercial property to the west continues to sit only partially built. While the market changes regularly, these conditions do not appear likely to change soon. Senior housing on this site seems to be a reasonable consideration, given the high-volume roadway location, transitional land use considerations (commercial to medium-density residential), and potential for increased green space and low impact, even after full development. Finally, although only generally related to this proposal, the City has adopted an amendment to its zoning ordinance that establishes a zoning district that allows higher density residential development, but also places extensive requirements on that development to meet the Comprehensive Plan goal of higher quality development in all categories. Development of multiple family structures under the R-4 district permit higher densities, but also apply greater performance standards (along with a requirement for Conditional Use Permit review) to ensure that the subsequent development proposal is consistent with the City's objectives. As a result, staff is supportive of the rezoning. There should be few, if any, negative impacts on surrounding land uses. The comprehensive plan supports land use decisions that have the effect of encouraging commercial development in the downtown area. There are several options for commercial development in the City, but relatively few competitive sites for high-density residential. And finally, the City's updated zoning district helps to ensure that multiple family residential development will be done in a high-quality manner and be a credit to the community. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC 2018-027 B. AerialImage C. Applicant Narrative D. Applicant Site Aerial E. Applicant Area Aerial F. Site Concept Sketch G. Land Use Plan H. Zoning Map I. Comprehensive Plan, Excerpts J. City Engineer's Letter, dated 9/26/18 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2018-027 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (FROM "PLACES TO SHOP" TO "PLACES TO LIVE"), AND REZONING (FROM B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO R-4, MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FOR HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENT — LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIVERVIEW SQUARE WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to amend the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live"; and WHEREAS, the applicant concurrently seeks to rezone the subj ect property along Hart Boulevard, described as Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview Square, from B-4, Regional Business to R-4, Medium and High-Density Residential District; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes, in subsequent zoning application(s) to develop the property for a mixed senior housing proj ect, to be developed in 2 phases; and WHEREAS, the site is guided for commercial uses under the label "Places to Shop" in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning, would support senior housing uses of up to approximately125 units; and WHEREAS, senior housing is an important component of "life-cycle housing", a maj or obj ective of the City's Comprehensive Plan "Places to Live" chapter; and WHEREAS, the amendment to the land use plan map would meet the criteria identified in the zoning ordinance for Comprehensive Plan amendments; and WHEREAS, the rezoning of the site to R-4 would correlate to the Comprehensive Plan goals for senior housing and meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance for zoning amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October2, 2018 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2018-027 1. The Comprehensive Plan amendment provides an appropriate means of furthering both the intent and the specific goals and policies for housing as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, generally and for the subj ect site. 2. The use of the site for retail development is unlikely in the foreseeable future. 3. The use of the site for senior housing would have dramatically lessened land use impacts on the site, on the surrounding neighborhoods, and on the adj oining streets. 4. The proposed use will have positive impacts on public services, including sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and traffic which have otherwise been planned to serve the property for a more intensive development than proposed under these amendments. The ultimate development of the site will be required to meet the regulations of the R-4 District, as reviewed and recommended or modified by the Planning Commission, as well as the Department of Natural Resources, under the requirements for Conditional Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning based on the findings listed above. ADOPTED this 2nd day of October, 2018, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING CONINIISSION : ATTEST: Brad Fyle, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 2 � � 4 � '�� " . :��f�! � �, �--. � f, ��: � � �� r' ��. � � �� ' j� � �- { � � r=� � , y�- � r . �, , ��: f.. � r. � '� . i � � � . N , �, _y '" � '#� �, �7�;". � _ , + �,,.�'`� � v �,?.., � 1J - �� . � � . ! � �; �,, ., ` � - �, e n. �, y �1� � . .. .� � . Q �� rp� � �� ,� s s � , �, v� r �`' � t ��' �� : a r " ' � � �� wTt � ... �- �; `-' __ � . ` � , [� + � �, ! � "�- ` ' `�;; c'6 � .:' � , - � .: . sx N � i ' � '� irr � �. L '�r V ,. fi . . �+-J � . @ � •.. ` U IL! "�- , . � R� ' � •• - F� ,5�' � r - ��. �: �. . �: � ,, . � � - �-- � — � _. , � � �e_�_� °' .��_� �r_ ?.��I ��_,,,��'� 'o =�,.'=�'� '� � �`'!�� .,, � "` �R � , � �- N � � � � � �� . �„ �' � . . , Q � � �� . w ' �:� �r r �=�. .;' �� , '�� • _� � � �` b :�..Y�y, � t. ° . t1 ('� . � �... � � F 'r:r� ` �-� ; ' /f _ Y t/ � �.., �. . r o . � � ��e •- �--�. � � .� . _ - Q�, ;_ r r � s oo ;_ ,� .�_ � '�• w� + r• � a;� �'�� } � � ,,�'�•� _ _ _� ,� a � � f'� . ' , 7. �Y �r� .d:�•. • _,� • . ,�--. � .. .., r . sF a ,,, �� '� � �� t � � � Rrr�.�, • ';�'� � ` � ` ' ' . , � � ti F � � r � � '� , �, '�, ;. °f � ,� �r 0 � ' - ,°�`2 ,. ��z -. ��._ �' �� '�'* � � �'��.._ � � � ; U ,. � _ _ � _ . .�. �,� � - � ,.. �M. T �.' , .� � ,� L �� -k E „ � p '� O - Y i O � �i � �''r � � +� � �--� ��'�� (n � ' j� � � � �% � , � � � "! ��r, � � � . � '� +� ��' .. � � � � * � N� � �� ! �j � '`�' �r �.y [� ��' �� j' &� - ��, � ' . � a � , � � � �. � f ��' � �� rP �'�� r;� �� ' � , ' �� =�u . '� � � ;�`, " �� ` r Q�C�� .' '`�' N - ,� � � - � � - �#'� F v .., bA O , #:; , �e . '4 ..� r�, . ,f � r' . 0 p d` �'"� y�� r c � � ,,;,� I c� iV � r �+I �Q � • ��F . �=�a N � f � 2 0 • � , � `� � ,�y � . � � � F r • Cfj 9I , �n et � N I� 'M"t' �, � `��'' , � ¢' � � C6 � + �;,� G3 y+kl� � �. ,� � � � . " �,`, �„"%` •,� `� U � +�� r� ` ,'t,�' � �.�. � . /r� �� a � � � � � • ,� '; ' _ - �F � !" � � � � � • " * ;��v,� '. rn' � a y'� .. 4 i ; x • p � £ �,�.. �� ' • � � ��, , i� : � �� ; �, � � °�� '�' , � � � � ' � � 3N �11'd �I�I�A�3� O s 1 - ; � *, , ' J ,l � �" ,,� , , . . � c/� .. , Q . � . � 4��` _ . r+` .y' ' 't : y , F „_.,a �'. . . �> . ° �- .' " � � rr � � . . . � � ti .- _, c , ...� �+J �_ � � ' ► � � L':.� r. .,,.. � . J , r. .� �, �� .,.- � ,. � ., � �, • - ,� . j Ir�.;; � , ' -�. r - ,1 � � � �1 'k. _ !`L C7� ��/ �,p �.�<. � � . i . � y ` h- ¢ � .. . ,+ "�°` `` . c7. '� Q • ' �, .: . !f3 f j.,l � 7`�r;,,y-.:. , ;i � 1 � �'•- . � . , � � � �...� '� `sct .,. � � �.,Q' fi . � i` � . . . �' ' N � . h '� . 4 . ti— GG ` ''�+.. � . � ,C ' ,r+► �y�' - _ • w ; .r . �� f :� �6 h� ' .., 3 O "� � � yf � ��k � [� Y� r_' t �. �i �1J` � �I1 "7 lF} <. � m � ty�` ,� t � � . .. �. . � ! t �. -�'�r •� . �► � � C'� � ,`� � ' . r _ � � F�.