Planning Commission Agenda 07-07-2020 (Joint Meeting)AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 7th, 2020 — 4:30 p.m.
North Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Meeting will occur in person at the Monticello Community Center with recommended
social distancing procedures in place for the Commission, applicants, and public.
Council Members: Mayor Brian Stumpf, Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Lloyd Hilgart, and
Charlotte Gabler
Commissioners: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, and Alison
Zimpfer
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
2. Regular Agenda
A. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development proposal for a 53-unit multifamily
housing development.
Applicant: Duffy Development Company, Inc
3. Adjournment
������li�d� ��r�����1��� 4����Oi�4A���dh ���t
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
NAC FILE NO:
PLANNING CASE NO
PROPERTY ID:
Angela Schumann
Mayor Stumpf and Monticello City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
Stephen Grittman
June 29, 2020
Monticello — Duffy Development Multi Family Project—
Concept PUD Review
191.07 — 20.05
2020-017
155-226-000020
Application and Proiect Description. This memorandum reviews the elements of a
proposed concept plan for a Planned Unit Development on the parcel bound by 7tn
Street to the north, Elm Street to the west, vacant commercial property to the east, and
I-94 to the south. The development parcel consists of approximately 2.66 acres out of a
total of 20 acres, all of which is currently zoned and guided for commercial use.
The 20 acre parcel currently has no development upon it. The eastern boundary of the
site abuts the Runnings retail property. North of 7t" Street is a mix of inedium density
residential development and other vacant land zoned and guided for residential use.
Access to future development on the subject property is provided from 7t" Street.
The applicants have proposed the conversion of the northwest corner of the property to
residential use, leaving a strip of the primary parcel along I-94 for further commercial
development.
The proposed project consists of a 53 unit multi-family building. The site plan shows
one access point from 7t" Street. The proposal comes from Duffy Development, and is
designed to provide "workforce" housing for families making generally less than about
$62,000 (family of four). There is a sliding scale of income qualification, dependent on
family size. The income limitations are set by the State of Minnesota's tax credit
program, from which the applicants will qualify for financing that infuses equity into the
project, facilitating feasibility.
The applicant's narrative describes the tax credit program, and the timing. At this stage,
the applicants are seeking comments from the City, and some confidence that the City
will support the plan, after which the applicants will seek the tax credits in a competitive
process. In support of their tax credit application, the applicant's narrative describes
three primary PUD flexibility areas for which they are seeking specific direction from the
city. These are a reduction in front setback, reduction in parking count, and relaxation
in minimum unit square footage size. If the Commission and Council find these areas of
flexibility to be acceptable, these items would be considered the same as a monetary
contribution commitment by the city and will allow the applicant to score additional
points in their application to MHFA.
If successful in procuring the credits, the applicants will return next spring (2021) for
more formal zoning approvals.
The property is currently zoned B-3, Highway Business District. However, the
developers are asking for the parcel to be rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit Development
District, utilizing the R-4, Medium-High Residence District as the baseline zoning for
comparative purposes.
The structure would include (in concept form) 9 one-bedroom units, 24 two-bedroom
units, and 20 three-bedroom units. The remainder of the site consists of parking and
open space, including underground parking below the building area.
The multi-family housing project would provide 46 uncovered, on grade parking stalls,
with an additional 38 stalls of parking underground. The underground parking would be
accessible from an easterly entrance off 7t" Street.
To facilitate this layout, and to retain as much commercial land along I-94 as possible,
the applicants are seeking flexibility from the extensive setbacks that would otherwise
apply to R-4 development. The typical requirements would be 100 feet for building front
setbacks, and 40 feet on a corner side yard. The proposed site plan anticipates moving
toward 7t" Street to a setback of approximately 50 feet. It is important to note that no
parking or other hard surfaced areas would be located in this setback, consistent with
the R-4 standard.
The city's zoning ordinance states a density for the R-4 district of 10-25 units per acre.
With the parcel size of 2.66 acres, the residential density is approximately 19.9 units per
acre.
For the project to proceed, there are a series of City approvals that will be required:
o PUD Concept Review (the subject of this report). The project requires a PUD as
it proposes to develop a combination of separate land parcels and a mix of land
uses that will share access to School Boulevard. In addition, certain aspects of
site design may require flexibility.
Further approvals would include the following:
o Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment reguiding the proposed residential
parcel from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live";
o Preliminary and Final Plats incorporating the residential and remaining
commercial parcels, and resubdividing the property for the proposed commercial
and residential uses;
o Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District;
The current proposal is for a PUD Concept Plan review, which is not a formal zoning
application, but is intended to provide the applicant an opportunity to get City feedback
on a potential development proposal prior to more formal zoning review and the
extensive supporting materials that such reviews require. The Planning Commission
and City Council will have the opportunity to review the project, ask questions of the
proposer, and provide comment as to the issues and elements raised by the project.
Again, the applicant is also looking for specific feedback in the three areas of PUD
flexibility noted in their narrative.
The neighboring property owners have been notified of the meeting, but it is not a
formal public hearing. This memorandum provides an overview of the project and will
serve as an outline for the discussion. No formal approval or denial is offered for a
Concept Review.
However, it is vital that Planning Commission and City Council members engage in a
frank and open discussion of the project benefits and potential issues. The Concept
Review process is most valuable when the applicants have the opportunity to
understand how the City is likely to look at the project and the potential issues it
presents. In this way, the subsequent land use and development details can be more
finely tuned to address City policy elements.
PUD Concept Review Criteria. The first stage consists of an informal Concept Plan
review which is separate from the formal PUD application which will follow the Concept
Review step. The Ordinance identifies the purpose of Planned Unit Development as
follows:
(1) Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is to
provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non-
residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more
creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and
marketable. This is achieved by undertaking a process that results in a
development outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable
through the conventional zoning district. The City reserves the right to
2
deny the PUD rezoning and direct the developer to re-apply under the
standard applicable zoning district.
PUD Concept reviews are to proceed as follows:
(a) PUD Concept Proposal
Prior to submitting formal development stage PUD, preliminary plat
(as applicable) and rezoning applications for the proposed
development, the applicant may, at its option, prepare an informal
concept plan and present it to the Planning Commission and City
Council at a concurrent work session, as scheduled by the
Community Development Department. The purpose of the Concept
Proposal is to:
1. Provide preliminary feedback on the concept plan in
collaboration between the applicant, general public, Planning
Commission, and City Council;
2. Provide a forum for public comment on the PUD prior to a
requirement for extensive engineering and other plans.
3. Provide a forum to identify potential issues and benefits of the
proposal which can be addressed at succeeding stages of PUD
design and review.
The intent of Concept Proposal review is to consider the general acceptability of
the proposed land use, and identify potential issues that may guide the City's
later consideration of a full PUD application. The City Council and Planning
Commission meet in joint session to provide feedback to the developer, and may
include an opportunity for informal public comment as they deem appropriate.
Staff Preliminarv Comments and Issues. For this proposal, the primary
considerations evident at this point in the process include the following elements:
Land Use. As stated above, the proposed land use is currently zoned B-3
Highway Business District, and guided "Places to Shop" (Commercial). The
property has long been expected to develop as commercial property, given
the high levels of commercial use along 7t" Street to the east, and the I-94
exposure. Monticello's code states that B-3 property can be rezoned for
multiple family residential uses if it is not in a prime commercial area.
Given that the applicants have illustrated a site plan which retains the I-94
exposure for commercial uses, does the City consider this site 2.66an
important component of its commercial land inventory? If not, multiple family
residential may be considered a reasonable use given the mix of other uses
in the immediate area, including townhomes to the north, and other multi-
residential to the northeast.
3
In evaluating past requests for rezoning of commercial property to R-4, the
city has looked to its policy discussions held at the time of the adoption of the
R-4 district, which suggest that rezoning be considered when factors such as
access, surrounding land use, inventory, etc. support the conversion.
While the real estate market had significantly slowed during the last several
years, commercial development continued in some measure, occurring
almost exclusively in more easily accessible areas. The proposed site would
appear to be a reasonable candidate for non-commercial uses. City officials
need to determine if they consider this property non-prime commercial area in
order to be amended.
As a part of this consideration, the City's new Community Vision document,
and the companion Future Land Use Strategies document (in draft form), both
speak to the opportunities for additional multiple family housing, as well as the
importance for options available to workforce families. The draft Land Use
Strategies document under guides the subject site as a Commercial and
Residential Flex use, which presumes a mix of the two land uses, more than
likely accomplished through planned unit development.
It is noted throughout both documents that housing choice is changing, driven
by both generational changes and lifestyle choices. Rental options —
particularly those available to young families in transition, and those seeking
proximity to walkable, mixed use areas, are important components of the
City's makeup. Trends in other areas support the continued increasing
demand for Monticello as well.
The applicants have suggested that they may also acquire the adjoining I-94
frontage parcel as a part of a future project. At this time, there is no
development plan for that additional parcel, although the applicants suggest
that either commercial or residential may be part of a future proposal. That
being said, the current concept PUD discussion only involves the 7t" Street
frontage parcel, and the current Concept request is not dependent on the
other parcel land use or development.
ii. Parking and Circulation. The plan relies on underground parking for a
significant portion of the parking supply. Because underground parking is
expensive, it's inclusion in a project that ill be affordable to workforce families
is an important factor. In past multi-family housing proposals, the city has
been consistent in looking for under-building or underground parking as a
requirement supporting rezoning to R-4.
The total parking provided in the concept is 84 stalls, or 1.6 stalls per unit,
which is less than the 2.25 required by ordinance. The plan proposes .87
stalls per unit uncovered. The uncovered calculation meets the maximum
requirement of 1.1 spaces uncovered.
0
One of the objectives of the R-4 district was to reduce the visual impact of
large multi-family parking lots along the main access road. As noted, the
applicants have located all surface parking away from the exposure from
adjacent roadways. This design, coupled with the underground parking
supply, mitigates the loss of setback area along 7t" Street.
iii. Building Height and Architecture. The applicants have provided
preliminary details relating to building design at this stage. Staff would note
that the R-4 zoning district encourages certain specific elements related to
roof line, building materials, and overall design. The supplied concept
drawings show a varied roof line and wall farade facing 7t" Street.
The applicant is seeking some flexibility with the roof line, as they are
proposing a mix of roof slopes, between 4:12 (the dominant roof slope) and
6:12 present in the gable ends. The R-4 District specifies a minimum 5:12
roof slope, and as such, the PUD component would be necessary to facilitate
the proposed design.
The proposed building is 3 stories of residential use (just 2 stories on the
lower west end), which would be expected to rise to approximately 50 feet in
height over the lowest grade. On the west side of the building, the at-grade
floor includes parking garage, consistent with the intent of the R-4 District
standards.
Building materials are illustrated in this submission, and include a mixture of
masonry and vinyl siding. PUD design is expected to exceed the basic
district standards in exchange for the flexibility offered under the PUD
process. The applicants have worked toward this aspect with a secondary
roofline above the 2"d story, enhancing the design with an articulated building
wall and balconies, all of which add interest and shadowing to the building.