�s . � �� • ( � �, • s � � 2 � :�` � . . . �� , "p, � �°� f J ` �``� � ' � Headwaters Development - Monticello Senior Livin� Proaect Summary To: City of Monticello, MN 21 August 2018 From: Headwaters Development The following describes the overall project summary. The Reauesti for Re-Zonin�: The 5-acre site for the proposed senior living development at the carner of Hart Blvd and Riverview Drive NE is currently zoned B-4 which is a Business District. The adjacent properties have a range of zones - B-2, R-1, R-2, and R-3. This existing site has been left un-developed for years and it is not considered prime commercial compared to other areas in Monticello. A senior living facility in a R-4 zone creates a natural transition zone from the B, Business zoning, that is closer to the highway to the R, Residential zoning, that is closer to the river and further away from the highway. The benefits of the proposed site layout in a R-4 zone include: • Substantially better access to public pathways and open spaces in a R-4 zone compared to what a B-4 zone does not include. The benefit of going up with a three-story building and providing underground parking is that it achieves approximately 60% to 65% of open green space. This would provide a significantly greater amount of green space versus a B-4 zone which would typically have 10% to 15% green space depending on the layout, starm water control, and the landscape requirements. • The setback benefits of the R-4 zoning versus the B-4 zoning are the substantial setbacks in a R-4 zone that include a 100-foot front yard setback, a 40-foot side yard setback, and a 40-foot rear yard setback to the building. This allows far more open space. The B-4 setbacks and open space requirements are zero ar minimal depending on necessary buffer space landscaping. • The R-4 zone with this proposed project will include increased landscaping and special landscape features including water features, gazebos, patios, and walking paths. • Traffic for a senior facility is substantially lighter than a B-4 business and the direct access to Hart Blvd and out to the intersection with Riverview Drive NE will allow traffic to easily go north and east towards the main highway with minimal traffic going into the residential areas to the west. Residents living within the assisted living and memory care portion of the facility do not drive and the independent senior residents tend to drive less and use the facility van for trips to church, shopping, events, etc. • The re-zoning to a R-4 would also have a"Condition Use Permit" which provides the "City with an opportunity to review a proposed use in order to establish reasonable conditions necessary to ensure compatibility between the proposed location and use and surrounding properties." (per the Monticello zoning ordinance) The Requesti for Comprehensive Plan Amendmenti: • The City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan shows this existing 5-acre site as "Places to Shop" and the adjacent areas as "Places to Live" and "Places for Community" (the adjacent church. Since this site is too far away from the majar highway and there is also an additional street intersection away from Broadway Street East (County Road 75 NE) so the distance to visibility has prevented this site to be developed as "Shops" in the past. We believe the highest and best use of the site is a transitional use like a senior assisted living facility that provides services to seniors in the community while providing a place for seniors to live and be cared for. • A quote from the Comprehensive Plan text states "The emphasis behind Places to Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the quality of neighbarhoods." We believe that adding the miY of the senior living facility offers that full range of choice far Monticello's residents. • Another quote from the Comprehensive Plan text states "It is likely that Monticello will need additional higher density housing to ... provide housing suited to the needs of an aging population." This proposed project is ideally located to fill a need within the community (see the Market Study Demand notes below). The Location and Demand: This proposed senior living project is a 5-acre parcel at the carner of Hart Blvd. and Riverview Drive NE in Monticello. Monticello is an appealing location as it combines a picturesque rural character with the charm of the Mississippi River. Additionally, there is excellent access to shopping and services in the surrounding area via local connections and access to Interstate 94. We anticipate that a new seniar housing development in Monticello will attract many existing local senior residents along with drawing other residents currently living outside the community. The new development is a great benefit to the City of Monticello community as it will allow senior the ability to stay in Monticello as they age and need assistance. Based on the characteristics of Monticello, community orientation, proximity to other senior housing properties in the surrounding area, geographic barriers, and our knowledge of senior housing draw areas, we estimate that a seniar housing development on the Site in Monticello would attract approximately 67% of its residents from a draw area (Primary MarketArea, or "PMA") that includes the adjacent communities. The remaining portion of the seniar housing demand (33%) would come from outside the PMA, particularly parents of adult children living in the PMA. The preliminary seniar housing study was completed by Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Based on pent-up demand and the growth in seniar households, the Market Study identified an unmet demand for independent senior living units, assisted living units and memory care units. These numbers conservatively reflect a capture rate of 30% of the market area excess demand. The senior population is projected to continue to see an increase for the next five years. This provides for a very healthy and growing senior population. The Proiecti: The proposed senior living development will be managed by Ebenezer and will have 92 units in the first phase with an additional 33 units planned for the second phase. The total units master planned for assisted living, independent living, and memory care suites will total 125 units. The first phase of 92 units will consist of approximately 14 memory care units on the first level and a blend of 78 independent and assisted living units on the first, second, and third levels. The rent structure is comparable to neighboring facilities and other new campuses that are currently being constructed across the region. The building will incorporate typical senior building amenities such as dining rooms, family dining room, multi-purpose rooms, beauty shop, activity rooms, theater room, medical clinic space, therapy, library, fitness room, spa room, pantry, management office and commercial kitchen. It will also have underground parking. The exterior of the three-story building will incorporate brick, stone and Hardi-type siding (cementitious siding) with a sloping asphalt shingle roof. The building will be setback off of the two adjacent streets with extensive landscaping, patios, gardens, walks and courtyards. The three-story building height can be designed with either a flat roof or a pitched roof (the pitched roof is preferred at a 5:12 pitch). The flat roof design would be approximately 34 to 35 feet in height and the design with a pitched roof would be approximately 46 to 47 feet in height (40 feet if measured from the mid-span of the 5:12 pitched roofl. The Managementi Team - Ebenezer Senior Services: Founded in 1917 by Minneapolis Lutherans to provide community-centered care far homeless older adults and others in need, Ebenezer Senior Services programs and services today include: • Independent Living (including condominiums, cooperatives and senior apartments) • Assisted Living • Memory Care • Transitional and Long-term Care • Adult and Intergenerational Day Programs • Community-based Services • Management and Consulting Services • The Ebenezer Foundation Part of Fairview Health Services since 1995, their combined resources and expertise offer access to a full range of choices for vibrant senior living. In partnership with the University of Minnesota, they are also part of an academic health system improving the patient's clinical experience, conducting nation-leading research and achieving academic prominence. Ebenezer will assist in analyzing the market, establishing a strategic marketing plan, producing sales collateral, coordinating a public relations plan, and training sales staff. Through Ebenezer's system for managing leads, maYimizing sales, and monitoring programs to reach occupancy projections, the new development hopes to exceed projected occupancy. Ebenezer will provide effective on-site management as well as consulting services in all areas of management. Ebenezer has proven that quality patient care and a positive bottom line can go hand- in-hand. Ebenezer will also continue to assist Headwaters Development in evaluating the facilities' strengths and weaknesses. In doing so, they will assess current programs, any service gaps, as well as opportunities and threats in the external market environment. From this, recommendations far new service options tailored to the needs of seniors will be developed and include an individualized implementation plan. The anticipated number of employees for the proposed Senior Living project will be approximately 50 employees (including full and part time positions). This will include an executive director, a clinical services director, miY of RN's and/or LPN's, nursing assistants, and staff for activities, marketing, dietary, housekeeping, maintenance and other administration. We are excited about the opportunity to wark with the City of Monticello and its residents to bring this special new project to the community. Upon review of our proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, A A _ // .�,s�� .. - �� -R � � � - � � � �� _ti �; �' �.� __ _ - —�'' �.�— �',� � ,�- _ r. � � y, ...� _� , ��, a � �—.�._ �_ �--. � ' .� �� , - .�..:� �- � �" ,� - pRIVE NE . : ��_— �Rv�E�N . . R�v __-- _'.- `� ,_�- � . � ,-� �. r� ,- �� , � f �_ � �E : �! ____ a �., '� � - � �� 9 . 9 � 1� �, a. � a,� � ' '_. "� � �_ SLOPE DOWN SLOPE DOWN � � -. �a � �� 6j' � \ . . -;� \ � �., � � � � �.� �m� �' . -�p�� `�. �� ,�.-„�� e. _ �i '"; �� i r��. i -.�: . � \ �� i :,, "�' � . " -- 9 : i y ,� � � � w v� . �� ,, P � ,� , , ,� .,,F . r- . ;�,� � O E p . . � � � , k,_ \ pwN i ..s � � ,, � , y �_ ,� . `� . *��. . a � ' ; ��, ,� � � � � � � �� . ...W , . � . :��' � �` � M � . ��,� � . ;�� , �. � � '�� .,, � � , , +�r� �4� 5 _ _'�-' �Y � �t \ � � � �l � r� �� `i 1 �._, �_ � � ��► iA�E �. � .� NORTI-�" � � a� � EXI STf�I G SITE PLAN 10 August 2018 � �� =_ . �� ' �� i ,�. �`t"'��-r ,.. � F�:�.. �fy� � �,,4* � `� `��"r�p��•^�f A '�t -.. � r "' +�d � , *� � `�`�:',� 7 �� ,�. .-� ,. � v+ R'!�1 , r° �^"�� ` � ��#,� r'+��", � � � a .f � 't'�'a*:, r. ,� �.'e" .,��. � -� r; �� ° - r�f - , ��(�'� + ^� �' ;" - . ^-. s *`s^.1 .. � - "Q . � . .� 4`,.. ; r '� z ,. � ' � �# l��• , � T �. �� r � ��< � _J i .e� ,. y, K' I . � ,� �� jr� *.�',{•� �{ �v�' �� 71r �'w�•t� �i. 'a� , ...: .'�'f � �� f .-� . Mf � � y �-5 *\ � - � �.� 'L 4 4 Y . s �� _�� j 0. �. � � � ry ��. J� � ..� �� T l�L� { u�� f � Iyi ,-- � ;i� . f y }�, ��` ,� _ . . w � "`, •� 'I ' _ .J'i� ` � �� r� Px''` . �f.{y . `� � .4 3 . k � . � � .� ;,�� "�,r� 1 '-�� 'e � '1 .-' �q�� P {�a,� _ � � j d , � � _ ai -- . {� s,� � , 5 '.' , ' 7 �h. °J . ``M,� � . , � . 1. -.� l y'� M �� __ � I'� i y `� , : "'� ` � . , . . . ..' j � �a ; � � � �, , , . <�= �_ � _ � � �, � r_ � , �' �' �. — 4� e } ��r' Jf '� `;.,.�. `� _ " � I ��c�a,� � '�^a ^'. ,�' � .�� + cy= � � � d f�� - . � ��" � ; : i� • M �`C. ` F� �� Jr ` .'. _ � I I� � d t+y� °� � {e' A � �I" . � , y`1�� ' I� il N ��+' �Fr I�II� � �� I - . �i F:� ... J�� . � - �� w � �i , � , �`_' ,'��' � _ �, _ � t { �, � � _ � ,'� � �,? r , . ��- r� � �� II• � � _ �� ,�` ` :� r I {',�� r_�, � " � �� . . � �.�� r � �� . 5 f-+ ' _� �Y \ . ._sr� �1� � �. ,� - '� � , �" �'� �,' . : _ „�c?, `' ,� - � �r�'' J +�"`� � --- F�� ; � c ,/\ " #�'� ,�. 't' , i� f,r'� ��: �. 3 /. � � � �� ,� �'r v � � i �. � � � � ` � ` y „ �� . 'o i/i rTl \ �� A �,jj' p � /'� ',� �� , � � X _, �� ` / m � G +Y � �w�� + � ',/" `` � �R Q4 � ,� � � , � • y�� f� . � rZ pD� � Z �t1, � z� , �'' � , -�� ___�.� I C �� f, -�-� � ^� � . � � m � �" /' � — �,'� a° o � I ■ � �'' ��o� m I � t ��, . �� '..' � ? O m � .� � I � W� - r ,�� ' � � t _:� p � k ^ �' +�'�� . . � ' Z .. _ Z I � . •�d � / _�1. '...J �� - �' �� £ - ' F � � r r�- � Q � �c � _ � � � - JS e�1 _ � _ = �. � w�. � F -; - - -'a---' ��_._ — - - - - — — _ s . .._ —_ __—__—__ � ,. '_--. i .� � -. ��,* ", �� • �--h , ' "' �� 4` r�'�',� . � �� MF � . . �,i ,��. : � -�� .,� .. . � �t -_ ,. " �f� . ��:� 4� �R . . ,�S 1 ' `- i�. -t� �"�-'"�'� .� ��'rr.. .�1��Y� . . �� . '�-'� -y � _ ,d� I , �'�a- �r 4 J � � _ � � r �' � �-^ a �v _ i _.y� ' 'r 1 . , � ,-- � �� i ,� ii � � � � Y� � . � �^' � ��`� �.a� • � �i; v��" F++� _ .� � �' '� 5 �_ � C _ � � _ _ . ; � , f.. ; ; .. ;,a . d /M ,�, � � - # � � n.�...� � �' � r` -�; ; 1 �'� �f ��r) �" "��` � �,� � -- � � �' . '"'�,+�4 � ..� , , _ �� i , �� _� � ,�� _ � � �.�„��,�� . T � � _� _ .�, , � � � 1 �. � s-�� a � �i� 4 � ,�° � '�a `�` ''�� . '�` ' :s, � � � . -. �f : �� ,%*,;�; ' 4 , ��; :� � �. *f�� ! 'f� .:y'.'� � �`J�� .+� �� . _ � � ,� � ' -� ' :y �41•'•�� `� �� ,—_� d ` • .. . � , Y � '"' .. . ,: » � . : �..3 .. _ '4 :... '�� ,� � . ..` I ~'.: "" �. ._._ � �� '" � � �' r � "`- , . �. � --. �' � r _ � . # '.�'-': �� f�J` �� '� �� ,� � � * - ` �y .� �} . r y,r° �° ^ ,: .' ' � �Y!?�� ' � s. � :: : .� ��. ,„ �.�� #, ,,. / � * , .� ��-� *, � �- . � 1�. I' � �1' Y � -- _ t � � f � �,� v � � � �_ . _ ' ° � p ��.. ,�� _ . � � AI�,! d � , � ¢ r�-�� F ,, '� � �. .�!" y �' � � � �1. ;. M. w , x� � � ' ;�',� � � � � , � �--_ . � -- _ _ ., �., .�� --��!r�,�.� - -- - - � � �� •�: � �, � �,, ' .~�� ,;�:�� .l ,.�`,- � . �� , �, . � �'�' � � . -, -�. � � ' + w ; _ �' � �L r�! r` �,'' `i� j�- .. �� 4 I - I.'j :� ._ �. ,. � % d b�� ti m� s"' r � �,��' If � ,�%� � `�: J ��-'M �''S^. - --� r '`. � - w � - - ._ . � r �, � . * a. �� °— - - , .�,.. . +� # � : �� -� � � � � � ? ' - � �-----�.• . h * _ , . . ,_ rrr � �l' �' p;'��*�+t�. �� , . .. �,�l�� '�,�'�, ! �� . .. � �%1 . � � E � � - �� ;� �� `� � �w - � � �� 4 � � � _� _ f� ,�� -� ,, R`v�Rv�t� � - �, � � � ��,,: '�. � � ,�";�a \ z°."` /_ s ....,..: ,.. � � '� � ��1 �� - r,n , �q � � � � NORTH � '� � "� � �� 'w �` � 0� � a Di � CON CEP T' SITE PLAN _ ' /�1 �TE 10 August 2018 w� A�' � � �' �� ;:�� -- ,� ��' , � _ �•' � e \ �•► � � � �� -_____ � --- _ � � �; " , �:, � ;' '�,� � � ,'�.; .� o , , � a �a � � �". . o a � � ' \ 'n \ �P��a^+F. I � �� ) ��TG �� '�a9� � I D / Y '�o2�s� �, I ' I . � .� �, ,� � 2 �Fp°a, �� G y p �__ � �t�� 2�,ap'p� Z .� s'o� �> �\ 22� S \� � ' � �\ S> I � , � �� . ,'� � ' - ,, � ooA �, '> -� -�oti_ �, ' `, � ,. -� - � � ,, - ,� � � �;� �a � a ` �� 9f� , � � 1 I � �,,� , � � I I -� ,� I I �� >� I � ,� " �' ,� I I � , : � �, , � I I OPE DOWN I♦ I� � I �� I � - - �I� �' �I i 1 v i � � � � ; i �,, ; � � �' I �— � � h��s �� a � � - �� a (n � d' U a� � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � a� a� a� a� a� �� u d 0 C a a a a a o�� J � � � � 0 � 0 � � o � � U o Q � o 0 � m ;� y y � Q U � o � o Q � = a� o d � � � � � 0 0 0 a a � O ' `� � � II ' I � _ , 'I �� , ��1, �� n�, ' , 1\ , �� ;�, .__� I � �I bi � i8� i . i d /,.,.. f �� ; ; � ,, ,� , „, ;�a ; F, , � , � £, � � � , � �� , � � , f i l e I i ' il � ,� ��.e W � I ll' V �'' 1� �,� z cn , f ,\;; /��i� G�' �1 �� ` . � �..r = — _ � / � �� i �� `f' ..�e f � � �"`��,� � / , � ��, �;" � � ,._ x € ' �; �� `� e � {�„`' /� r, ... ._ �. ' ` y"/ . r� � ,� „�°° � � '1 �� r , , � . . � � iV.��,! a , �. � i �v.;�;� � i a S i /�� .. r � j I ��'S"t' � � � ' 4 a ! 3 ....� �R �♦ t E I �� e6#4 � e , . _� � £ . . �£ t � �t' � , , m�... � , _- � — � �/ � � , ' l��_�._ v , � , I,��1,� ��. � � i —�I — _ _^ � , � � � � ,�f � �-� � ;+� 3 J �"' '� i'�' � , ..t �' ��`� � � �: ,� �. ;.,� `' � � e 9 ; r �;h_,- , I � �, 4 � _ � �! -' ' �„ i�, . . �� l� Lan' � �,`✓ `\ '� I�i '- ii a �' �� : _ , , riSi �r��; � /� � C d Q1 J � a �^ a-I rv M � � � 6J �,y = LL � r q � m m m m V � m � � > d ry �n C pf y� C O q = � � R �p m�, � 1' C. , 1 1/�'f f f C a V Q Q ��a-li Ni M� i�� }/1� �O� �� 00� O; Oi OI OI OI OI OI OI C � d a�'i H � � Ca�'i c °i v � G � G _ Q Vf � ai �a C � c L7 � �6 � � v Z�� O Q .+ � Z N a � M � _ `u n�i c � a � � � � � � v � � f 3 � m C I � . . � � � _ � 1 I _ C � \ Figure 3-3: Land Use Plan - Places to Live 1he remainder of this section describes the categories used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail. Places to Live 1he Comprehensive Plan seel<s to create and sustain qualiryplaces for people to live in Monticello (see Figure 3-3). This category designates areas where housing is the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a homogenous commodity or that any type of housing is desirable or allowed in any location. When someone says "house" the most common image is a single family detached dwelling. lhis housing style is characterized by several features. There is a one-to- one relationship between house and parcel of land - the housing unit is located on a single parcel. 