The developer is also proposing the introduction of PUD flexibility with regard
to the minimum unit size for units, with some units proposed as under the 900
square foot minimum. It is noted that the building does include a number of 3
bedroom units.
iv. Site Planning. A preliminary site plan is provided as a part of the PUD
Concept plan. Staff notes that specific requirements for open space and
extensive setback regulations apply in the R-4 District. If the applicants
propose to vary from the base zoning standards, they should provide
rationale that supports the variation, and note the additional amenities or
elements of the site plan that balance the proposed flexibility. Civil plans are
yet to be developed, and these are likely to result in modifications to the site
plan as the project proceeds through PUD review.
a. The zoning requirements for the setback standards need to be taken into
consideration. As noted above, the applicants are hoping to utilize PUD to
5
flex the front setback requirement, but will meet the other required
setbacks. The R-4 setback standards are as follows:
i. 100 feet, front side
ii. 40 feet, corner side
iii. 40 feet, rear
iv. Clear open space from ROW - 60 feet,
v. Clear open space from property line - 40 feet.
v. Connectivity and Open Space. Based on the site plan and concept
narrative provided by the applicant, the amount of open space was not
detailed, although the plan shows open common space in the courtyard on
the south side of the building. Stormwater management requirements will
impact usable open space.
To meet the zoning standards, the applicant must propose at least 500
square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. The high amount of
impervious surface (driveways, parking, sidewalks and principal buildings)
appears to limit usable green space available to future residents of the
project. Maximizing the utility and attractiveness of the open space on the
site would be an important design consideration as the project moves
forward, both as a component of residential environment and to meet the
City's intended amenities requirement under a PUD option.
a. Trails. As a residential project, it would be important to provide
connections for residents to nearby amenities, such as schools, shopping
and the downtown. 7t" Street was constructed with a pathway on the
north side of the roadway, extending to Elm Street east to Minnesota
Street. Residents of this development would have to cross 7t" Street, walk
east, and re-cross 7t" Street. More current trail planning has incorporated
a policy of sidewalk and/or pathway on both sides of major (collector and
arterial) roadways. The applicant will therefore be required as part of
platting to include pathway along their frontage on the south side of 7tn
Street and along Elm.
Connections in the pathway system north of 7t" Street along Elm are also
being explored. In support of continued efforts to complete gaps in its
pathway system, the city may initiate a pathway improvement project in
the area and assess the cost per current city policy. It may also be
possible to utilize TIF to complete an extension of the system along Elm
with this development. Further, the property owner should be aware that
an extension of the pathway westward along the south side of 7t" Street
will be required as part of any future development. Similar to Elm Street,
the city may also initiate a pathway connection project in the area and
assess the cost per current city policy.
0
b. Parks. The property would require platting and is therefore subject to park
dedication requirements. Country Club Park is approximately'/4 mile from
the site, within the 1/2 mile distance standard identified in the Park and
Pathway Plan However, it is noted that this park may have some
limitations for this development due to current lack of trail connections and
that it is interior to the Country Club neighborhood,
vi. Landscaping and Buffering. The project will be subject to a buffer
requirement between the commercial and residential properties, requiring
specific additional setbacks and landscaping to screen and buffer the differing
land uses. It would be expected that the development provide enhanced
landscaping features as part of any PUD flexibility.
vi. Civil Site Design. The City Engineer has provided a separate comment
letter regarding utility, access and stormwater issues.
vii. Board Review. The EDA has been asked to consider a preliminary
resolution of support for the concept in anticipation of the developer's tax
credit application. The EDA adopted a resolution of support of the
development and use of TIF assistance to fill an identified funding gap of
$500,00, citing the need for workforce housing in the community, and noting
that 100% of the units will be affordable.
The City Council will also be asked on July 13t", 2020 to consider a
resolution of support for establishment of a TIF district, as well as a
letter or resolution of support for the flexibilities noted in this report.
If the project is successful in its tax credit application, the EDA and
City would have a series of required formal considerations and
applications in relationship to the TIF District and the land use
proposals.
The PARC will review a future subdivision request for recommendation on
park dedication requirements.
Summary. As noted, the Planning Commission and City Council provide comment and
feedback to the developer at the Concept Review level. City officials should identify any
areas of concern that would require amendment to avoid the potential for eventual
denial, as well as any elements of the concept that the City would find essential for
eventual approval.
Specific comment should address the following potential issues, with the notation that
the applicant is looking for specific direction with regard to the Commission and
Council's support of PUD flexibility for parking, unit size and front setback. Those items
are listed in bold below.
7
1. Overall Land Use — Is the site appropriate to change from commercial to
residential? Existing and in-process Comprehensive Planning elements
encourage the additional introduction of new housing styles and affordability
levels to meet the increased diversity of housing demand. The current zoning
code also encourages R-4 zoning in non-prime commercial areas.
2. Density — The density is below the City's maximum R-4 threshold, but relies on
PUD flexibility to moderate setbacks, open space, and other features such as
roofline and minimum unit size for single bedroom units.
3. Setback — The site plan demonstrates compliance with minimum setbacks with
the exception of the front setback. Again, the 50' setback proposed is moderated
by parking located behind/central to the site.
4. Unit Size - The applicant proposed flexibility in the minimum unit size for its
single bedroom units.
5. Building Design and Materials — The building architecture and materials appears
to be consistent with the intent of the R-4 District standards, with the
consideration of a variable mix of roof slopes and enhanced materials.
6. Parking Supply- and the access locations of the covered parking garage.
7. Landscaping, green space, setbacks, and other site plan improvements — How
adequately does the plan provide access to trails and open space?
8. Circulation and Access — Consider conceptual changes to the entry drives to
accommodate internal emergency vehicle circulation.
9. Engineering comments and recommendations.
The notes listed above acknowledge that a significant amount of detail will be added as
the project proceeds to a more advanced stage of review.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Site Image
B. Applicant Narrative
C. Site Plan
D. Building Elevations
E. City Engineer's Comment Letter
F. R-4 Zoning Standards
G. 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Excerpts
H. Monticello 2020 Vision Statement, Excerpts
I. Link to 2017 Housinq Study
J. Link to June 10t" EDA Staff Report and Applicant Presentation
0
o ,, , .
u ,,,Y��,. `,� `' � . �'r { ,;., i'.' w' ` Q�-^� � �
we . , d � c� , �
c `,�F', . r . �' �" � -CS 4 �r' ' . � w�r � � .. j
� 4 ` ti ,;�ls� .■ � . � '� z . '
� , c'
� " •: p � - �. ' �,� + � -
� f ." , � �: � � ' ,, i�� � � ' r41� �'
� �.�; .� � 1 � � , � �;�� �� : o' ' ,.
��•' �, - �.� �,� ' �' ti j�'
� � � ,Ai � '��� '��� � � i � �„ � '+ +��.• .�, ''
-o `�� �'� , �
� � �j . rr,�. ,� ��: - °; ���� . � - .
� � • � ,� � v �
� � � � �� � ,t` r ��' �c�� �cv � . , � • +� . ���
� �," �,��r�� � #. � �+�� �r � �' �`' ' i' . � � � '� . O�
r: t -� ��.� �� _. ' �
� � �"`�"t' , �. • � - � � o - � a 15,,:�r� c�A �C ""
� �L i� � �� �¢�s y , . C = • �
�' ' r;. '�; . � � r � i .. �ta TI ' il7 f ^� :n�rn
O � � ' �.� I � �,r . � - , '- . �7��;.- 7 �. � .� �'
� ° �', � � 7d � � ' � ; � �.� � ' � �"'°=',�.� ' '►�� ,, � �-}.� '' � � i�
.'�" b .�e g. �ti�.......`�,
� ; , ,, ,�v�r _.a _ . -.�. ,� _. .
I,�' ' .
^ 1 . 1� . i' ���.; �-�:� ! r .T, � �� � �_ „� ����� � -.����1�.�--�4 �fY _ r • � ... ---
W ,,�
� S ! � + � •
� �,, r J p�•
i �'�.� L.1.. `�-L �'`. 'CQi.
' V` '
r
�"� � �� -y' �� aaY � . i ' � L �,�.� J �;CJ' .� — � � � . LCi
• ry� 1 '� i� , j �
� � � .s ■� • � i '. � �
� ' �` �' .. ;' . � Y �, . r�,
: F �. � � � ,� � �� : � � i �
�` MARVl�1 R�.
� �' '� � , : �' IV41�+1�1��SOTA 5T � ; � �
.. _
E �_'
� � � � � ^ ,.. ' � � r'S.
M �� ,� r 'r�� . . 4., � .
� � � � ' I . .; ' �O ��� jt . ' ^ � � !�
� ' , �y
:� � - � _ �' � �, "„� m ; ' � I � � � ��'7 � � ( l ! � �i'� • � ��:
K :r.
. �:� l � � �
a N ' `� ; � �n� ��' � + � �-. p � ,
>
�� �,
� ]3 `���= ,�� , � ,4n� c� �; crv � : ���
('�6 �N� �,� � r-�"r"q� - k�� °n � _� �' � [,�.� �� � .. 4, ,i� , . , . - t
r . .
� '` A��� � � ;, , : '� . ��
(,/) . I� s : . _ ri�. , '!�"'� � _ }efi
+� r r � . � ` :� �' � T �
_ . --
�> ,
�- 'Mf ..� ;°4 , �. �`� . � �:�. � n � + o.
� ��'" . � �`�� �g g �� �, � � ��
v�-, , _ �
� � � , t:�• __ �
: �� _ � k' C'�
�._ _. ' Y.� t OG
U `� ��, ' �. . � '; - �.
µk � .
L a j'. +'
0 0 � '� _
N ,:w
W O ^ � j�r �}t r r.O� . .. � � �i
� � � _; ' F :: � '�� � k J� �,�; �'` y ' i
� � .�` �r. � � � ' � ' � �. � ' ` � '�.
VJ (�l „�1' a. r• G� �
� (�l � � b �� s x 4� �� � 4� �
- � �'�;�""n-� �� { d . it1 �at,�µ�7��'. . � � [y � � -
U Lii ,�„', � '*" �`..i '.r :��`yPr � 0 f . .-., . ���� � li'a��� �r � r, .
� �' �, ' � r J � � . 1�` � 4 tif'� r � ..,
� F � ,:y �� �'� '��''' j : \ ; ' Q r y P ,� ' �
— Q �•. � r� � � Q�:� .. ► , . ' Yj�._ a►f'�; �'`! �
�y r .
� a '�.' �,"' �� , ' . �IT ��`� � { �� � � i . � � -=�-T �
� � :� 3�
.
� — �„�. . � � �`S'� ra, 4 r �= k� r; .
f� C �� � ' � 1 , r� � � �
� � c� % ��} �t w
Q' � ��
� 0 . � � p -r � '''�+J�`�.�, . .� � ,., , � . r .
y ! „�.. . p ' � ���'J
�
0 � �" �' �.�� r'� � - "�"' ��•' ,; � �, � : � � , .
Q �+,�, `!�� . _���,1 ,�,,��� } y . � ,�
U � ,� , �,� t � ,1��. d��. T' �, ��G � r, { !� ,n,
�--' � -,. ','�;;� .+' t � �, :� ; °�; r�,/ ' r*: ��y �.r f , s�
` � a-�� v �,� �;� �"� �m�, �-,.� r, � � �
Qi � � + i � r � '� �':. �� 4 : � �5a` � Tx�N r:. ( ; "' �,, � 1�
'' ` F � �'��!'.G � 4, 4 �` r�� /r � 4[Y ` � G� �
� �y�,�y' N !=
� +��". � �'! w�.. ' C7.�s. � �: 3,+� L�� Y � F�� �� w 1, `lf ..l Y .��" f � �� �� �{�..�
O/�r� � � �4�� �4f} t ly 1.i � �' �� •u�'7��y . � �� . � . Jy y'y, , _ r� � �N i17 � :�-,�, ��
V � �''i�.� �'` � �U7 �.. .r¢�'. � {..,� -s v �'�� -r?4r_ �'r� N .lfZ
� � " i ,� � � �"v�[� � r",, a .: �„'r�+ �'�f .�1� f} w �= ��
yy� a � i
� +-+ � �'� � � . +lli ^� ti : � ` �� �, ef'7-- .�! � - �r- r T � � / . � .