1he house is not physically attached to another housing unit. 1he housing is designed for occupancy by a single family unit. 1he typical neighborhood in Monticello is made up exclusively of single family detached homes. The primary variables become the design of the subdivision, the size of the lot and the size and style of the dwelling. Many older neighborhoods in Monticello (north of Interstate 94) were built on a traditional grid street system. Over the past thirty years, development patterns have moved to a new suburban curvilinear 2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-5 pattern, characterized by curvilinear street layout with the use of cul-de-sacs. A variety of factors, including consumer preference and housing cost, have increased the construction of attached housing in recent years. Duplexes, twin homes, quads and townhomes are common examples of this housing style. Although the specific form changes, there are several common characteristics. Each housing unit is designed for occupancy by a single family. The housing units are physically attached to each other in a horizontal orientation. Places to Live will include some neighborhoods designed to offer a mixture of housing types and densities. Mixed residential neighborhoods create a pattern that combines single-family detached housing with a mixture of attached housing types. Using good design and planning, these mixed residential neighborhoods can achieve a higher density without compromising the overall integrity of the low-density residential pattern. This integration strengthens neighborhoods by increasing housing choice and affordabilitybeyondwhat is possible by today's rules and regulations. It also avoids large and separate concentrations of attached housing. It enhances opportunities to organize development in a manner that preserves natural features. A complete housing stocl< includes higher density residential areas that consist of multi-family housing types such as apartments and condominiums. In the near term, the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate expanding the existing supply of higher density housing. It is lil<ely that Monticello will need additional higher density housing to: ► Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging population. ► Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in other appropriate locations of the community. ► Provide housing needed to attract the worl< force required to achieve economic development goals of the City. Higher density residential land uses should be located and designed to be compatible with nearby residential or mixed uses, on lots able to accommodate larger buildings and added traffic generation. In addition, siting factors for high density residential uses will prioritize access to services and amenities including public utilities, parl<s, trails and open space, and commercial and/or medical services. It will be important, when considering potential designation of high density housing development, that the parcels meet the specific standards of the zoning district, and such development can be accommodated in accordance with the policies in this Plan. While these comments and the comments in the zoning ordinance are intended to be instructive they are not necessarily the only factors that might come into play on specific properties. Policies — Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seel<s to achieve the following objectives for residential land use in Monticello: 1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages of a person's life-cycle (see below). 2. Support development in areas that best matches the overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a sense of connection to the community and inspire sustained investment. The Comprehensive Plan seel<s to maintain the quality and integrity of existing neighborhoods by encouraging the maintenance of property and reinvestment into the existing housing stocl<. Changes in housing type should be allowed only to facilitate necessary redevelopment. 4. Create neighborhoods that allow residents to maintain a connection to the natural environment and open spaces. 5. Seel< quality over quantity in residential growth. Achieving the objectives for quality housing and neighborhoods may reduce the overall rate of growth. 6. Reserve areas with high amenities for "move up" housing as desired in the vision statement. lhese amenities may include forested areas, wetland complexes, adjacency to parl<s and greenways. Some of the City's policy objectives require further explanation. 3-6 � Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-4: Life Cycle of Housing Supply , .� � i'� �" — —r-'I; . � p m ', � � . � : °' �' .��t��r ��.�� ,�i� Life Cycle Housing Housing is not a simple "one size fits all" commodity. Monticello's housing stocl< varies by type, age, style and price. 1he Community Context chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes the characteristics of the housing stocl< based on the 2000 Census and recent building permit trends. The concept of life cycle housing recognizes that housing needs change over the course of a person's life (see Figure 3-4). Young adults may not have the income capacity to own the typical single family home. lhis segment of the population often seel<s rental housing. Families move through different sizes, styles and prices of housing as family size and income changes over time. With aging, people may desire smaller homes with less maintenance. Eventually, the elderly transition to housing associated with options for direct care. As noted in the Vision Statement, Monticello's population will continue to become more diverse. lhis diversity will be seen in age, race, culture and wealth. lhese factors will influence the housing needs of Monticello. 1he Comprehensive Plan recognizes these differences and seel<s to create a balanced housing supply that encourages people to move to and stay in Monticello. lhis balance may not be achieved solely by marl<et forces guided by this Land Use Plan. Actions by the City may be needed to promote the creation of housing in underserved segments of the marl<et. Neighborhood Design A priority for the community is diversification of the housing stocl< by providing more "move up" housing. In this context, the term "move up" housing refers to larger homes with more amenities in structure and setting. lhis type of housing may not be exclusively single-family detached or low density. Attached forms of housing with medium or high densities may meet the objectives for move up housing in the appropriate locations. In this way, the objectives for move up housing and life cycle housing are compatible and supportive. While every community wants a high quality housing stocl<, this issue has particular importance in Monticello. It is a 1<ey to retaining population. Without a broader 2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-7 variety of housing options, families may encouraged to leave Monticello to meet their need for a larger home. It is a factor in economic development. One facet of attracting and retaining professional jobs is to provide desirable housing alternatives. It must be recognized that creating move up housing requires more than policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 1he Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for achieving the desired results. 1he desired outcomes require private investment. This investment occurs when demand exists or the City can provide an incentive to attract investment. Part of attracting move up housing comes from creating great neighborhoods - places that will attract and sustain the housing options sought by the City. Neighborhoods are the building blocl< of Places to Live in Monticello. 1he goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to create and maintain attractive, safe and functional neighborhoods. 1he following policies help to achieve this objective: 1. Neighborhoods should incorporate the natural characteristics of the setting. Trees, terrain, drainageways, and other natural features provide character to neighborhoods. 