� O } ` �n:3� �, �: , "� r`� �,n,. K . �' v �y] � ' C
p � :,'., �; � , �� ,: � t� ,���" , � S . � � Z , f, � � •r
� Q `'�` .. . � �� ��„ � ���, � �� � �v M
� � ` , r � � �• . � . '., i�'�� .
� bA r h �t�r' L .f' � x � � �, � 'rp �.
� � � I,� `�� _ 4` � . d' , QP
June 10, 2020
City of Monticello
Community Development
PUD — Concept Proposal Narrative
Duffy Development Company, Inc. is proposing the development of a 53-unit multifamily housing
development in Monticello. The site, located at the northwest corner of 7t" Street West and Elm Street,
will encompass approximately 2.66 acres and is proposed to have driveway access off of 7t" Street West.
The housing proposal will provide 53 units of workforce housing with rents that will serve households
with incomes at or below 50% of the area median income. This housing is primarily meant to serve a
family of four that would have an income of approximately $62,000 or less. Rents would range from
$875 for a one-bedroom to $1,200 for a three-bedroom unit. As proposed currently, the building would
have 9 one-bedroom units, 24 two-bedroom units and 20 three-bedroom units. Property amenities
would include an on-site playground, underground parking, a community room, a fitness room and on-
site management and a secured entrance. Unit amenities would include a full appliance package with
in-unit washer and dryer, walk-in closets and balconies/patios. The building will be constructed using
the guidelines of "Green Communities" providing for healthy, efficient and environmentally responsible
homes.
The site is currently owned by Riverwood Bank, here in Monticello, and is a small portion of 20 acres
they own along the freeway. The land is currently zoned B-3, Highway Business District. The zoning is
described "...provide for limited commercial and service activities..." and could have uses such as
automobile dealerships or hotels. Because of the current zoning, we are requesting a change in the
zoning of this parcel and asking for a Planned Unit Development under the R-4 zoning.
The current zoning of B-3 does not have density requirements as it is not meant for residential housing.
The R-4 zone does have a density requirement of 10 — 25 units per acre. In this case, with 2.66 acres,
the density is proposed at approximately 20 units per acre.
The timing of this development is as follows:
July, 2020 — submittal of funding application to Minnesota Housing. The main funding source is the
Housing Tax Credit program.
December, 2020 — Funding awards are announced. If funded, the development moves on to design and
City approvals. If not funded, the project either waits to apply in the summer of 2021 or does not move
forward at all.
March — May, 2021— City entitlement process. Official City review and approval of development plan
and possiblyTlF support.
August, 2021— Close on financing and begin construction. Approximately 12-month construction
schedule.
August, 2022 — Construction complete and leasing begins.
December, 2062 — Affordability requirements expire.
The Concept Plan is presented as a site plan and a building elevation.
Regarding the flexibility requested. We would like to request flexibility to the R-4 zoning in the following
ways:
1. Request a reduced front yard setback. The current requirement for front yard setback is 100
feet and we request that be reduced to 40 feet which is consistent with the R3 Multi-Family
District. As a comparison, The B-3 zoning only requires a 30-foot setback. As an example, a
three-story hotel could be constructed (conditional use) within 30 feet of the property line at 7tn
Street West and 20 feet of the property line at Elm Street. Allowing the reduction of setback
provides the ability to tuck the surface parking behind the building and creating more inviting
curb appeal.
2. Request a waiver of the parking requirements. We request the City allow 1:1 parking in the
covered parking garage. If I am reading the code correctly, it currently requires 1.15 covered
parking stalls per unit. For a 53-unit building, it would require an additional eight covered
parking stalls. In our properties, each unit receives an underground parking stall included in
their rent. Our experience in this type of housing confirms our request that no more than two
stalls per unit (1 covered and 1 surface) overall, are required.
3. Request a waiver of the 900 square foot minimum. We have 9 one-bedroom units proposed in
this building. The typical one-bedroom unit in our designs is closer to 750 square feet and we
would ask that this be allowed in this design. A quick review of similar properties shows
Monticello Crossing one-bedrooms at 761 square feet and Rivertown Residential Suites from
710 to 806 square feet. We request flexibility in the minimum per code.
The zoning code allows for PUD Options for Multi-Family Buildings and we would like to suggest we can
provide improved landscaping, all garage parking underground, increase use of brick and a very
attractive building as you can see by the color elevation.
Workforce and affordable housing development is a complicated and competitive process. It requires
the developer to complete a very thorough application to Minnesota Housing, the State's housing
finance agency. Multiple steps must be achieved before an application can be submitted and
applications can only be submitted once per year. It is vital that all aspects of the application are
accounted for. A City's support for the development is critical. If nothing else, a support resolution by
the City Council goes a long way in the eyes of the State. The City has taken a helpful step. In 2017, a
housing study was generated by WSB. The study suggests the need for approximately 220 units of
rental housing by 2021 and is states Monticello should make efforts to increase affordable rental
housing inventory. One of the ways to do that is by the use of the Low-income Housing Tax Credit
program.
The program funds are awarded by score. The higher the score, the better the chance of receiving the
funding. We do our best to create the most competitive housing development without promising more
than we can deliver just to score points. Other than a resolution of support noted above, we are asking
the City for two other levels of support that will help with the scoring process.
1. We are asking the City EDA to consider Tax Increment Financing to help fill a gap in our funding.
Although it is very early in the process, we are asking the EDA to consider a TIF award in the
amount of approximately $500,000. This will fill a need in the "Readiness to Proceed" scoring
category.
2. We would like to ask the City to consider the waiver of fees or the waiver of development
requirements that will save costs to the overall development process. Items 1, 2 and 3 above, if
approved would provide cost savings. Item 1 would allow us to save on the cost of the land. At
$3.50 per square foot purchase price, reducing the setback by 60 feet would be a net savings of
approximately 18,000 square feet of space and about $63,000 of cost. Item 2 would allow the
savings of eight underground parking stalls at about $7,000 per stall. This totals $56,000. Item 3
would provide construction savings of approximately 150 square feet by nine units. A Total of
about 1,350 square feet. Construction costs assume approximately $75/foot. Therefore, a total
savings in this category of just over $100,000. All together the proposed waivers will net savings
of $219,000. This, in and of itself, would be very helpful and would score 2 points in the "Other
Contributions" scoring category.
We would be happy to describe the financing in more detail if requested.
N
�
N
N
�
t
�
N
N
U
Q
N
� �
U
.`-� N
N
0 �
N N
N �
N �
C �
N
7 �
m d
T �
N
t 7
� N
2 �
M �
m �
�
01 �
C �
C �
O N
N �
C —
� U
7 (�
U a
�
�
�
0
U
t
rn
�
O
0
C
O
r
O
N
�
C
.Q
N
0
01
J
' �^ � � Y
{� ,. '� � - �,-
- Y r
�
��
� o
����
Z
O v �o
V��ym
W 2■ o�
� U °' ^
O �■ vi�
V Q ��
�v
� ��
>�
a
� �
a
:. �, N
���
ti
c�
—
a� �
�c
oQ.
a� �
��v
o�
�
0
U
c�
z
w
m
�
�
z
�
�
0
a
Q
W
z
z
�
�
W
�
z
w
>
a
a
z
w
x
0
�
wsb
�Uiy 2, Zo2o
Matt Leonard
City Engineer/Public Works Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Duffy Affordable Apartment Complex
Concept Stage PUD Plan Review
City Project No. 2020-017
WSB Project No. R-016386-000
Dear Mr. Leonard:
We have reviewed the conceptual stage PUD site plans dated June 12, 2020. The applicant
proposes to construct a 53-unit multifamily affordable housing development.
The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Monticello's general
engineering and stormwater treatment standards. We offer the following comments regarding
these matters.
1. Streets and utilities shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City Subdivision
Ordinances and the City's General Specifications and Standard Details Plates for Street
and Utility Construction.
2. The proposed driveway access is located approximately 290 feet from Elm Street. Street
access spacing, grades, and sight lines will be reviewed with future submittals.
3. The site would generate approximately 338 daily trips, 24 AM peak hour trips and 30 PM
peak hour trips. The existing Average Daily Traffic on 7th Street is 5300 and on Elm
Street is 1550. The addition of the proposed traffic would not have an impact on roadway
capacity or operations.
4. A pedestrian path will be required along Elm Street and 7th Street adjacent to the
development site. Also, to provide connectivity, a pedestrian path is to be installed along
the south side of 7th Street to the existing sidewalk at Minnesota Street.
5. Below are General Stormwater Requirements for the Site:
a. The applicant will be required to submit a stormwater management plan for the
proposed development in accordance with the requirements in the City's Design
Manual
b. This site was designed to drain to the regional stormwater pond on the north side
of 7th St. The pond will provide rate control for the site based on a curve number
of 89.
c. The new site will need to provide onsite volume control for runoff of 1.1" over the
new impervious area, Pre-treatment measures are required prior to discharging
to the volume control BMPs.
K:\016386-OOOWdmin\Docs\2020-06-12 Submittal\_2020-06-25 LTR Duffy Apt Concept Plan - WSB Plan Review.docx
Duffy Affordable Apartment Complex Concept Stage PUD — WSB Engineering Plan Review
July 2, 2020
Page 2
d. An operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater BMPs is required and
should be submitted with the stormwater report for review.
e. The site is outside of the DWSMA and is not subject to requirements of the City's
Wellhead Protection Plan.
6. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided
with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to
construction commencing.
7. A utility plan shall be provided showing the existing and proposed sanitary sewer,
watermain and storm sewer serving the site. Watermain looping may be required
through the site to provide adequate fire flow supply. Additional utility stubs to adjacent
properties may also be required to accommodate future looping connections.
8. The building department will review required fire hydrant location(s) and emergency
vehicle access/circulation. Fire truck circulation will need to accommodate the City's
ladder truck, provide an exhibit showing turning movements.
9. A more detailed review of the development plans will be completed when the applicant
submits complete civil plans and a stormwater management report.
Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Feel free
to contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or comments regarding the engineering
review.
Sincerely,
WSB
L
James L. Stremel, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Figure 3-2: Land Use Plan Map
3-4 � Land Use City of Monticello
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
quality places 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. lhere 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.
1he primary variables become the design of the sub-
division, 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 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 hous-
ing unit is designed for occupancy by a single family.
1he housing units are physically attached to each other
in a horizontal orientation.
Places to Live will include some neighborhoods de-
signed to offer a mixture of housing types and densities.
Mixed residential neighborhoods create a pattern of
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 pat-
tern.
lhis integration strengthens neighborhoods by increas-
ing housing choice and affordability beyond what 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 hous-
ing. 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
where the setting can accommodate the taller buildings
and additional traffic.
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.
3. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a sense
of connection to the community and inspire sus-
tained investment. 1he 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.
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 hous-
ing 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
3-6 � Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3-4: Life Cycle of Housing Supply
�,� ��
`�, "
, ~��' ��N �a•�-�1�[�
a I� [� fi'-I �� �
�1;����� N: �I� '
�
� � -��
��r�r� ;. ,
��.
��
�. �
SE ■
�
I�� � � �M���
� ''" �`-""�' � - . _ . ` � �1'..