2. Housing should be oriented to the local street, minimizing access and noise conflicts with collector streets. 3. 1he City will use public improvements to enhance the appearance and character of a neighborhood. Some examples of improvements that define an area include streets with curb and gutter, trees in the public boulevard, street lighting systems, and storm water ponding. 4. Sidewall<s, trails, and bil<eways will connect the neighborhood to other parts of the community. 5. Every neighborhood should have reasonable access to a public parl< as a place for residents to gather and play. All of these elements worl< together to create a desirable and sustainable place to live. Figure 3-5: Relationship Between Development and Natural Features - Parkway Figure 3-6: Relationship Between Development and Natural Features - Trail Corridor � ( �v � ` Lr �:S � - � A � � " ` ``,? ��- ,-��`� � _ ��i� <a ` _ �` �:r � � -� ,� �' , ` � ��L Pr11' L��.a<< - 'd� ��'� �7 , __,_ � -`- � _��_ _� . �- -� � T�� 1 I I I II i I'I , � 'I i I` � j � � � �� l �� I � Balancing the Built and Natural Environments 1he natural amenities of the growth areas (west and south) in Monticello should serve as a catalyst for residential development. 1he Bertram Chain of Lal<es Regional Parl< offers the dual assets of natural features and recreational opportunities. Lal<es, wetlands and other natural amenities exist throughout the orderly annexation area. Studies have shown that parl<s and open space have a positive economic effect on adjacent development. An article published by the National Parl< and Recreation Association states that "recent analyses suggest that open spaces may have substantial positive impacts on surrounding property values and hence, the 3-8 � Land Use City of Monticello September 26, 2018 Ms. Angela Schumann Community Development Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Headwaters Development Senior Living Concept Plan Review City Proj ect No. 2018-03 8 W SB Proj ect No. 12792-000 Dear Ms. Schumann: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 We have reviewed the concept plan dated August 10, 2018 as prepared by Ayres Associates and offer the following comments. Wright County is planning to stripe a center left turn lane along CSAH 39 (Riverview Drive) from Hart Boulevard to the east for construction in 2019. The City will submit the proposed concept plan to Wright County for their information and review to determine if additional County right of way is needed. We understand there are concerns with sight lines at the intersection of Hart Boulevard and CSAH 39 and merging traffic on eastbound CSAH 39 that the City will coordinate with Wright County to address. 2. It is not anticipated that there will be a need for turn lanes or other operational improvements on Hart Boulevard based on the traffic generated from the site. The proposed accessing spacing aligns with existing access points on the west side of Hart Boulevard to aid in eliminating turning conflicts. 3. A pathway is shown on the north side of the site along CSAH 39. This should be 10-foot wide trail in accordance with the City's pathway connections guide map. A crosswalk should be included at Hart Boulevard. 4. A pathway is proposed along the west side of the site adj acent to Hart Boulevard. City staff will evaluate future needs to connect this pathway. Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K:�o2n9z-0oo�nd m��oo��ra-�-�n�ma �o-Headwater� o9ze2s.doa September 26, 2018 Page 2 5. There are platted drainage and utility easements on the easterly property line of the site that contain sanitary sewer and storm sewer pipes that should be considered with the site plan. 6. Sanitary sewer and watermain services are extended from the mains within Hart Boulevard to serve the site. The watermain should be looped within site. 7. The applicant will be required to submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed development (including future building addition and parking lot) in accordance with the requirements in the City's Design Manual. 8. Proposed runoff rates shall be less than or equal to existing runoff rates. 9. The proposed development discharges to a regional infiltration basin east of the A Glorious Church site. This regional basin was designed for a maximum of 2.2 acres of impervious surface from the proposed parcel. Any impervious area beyond that will need to be infiltrated on site. 10. Runoff from the site needs to incorporate pretreatment measures (i.e. sump manholes) prior to discharging to the regional infiltration basin. 11. Underground parking is proposed for the site. Consideration shall be given in the design such that the garage area will not be at risk of frequent flooding. It's recommended that trench drains, a sump pump system and secondary containment of the 100 year runoff volume be considered in the design. 12. The proposed development falls within the DNR Wild and Scenic River District for the Mississippi River and must incorporate best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with the NPDES/SDS permit for construction. 13. A more detailed review of the development plans will be completed when the applicant submits complete civil plans and a stormwater management report. Please give me a call at 763-271-3236 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Thank you. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. . ,,, � � ,�'. �...�s�L. Shibani K. Bisson, PE Senior Project Manager K:�o2n9z-0oo�nd m��oo��ra-�-�n�ma �o-Headwater� o9ze2s.d oa September 26, 2018 Page 3 skb K:�o2n9z-0oo�nd m��oo��ra-�-�n�ma �o-Headwater� o9ze2s.d oa Info for staff and planning commission's consideration as it relates to Headwaters Development request for rezoning of Lot 1, Block 2, River View Square. Public hearing- Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:00 pm Submitted by- Development team (Trident development, Tealwood Senior Living, Mielke Development) ��15�V� a �c- - � �''�� ` �I�E COPY Is rezoning in the city's best interest? FACTS AND POINTS OF CONSIDERATION: Headwaters Development is asking the city to REZONE a prime (B-4 regional business) parcel to (R-4 high residence densityj to accommodate a 3 story, 125 unit senior living facility. Virtually all the same arguments IRET used a few years ago to justify the rezoning of this same parcel is being used again by Headwaters and its supporters. After great controversy and opposition the city council denied IRET's request to rezone this parcel. THE RESULT- 1. IRET purchased property on the south side of I-94, more appropriately suited for high density housing and built a much nicer, larger complex. IRET and general public WON 7 TL�e ri+v rtnt o c� morinr r�rniai^+ onrl m� �i-F� hinhor t�v hoco Tho ri*�i \A/llAl c. ��a.. a.i�y svt a.�uNc�w� N�v�c�.� aiiu ��iu�,�� ns��,� tan �✓a.�c.. i�ic �,��y vvv�� 3. The parcel neighborhood did not get a 3 story high density housing project plopped on them. The Neighborhood WON 4. By not rezoning the parcel, the city still has a prime 5 acre regional business parcel in its commercial inventory. The city WINS again. As with IRET, there are many other properties in Monticello better suited for Headwaters Development project. Some argue nothing has developed on this parcel in 10 yrs, it should be rezoned. We had a major recession in 2008. There are commercial properties all over in Monticello, the county, �twta anrl r�i�ntrv that ha�ia ;at thara 1(1 vr� Tha ��mmar�i�l markat ic ii ict rnmina ha�k > >. . .. ��.,. ..a ., . Monticello is going to continue to grow to the east. If the city would rezone this prime regional business property now (short term thinking) for high density housing that can easily go elsewhere, there will soon be a time when the city will wish they still had this business property in their inventory. In order to accommodate Headwaters Development project on this small parcel- a. it will take much more than just a simple rezoning. b. This property is in the Mississippi Wild Scenic and Recreational River district. This project does not meet the height restrictions, etc. r 'I 7C ��ni+c ic ro�l +icrh+ nn +hic norrol �nrl ��iill IiLol�i noorl ni �marn� �c n+hor �inrio*innc �.. ic.� v�n�� u�ca� us�i� vi� u��o Naia.a..i a��u vvn� ��nc�y ��cc.0 i�ui�iciv�..a vu��.� va��a�iv�i.�� deviations from city codes (setbacks, etc.) Monticello Senior Housing Market. St Benedicts has been the primary Senior Living Provider. Our team (Trident Development, Tealwood Senior Living, Mielke Development) did a Senior Living market study in October 2017. Tealwood manages over 50 senior living complexes. Mn, lowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota Closest to Monticello is The LEGACY in St Michael. One of our older projects. The study estimated the Monticello market has a projected need for an additional 120 to 150 senior living units in the next number of years. This estimation is similar to the need outlined in thP �itv nf Mnntiralln'c markPt cti irlv ...,. ..._, ,,. ......._..,_.... _ ..._...__ _.�.,,. We acted on this, purchased property, have presented concept plans, made EAW application and Concept Review application. Will be in front of planning and council Monday Oct 8. In 2019 we will be bringing in an additional 136 senior housing units to Monticello. Two ..F,. �... �:1.��r..� � �n . ..�+.- .. �f,.,.i /....,,..,..,..-.. ,. � cc . ..:+ .. ,. i:.,:..,. .. -...+...,,,..�,+ �cj�aiatc uunuiiig�. i. iv uiu�� a��iaicu�iiiciiwi y �aic L. VV UIIR �CIIIVI iivii�g aNa��i�icii� building with underground parking. Location; north side of new I-94 overpass. West of St Henry church. Just under 9 acre complex. We will be satisfying Monticello's needs for additional Senior Living units for the next number or years. we have room to expana. HUGE CONCERN: overbuilding the Monticello Senior Living Market Assuming St Benedict continues to operate. We (Tealwood Sr Living) meet the projected market studies needs with our 136 units Who is going to fill Headwaters 125 units? QUESTION: Why would a city rezone a prime regional business parcel knowing it will result in an overbuilt senior housing market and in the process take a prime business parcel out of its inventory? Our team has been watching this Headwaters proposal and questioning- have they done a market study? Of do they know something about the market we do not know? Today we learned Headwaters used the same market study we originated and paid for, for the Monticello market area. (Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.) So there clearly is not enough market share in Monticello for St Benedicts, Us (Tealwood Sr Living) and Headwaters. We believe when all is said and done, we will have the strongest project. Location, access, a proven leader in the Senior Housing Industry, top notch buildings, amenities, spacious campus, peaceful surroundings, room for expansion. We originally looked at the parcel Headwaters is asking the city to rezone. We decided not to pursue it for the following reasons- 1. The city denied IRET a rezone of this parcel and ended up with a better project. Why would they rezone for us and a similar type use? 2. The height restrictions, etc. with this parcel being in the Mississippi Wild Scenic district 2 It �eini ilri hc ro�lhi +iaht tn rrat �n�rtiiina nvor Q(1 i mitc nn tF�o cito withni �t �c4ina tho ritv .�. i� wvu�u �.r�. � �.a��y a�g�i� w E-j�.� a��y��ig vv�.� �v �.+��.a �� u��. ,��. YYIl11VNl aa��n�s u��. �.�ay for lots of variances, special allowances, etc. Not sure could get them. No room to expand. 4. Did not want to antagonize the neighborhood residents. The site we are working on certainly has some challenges, topography, historic house, etc. But when all is said and done, our site is a great location for senior housing situated on a beautiful campus. Provides the city with probably the most viable project on this site. Thank you for considering our thoughts, Trident Development, Tealwood Senior Living, Mielke Development �/d�Or:iU7" D� v�:C��►r.,�rr�7l=�Lwc��e� s.��vrr�R �� v��= /'9/d;LlfE .I�EUr�r��r� / ��.�� n, � T' �s',_ ,�� r ��S��v�- c��r �%t � � rt,�� r��v�-s , . � ��" -------_ --- i ---- ,�'�=� �_ - �. _ o� _ �r -- , `v� � � �f� r � __ ``�` �` _�--� � I � ---r ,' � � �, I '�,�'�, ``� _� '' j ,'�' � _ -- , - , �; = w� '�,`,�. � .. . ��< Q o� ,� �f�,t . �, �� - y�� '----,, \ti �; -,� �'_ ✓� � �y � %��M � � _ �- �,.��\ - , '� ) I - _ � ��,�� i i , � _ � � , - � — �— . �� I 1�';. -<r., �\ ' �` � _ ;� .�- -� ��1`�_ r _ ��, , ;_—� � �. , � r t ,.� .� � I ,.� ' ��, _ ,i c� � g��m� \. L_____________J \ �� Q� f �. f � .,� Y^;..a .,.• �`� � � � �3 � �� a_ � � � ��,1 � � :�.: , � ` ; :�� : � �� , _; � / ,, � �� '� � � �^�, � � �, , N/ � ''� �' /�/, ��,\', \ `�'/,';,' I �� /i, L > - I �� 1' i \ ��1 � . . r.""". '\l;i / \ a.,, m �.� � � -,..; .�.�—� �.A�. s , � ��, . - �„ ,_ �.�� .. . _ _ , � �„ ._ � ' , �..�-�..,� , - -- ` �'G f - �',. �'" � - - — - - — — - I' - — — ----- _ _ - �h' st '' "1' � � �� _ _. ��,,, �� I � � �� i ¢;�., � ' ; � � ;' -- �. . . . � , � a. n� I 4� � '',%'a� F ', �• � `�'r-� ��'�. ( C/� Tlli' N S A�!; ��1,�, /'R r S r iv � i�✓ � i� /'L� Nrv: >v'G �i- c U�. � c i� C�� i� ] Angela Schumann From: Dan and Linda Mielke Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 12:43 PM To: Angela Schumann; 1im Thares; Matthew Leonard; WSBshibani Cc: 'Roger Fink'; 'Lee Mielke' Subject: RE: Concern about overbuilding Monticello senior housing market Angela, Please do forward the email and attached info from our team to the Planning Commission. My wife will also be dropping off an envelope later this afternoon with duplicate information as a backup. If you have any questions, or need further clarification on anything, please call. Thanks. From: Angela Schumann [mailto:Angela.Schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 11:53 AM To: Dan and Linda Mielke ' ' "m Thares <Jim.Thares@ci.monticello.mn.us>; Matthew Leonard <matt.leonard@ci.monticello.mn.us>; WSBshibani <sbisson@wsbeng.com> Cc:'Roger Fink' ' >;'Lee Mielke' � Subject: RE: Concern about overbuilding Montice��v Senior housing market Dan, Are you requesting that staff provide the attached and email below to the Planning Commission this evening, or will you be providing this information to them? Angela Schumann Community Development Director City of Monticello www.ci.inonticello.mn.us 763-271-3224 Email corresponse to and from the City of Monticello government office is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Dan and Linda Mielke Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 10:01 Ann To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us>; Jim Thares <Jim.Thares@ci.monticello.mn.us>; Matthew Leonard <matt.leonard@ci.monticello.mn.us>; WSBshibani <sbisson@wsbeng.com> Cc:'Roger Fink' < "— � ' ' ' 'Lee Mielke' - ' Subject: Concern about overbuilding Monticello senior housing market Everyone, FYI attached are some Facts and Considerations for your review and contemplation As you all are aware, our team (Trident Development, Tealwood Senior Living, Mielke Development) is working to bring 136 units of senior housing to the Monticello market 2019. Applications are in. A few weeks ago we became aware of Headwaters Development looking to bring an additional 125 units of senior living to Monticello. Our 136 and there 125 = 261 new units. Our philosophy is NOT to come in to a market and knowingly overbuild it, expecting to take out any competitors who may already exist because we think we can, with a modern, higher quality campus and the depth of our overall organization. We contracted with Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc (our go to market study firm, they have done many for us, and have never been wrong) to determine if the senior housing market in Monticello is large enough to support the existing St Benedict senior housing complex and ourselves. Our project of 136 units is based off that market study. We build to the market and 5 to 10 years down the road. We have 50 plus campus's. Some 200+ campus's and some 90 unit campus's. So we have been paying great attention to this Headwaters project. Have kept asking ourselves, do these guys know what they are doing, have they done a market study, if so do they know something about this market we do not know. Yesterday, to our surprise we got the answer. We learned Headwaters is using the same Market Study from Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. that we ori�inated and paid for to make our determination. The report does not include our 136 units or there 125 units in the calculus. We contacted Viewpoint about this and got this answer, " they had