,.� _. - ���.. � _ -
_ �:
��-��-�_ a �, ' ,�� �.
*=—�.�;,,,� � ' �� r�� �
— "- ,� � ; � i�j�� 1�
� i — — "' --�" —��_
_ �
, _�
� - --
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 hous-
ing 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. These 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 loca-
tions. 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 Mon-
ticello. It is a 1<ey to retaining population. Without
a broader 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 achiev-
ing 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.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use � 3-7
0
41 0 ^ c�'
O� o o �
a �k N N
� o a � a,
C r v u � a
`° � = M
a �� o o
�, � �
� �
P�
�S
dG
G�
��G
�a
J�
�/4�
d�
°a
9
a�
P�
g
^ ����
� ad
0 9�6
N S'°a
P
Q ���
O PS
N °iP
v t�'
s g
r
3 �a
i ��/ �
_ � �s
� �4
� as'�Q
�
� -
a
Q a�
a ��i�
Q o'�dJ��
•� 4��Y
/dy o� a a a
�i N �N � � lfl O
0
o -�
M
■ ■
O
w
Z
O
�
0
U
� v
� v
a �
— w a�
o � �
o �; a�i (°
� z N � � C
0
O v -6 0 � v
a� 'o (o Z �
O` N
°� � c7 � o Q o
� o w n a
� � a - -�, ,�
� N � a � v
� � � a �
� a � v � v �
� � a � �
� s o� o � `°
Orn a+ = cn ¢ m c7
F a . � . .
dl
a
O
�8
C j ,.; ;,
R
N
N
v
a+
L - -
41
E
c
.�
a � :�
R
0
o '
W
^
� �
�
N �
�
C
N
J
>
E
a
�
d
r
O
O
d
c_t
y+ � .'
C
� �., m
�
C o�
• c
C J
Y � �
p O �
O. N �
yJ a
� �
� L
O�
R �
� W
�
C
�
J
.. r'a`
� � M
� N N
� N N
�p � Of
� � �
a a' a'
� � :9
� � m
C �
O C C
� Q C
Q � �
O �
N N N
ti
Q
N
41
0
t�
�
a
0
s
d
�
7
O
i
0
ai
�
C
�
O
Q d�Q/'
J
O
�
_ OQQ
O
666, ��
66
��,
0
ap.
66-66 Os,l�
6�
.O
QOQ
666- ��iP
66
S
0
o�S
666 �S`
6`
�
.a
- o00
666- SS`
6�
�
.o
�p.
666. SF�S`
�F
S
.Q
�p.
� 666 S�S`
��
s
.a
oa.
S�
6'66 l
��
s,
- °aa.
ooa °�,�
°�.r
4P
a � a
a � � N o ��
� � � o Ssd
i
r �P'�`� �I G
W P.
� Zb� a4/4
� PJ
tl a�
R
� 6' o
a �'i5Z }
GE, �
r bS �'�a �
3 `�b a
Q 4P / �
i' �6" O
_ �n
a �a >
d�iy �
� � 2i z
� �
a o �
a o o m v� a N 0
a
�
�
� ��
� �� `>
o � � �_
� � o � 'o
-�— f0 c
—�' � d m '3 u
�
_ � 3 o u �
Q,.
v� � 9° .o
o "
a�
a�"3�
��L�oc
o � E a
Q- y t c0 C
d O '= N cp
`o t 3 o E
� u
�
�
O
�
Z
_
W
�
� c �
G1 � .
d
C u o `m u
•� c s � a
N � w
� O L � � o
s 3'
y u o d �
� E c u E
� 0�3�
U N
w �
�
a��i o
u •�
���) o �
IIIU � �
��)���) .— co
0 i
�
i �
O
■■
7
�
�
�
�
G
Z
v
W
�
� � �
� +�+ d d
s
�� E+�oo
.�� +' �p
� � N
� 0 i � �
U � � d C
C {j} C � ,O
-a � � u vi
o��.�u
s c� co y
d+' i��
3
o � �� �
S � � � i
c0�,0 OC7
s
a�i •� �
� a
O
d
�
0
� .
� �
c �
c
� 3
d
m d
�
> T
�
��
u °7
o v,
N N
o eo
�a
u
c c�o
��
N N vi
m co �
a
���
� c o�
� • c
o�
� �
O i7 O
L .N L
7 � O
� � d
�� rn
��
����
�_
�L « �° U
�U-�o �
9 � o c
a'
� o a
���
_��
N • T
u o °'
a
a� N
rn
�s�
'w a 'w
�_�
o u o
= c t
�
M
i
�
•
■
wJ
.
�
o �'
� c
� N o
� � :°
� d c
� c �
o °7
� a
� � �
� a�i c
w �
=a
o �3 d
� � 'w
v� U �
.o L L
H �
� a
u � �
c � p
0
� m t
� c o
�Y
Q 3 �
w
a
��
� �'
m
> 'u
a�
T C
� T
u ..
c '�
s
� a c
�a�
� � T
0
c 3 �
'E o d
� � c
d �
�o
�_
. N
� c
°; '
'� c
o t
��
3
W
�
�
�
�
3
♦
�
�
�
��- !��
� �I �
.� �� .:` � � ' 1
�� ����� �
- _ � � ;�
� 3' _� `� , �;
_ �� �' � �� x` � ,� `�
��'� G 'p� M � � .
��;.�" ��� �
-�_ � �,�
)��mr �
� ti�� �� �*�
� ' �y -
� �,
r�• -�� � � •� ; r �
� � �°
,/` �: , ��
�a='�r� ���� � � . . � ` ..