not heard that we were moving on this project, so charged them for it". Double dipped. Needless to say we are not happy Viewpoint did not check with us prior to handing the study to someone else. (that's our issue). The point is there is not enough senior living market share in Monticello now and in the next few years supported by the Viewpoint and City market studies to support- ST Benedicts, ourselves (Tealwood senior living) and Headwaters. Someone will likely not survive. Does Headwaters know about us? Our view is if the city rezones the prime business parcel for them and grants them waivers, (ex. Mississippi Scenic River overlay height restriction) etc. to make the site work, that an uneven playing field has been created. If the parcel is not rezoned for Headwaters and they choose to develop on another property in the Monticello market like IRET did a few years ago when they were denied rezoning on this same parcel, then that is free enterprise and we just have to have the best campus with superior service and someone will not survive. z Attached are some Facts and Considerations for your review and contemplation For a healthy city and competitive environment, Our team (Trident Development, Tealwood senior living, Mielke Development) PS please contact us with any questions or concerns Planning Commission Agenda — 10/02/18 3A. Consideration of Communitv Development Director's Report Council Action on Commission Recommendations There were no September land use applications for Council consideration. Planning Commission — October Joint Worksession The City has received a concept stage PUD submittal proposal for a 136-unit senior living facility proposed along 7th Street in Monticello. The Planning Commission and City Council will hold a joint worksession for overview and feedback on Monday, October 8th at 5:15 PM prior to the regular Council meeting. A quorum of the Commission is needed to proceed. Planning Commission — November Meeting Date Commission will note that due to the General Election on Tuesday, November 6th, the Planning Commission's regular meeting for November will be on Monday, November Sth, 2018. Sign Ordinance It was noted in response to a recent inquiry regarding electronic message boards that dynamic displays are not currently allowed in residential zoning districts. This regulation therefore limits the ability for civic or institutional uses located in residential districts the ability to utilize this form of signage. This restriction applies to schools, hospitals, places of public assembly such as churches, or even public buildings such as Public Works and the Monticello Library to utilize electronic message boards. At present, civic and institutional uses are allowed two free-standing signs, but the ordinance does not allow for either to be a dynamic display. Relevant excerpts of ordinance are attached for reference. Planning staff are bringing this matter to the attention of the Planning Commission as the Commission may wish to evaluate whether one of these signs (or wall signage) may incorporate dynamic display for civic and institutional uses and conditions would such use be allowed. If the Commission would like to address the issue, staff would recommend calling for staff to review the item for a public hearing in November or December, 2018. Construction Update Planning Commissioners will note the following construction activity in the coming months: o Rivertown Suites: Grading and footings and foundation for the 47-unit, 4 story apartment complex in the CCD (Central Community District), located at Locust and 3rd Streets. Planning Commission Agenda — 10/02/18 o Carlisle Village 6th Addition: Commencement of development activity associated with the development of the former Outlot A of Carlisle Village 2"d Addition, platted as Carlisle Village 6th Addition, to consist of 72 townhome units originally preliminary platted in 2005. Walnut Street Concept Corridor Plan City Council held a workshop on September 24th, 2018 to provide feedback on the final draft of the Walnut Street Concept Corridor Plan, which provides short and long-term implementation strategies for improving the corridor. The plan was developed to support the Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan's goal of "Shift the center of Downtown to Walnut & Broadway". CCD Ordinance Amendment Thank you to the Commission for attending the CCD ordinance workshop in September. The ordinance should be ready for consideration at the November meeting of the Commission. The Commission is asked to call for a hearing on the amendment for Monday, November Sth, 2018. Planning Commission Workplan Included for Commission's reference is the 2018 Planning Commission Workplan. In November, staff will prepare a summary of year-to-date activity per the plan. Staff will also provide the Planning Commission with a form for 2019 Workplan input and direction. The goal will be to adopt a workplan in December. 2 �i�1�►� i �� 4: �i�ilS�vf�� h��h �� Section 4.5 Signs Subsection (H) General Provisions (17) Time and Temperature Signs Within commercial and industrial zoning districts, an area not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet within a freestanding or wall sign shall be allowed for display of an electronic time and temperature sign subject to the sign provisions for the zoning district in which the sign is located. (18) Projecting Signs Projecting signs may be allowed in commercial districts provided that: (a) There is a minimum of eight (8) feet of clearance under the base of the sign to the ground below. (b) The sign does not project more than five (5) feet beyond the wall to which it is mounted, may not project over any vehicular drive aisle or traveled portion of a public or private street and except in the CCD, Central Community District may not project over a public right-of-way. (c) The area of the proj ecting sign is not more than fifty (50) percent of the maximum area allowed for an individual wall sign in the respective zoning district in Section 4.5(J). (19) Dynamic Displays (a) Findings Based on studies related to the use of dynamic sign displays and driver distraction, the City finds that dynamic signs, as defined by the zoning ordinance, have a unique potential to create driver distraction, a major cause of traffic crashes. As a result, the City has adopted special regulations that relate to such signs. These regulations shall apply to all proposed dynamic signage in the City, whether new or existing, conforming or non-conforming at the time of adoption of this ordinance. (b) Regulations governing Dynamic Sign Displays (i) Dynamic sign displays shall have messages that change instantaneously, and do not fade, dissolve, blink, or appear to simulate motion in any way. Prohibited blinking signs shall include signs which are displayed as continuous solid messages for less than the time required by subpart (iii) of this subsection below. The exception to this regulation is the allowance of inessages that appear to scroll horizontally across the sign, but are otherwise in compliance with the requirements of this ordinance, including the definition of "scrolling signs". i�a�� City e�t iYiontice�ta �onrng �rdinanee �h�� m �i��Si-i��u� �°��i�5 Section 4.5 Signs Subsection (H) General Provisions (ii) Dynamic sign displays shall not be permitted in any Residential zoning district. (iii) Dynamic sign displays shall be permanent signs. (iv) No dynamic sign display shall change more than one time per three (3) second period; time and temperature displays may change as frequently as once every three (3) seconds. (v) Dynamic sign displays shall be no brighter than other illuminated signs in the same district. (vi) Dynamic sign displays shall be designed to freeze the display in the event of malfunction, and the owner shall discontinue the display immediately upon malfunction, or upon notice from the City that the display violates the City's regulations. (vii) Applicants for dynamic sign displays shall sign a license agreement supplemental to the building permit agreeing to operation of a sign in conformance with these regulations. Violation ofthese regulations shall result in forfeiture of the license, and the City shall be authorized to arrange disconnection of electrical service to the sign display. (viii) No dynamic sign display shall be permitted to be located in a yard or on the side of a building which abuts a residentially zoned parcel. (20) Design and Materials Standards for Signs in Commercial Districts, Industrial Districts, the CCD District, PUDs, and Performance Based Enhancement District Development (a) In General The design and materials of any sign shall be consistent with the building materials requirements of the district in which the sign is located, and shall be the same as, or compatible with, the materials and design of the principal building(s) on the property. (b) Specific Materials for Pylon Signs All exposed pole or post structures must be wrapped or faced with stucco, architectural metal, brick or stone consistent with building architecture. City a� J✓✓�-nt�cedio �onsng'rvir��nce ��; t� W 0.r�� (i `F: PYiWe�TO�� ?�.#�h .��l+'� Section 4.5 Signs Subsection (J) District Regulations (6) Temporary signage may be located on a vacant parcel adj acent to a parcel occupied by an active and permitted principal use, when such properties are held in the same ownership. (� District Regulations In addition to the signs allowed by Section 4.5(C) and Section 4S(�, the following signs shall be allowed within the specific zoning districts: (1) Within residential zoning districts (see table 3-1), the following additional regulations apply: (a) Except for the uses specified in Sections 4.5(J)(1)(b) and 4S(J)(1)(c) below, not more than one (1) sign shall be allowed provided that: (i) The area of the sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet. (ii) Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of four (4) feet. (b) In addition to the sign allowed by Section 4.5(J)(1)(a) above, residential uses shall be allowed one (1) monument sign per collector or arterial street access. Such sign shall meet the requirements of this ordinance and shall be constructed at the time of plat or phased plat development adjacent to the collector or arterial access. (c) Civic and institutional uses shall be allowed two (2) monument signs per lot meeting the requirements of this ordinance. 2 Within business and industrial zonin districts see table 3-1 the followin TheFreewavBonus � � g � �� g Si.�nOverlavDistr•ict additional regulations shall apply: allows for addttio�l sig�2aQe in speci�ic commercial and (a) Total Area of Signs tndustr�al areas The total area of all signs (with the exclusion of freestanding signs as may be �Se�tion 3.7L)7 allowed by this code) displayed on a lot shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total building facade fronting not more than two (2) public streets. (b) Freestanding Signs (i) Unless otherwise specified in this section, one (1) sign is allowed per lot. The area of a freestanding sign may not exceed one hundred (100) square feet each side with a maximum height of twenty-two (22) feet. (ii) If a monument, rather than pylon sign is utilized, an additional one hundred (100) square feet of area beyond the total area calculated in i�`�� `� ;�� c�� f�Ion�ieeiso �or�ir�g �rcr'ir�ante er-IA�rE� s: usE sr��aAa�s Section 5. I Use Table �ubsection (A) F�cplanation of Use Table Structure � � . .- . � -. �.. . . . . -. -. • . -. Residential Uses 5.2(Cl( I 1 Attached Dwelling Types 5.2(Cl(21(al - Duplex p C 5.2(Cl(21(bl - Townhouse C p 5.2(Cl(21(cl - Multiple-Family C P C C 5.2(Cl(21(dl Detached Dwelling p p p p p p None Group Residential P P P P P 5 2(C1(31 Facility, Single Family Group Residential C C C 5.2(C1(31 Facility, Multi-Family Mobile & Manufactured C C C P C 5.2(C1(41 Home / Home Park Civic & Institutional Uses Active Park Facilities P P P P P P P P P P P P p p p None (public) Active Park Facilities P P P P P P P 5 2(D1(11 (private) Assisted Living Facilities C P C C P 5•2(Dl(21 Cemeteries C C C C C C C 5•2(Dl(31 Clinics/Medical Services C p p C None Essential Services p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p None Hospitals C p p C 5.2(D1(41 Nursing/Convalescent C C C C C C C C C P P 5.2(Dl(5l Home Passenger Terminal C C C C None Passive Parks and Open P P P P P P P P P P P P p p p None Space Place of Public Assembly C C C C C p C 5.2(D)(6) Public Buildings or Uses C C C C C C C P C C P P C P P 5•2(Dl(7l Schools, K-12 C C C C C C � � 5.2(Dl(81 Schools, Higher Education None C Utilities (major) C C C 5.2(D1(91 O�ce Uses Offices P P P P P P P 5.2(El City of Monticello Zoning Ordinanc� Page 325 f , E �� -� Mc�r�tic+�l.�� Monticello Planning Commission 2018 Goals & Obj ectives Workplan The Monticello Planning Commission is established to advise the Mayor, Council and Community Development Department in matters conceming planning and land use matters; to review and make recommendations regarding the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, subdivision and zoning ordinances and other planning rules and regulations; to establish planning rules and regulations; and to conduct public hearings. 2018 Statement: The Planning Commission will support the efforts of the City Council to achieve the 2017/2018 Strategic Plan and will review its long- and short-term planning framework for necessary updates or amendments which address the changing land use needs and goals of the community. The Planning Commission will work collaboratively with other City boards and commissions in its work to achieve the strategic goals of the city. Comprehensive Plan General Review Implementation Strategies (Chapter 1- Framework) for items remaining to accomplish. o Update of Subdivision Ordinance in conjunction with overall City Code recodification. Land Use As the City's primary planning agency, actively lead and participate in 2018 Comprehensive Plan Land Use update process. o Evaluate Places to Work/Industrial land area inventory and site development challenges in support of increasing and diversifying the tax base and providing living wage employment opportunity. o Develop recommendations for residential density identification within the City's growth area in support of Comprehensive Plan goals and increasing residential lot inventory and development. o Analyze and recommend land use planning designations for Silver Springs and Interchange planning areas. o Review in more detail the commercial land inventory and recommend zoning classification in support of the City's long-range goals. Support the implementation of the Downtown Small Area Plan o Participate in zoning ordinance amendments corresponding to plan goals. Transportation • Receive an update on the City Capital Improvement Plan - the City's guide to capital investment within the community; determine any required actions steps associated with priority capital projects. • Respond to the TH 25 Corridor Study as necessary and directed by the City Council. Park & Pathway • Consider for adoption an appendix to the System Plan to include needed pathway corridor connections to strengthen the City's goal of a more walkable and bikeable community. Economic Development • Develop an understanding of and support the EDA's role in redevelopment, housing and economic development, including: o Marketing of vacant property and redevelopment sites o Affordable housing o Rehabilitation of housing o Downtown development/redevelopment programs Zoning Ordinance • Complete ordinance updates in support of the Downtown Small Area Plan, focusing on zoning strategies to support use and redevelopment of underutilized properties. • Complete a community evaluation for purpose of evaluate and recommendation on performance standards, including: o General site landscaping standards o Dynamic display standards o Noise • Analyze industrial use standards, including building material and landscaping requirements. • Pending the adoption of new flood hazard determinations, adopt an amendment to the Floodplain Overlay District which provides consistency with State regulations. Research £� CitU Department Update Topics As resources and time allow, the Planning Commission will consider research and information related to the following topic areas, which are listed in priority order. To ic E-ci arettes/va or loun es, zonin and state re lations Com lete streets lannin Zonin for medical mari'uana Zonin for "air bed and breakfasts' Land use im acts related to driverless vehicles Review the current ermittin rocess and cate ories for Home Occu ations