. -,
-•r � a -- - •
•� .i,� � � . m � . � q `
.�P � �' � � (J �' ��'
�k�� �5
7 ��� _
ti.�
�a . M1' y
'� - �" ,: r 4 ����'''
., i� Y �� . .� .�:,�i
I � i
� � •- a�
Q.c c � �
N �N � �
� � � � �
�' o o a�
��� �.�
� �' o � �
� � N N �
Q i
� � � � N
� o � � �
•J � � }' •v�
A � N
� � p � �
a� � •� N a�i
E �n � o �
i • QJ a--�
� a� � � o
� �
o a� � � o
�' � o �
c�s � � � v
3 � o � �
� �� � N �
� � � � �
� � � � �
c �
a� c
��—a��
� C Q � Q
� �
� �� � �
v> v � �
� � � � �
� �
� � � � �
� � � $ �
p v vi <n �
tJ �
i C C
O O �N
� � a=-� a=-� �
N Q Q O
� I� O O t
■
�
•
•
L
�
� �
� � �
3 �
��
o }, �
�
� � N �
� � � �
t� +� O ]
� � S •V
� � �
� � �
� � � N
� � N
� p .a� i
� � � o
� o � �
� N �
�
E � a� �
� � � �
� � � o
� N �
�
� o Q
0 0 � �
� o �' v�i
� � �,>
� }� � }�
C6 � O �
o � � a�i
� � � �
�, o — �
'� � � �
� � o �
•� o
ca �
C � � �
� � � ��
� Q O O
L Q � i
H � N Q
Z
Q
�
a
+
z
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
a
�
�
a
a
�
O
�
�
_
0
�
0
u
c
�
aa,
Y
€ I 3 � I
� �
£` s• � 1�
��
$i ', _ £:t
- =�
�{�
_ � � a � ; � � o o:
3 � C p O
� � � y
L � o ` Y O ��
� V `? c � _
_� _ - -
� . _ � '
° ��°�-'
� �
� L
a o
O a..
3 o N
� o '�
o �' a
�' o 0
0 0
N ,_ _
�N�
_ '� 4
c
� y v
='a
=a-
� � o
o '� *
a�
�'Na
*� o
O =
a �,
� o
� �
� �
4!
y
a� o
.i �'
�a
, a�
a �'
L ,0
a �
��
4! �
vo
� o
a
o �
3 0
_
a, a
ca
v�
� a
� w
� V
L �
_
a �
a �,
v @
O O
� Q
O
�
�
O
_
a
t
a
a,
�
u
,Q
�
�
�
a
a
41
41
i
�
0
N
0
N
i
�
a
�
z
a
z
0
>
r
�
�
�
0
U
H
Z
W
G
H
,H^
V I
W
�
�
�
U
ca
�
�
�
a�
�
.�
�
E
0
U
a
�
�
a�
0
�
a�
�
�
C
�
�
�
�
O
�
a� °
�::
�
U '
0
�
�
._
�
�
u '�
s `�
ca
� �"
s
.
�
0
�
U
� •� .�
� d �
� O � �
O d "'' �
�+ � (p N
� � Q N
� � N �
� 3 ai v_�
C 0 N L
f8 � � H
� 0 � vj
� o •� o
O "''
N � d �
C � � N
O U L C
�+ N "-J i
� N � �
Q y�-+ � U
N � V Q
c a� �
(O dj � Q
"� � .� tn
� 'N O c8
f8 O U �
N � .` �i
� N
a� � � �
� axi �' a�i
0 � •� 7
� � � �8
.- � � i
n N � a�
E
u � � E
d � � �
t
d � � �
N = y�-+ f0
C
O �
N �
f8 Q
O
N
� � N
� � 7
� �
U �' �
� � �
c Q �
� N N
� � d
d
(p � �+
7 � ��
"-' O �
N N
� � i-
�
N � �
a� �
U �
n �
N � �
� o �
c c
� O N
� � +�-+
o � �3
> �
N ' �
N +�--� f8
� � d
� �p O
a�
E c �
.c `° �
� .� O
� � c
.� � ca
C — .�
w � o
� N
� (� ('(j �
�
0 � 0 �V •i
� � N N
O Nj t�/I � �
a--� i (/� � C
ip a--� � � fa
Q � +� v <n
� � — �
i � C f� �
� � p � �
� Q � Q �
L •V •� �
� �
i � — � � �
C � V � Q
C � � � N v
� � � � � C
� 0 � •� �
O �
C � � p Q �
� a o 0 0 �
� � � � � �
+-� c c6 O � O
� � � � t t
� N � .� � O
N � 'i N � �
• y� tJ C � �
� � �
� � � � o �
C6 J a--�
N N � �
� � N � � �
N � � N �
O � p `� f� +'
s m � � � �
` � �
a � � � o
� ��
� � C� O
N � fa f�
C � '� � � �
Q v � v �s �s
�
}' i N �
O � N � � �
�
� � r�--� � �
� � A � � O � '�
N� O N. O� O
� � � Q N � � � �
� � N ��'v � f0 t
C� p j�'� p p N
�C C d N fa �}, � Q
.0 '� a1 � � � � � p
� a--� � � C +--' � � N
� � � � •� � � � �
Oi t O C � C�
C � ` N � � p �
tn f0 N f0 �+ � � p
' � +-� N � � � fa tn
fa a"' C � N — fa
� � �-�-' `F � � � � �
� C O � � � — �
�
N � � � � O `� a 2�
� �, +-� � � N � vi v�
�+ +� N > v (� C � N
Q v � � � O � � �
�� � � � � N C fa
+�-� � � C tn � N 'C�
� o � o � o � � �
� i � � � +� �+ O �
� Q H N� �� Q�
N O N � O
� N � N p � � � V
� 2� � � t +�--� N � �
� � c v o � �
� � � � a� c � � �
� i i f0 t' Q f� `f+ t
� � � N � vj � ii i
� t ��� N N� C
Q+,O ��� � N.
O
c9
Z
O
a
1.1.
�
a
v1
Z
a
�
�
Z
V I
�
O
�.r
�
3 �'
� .V
C �
d '
i o
�.r N
H �
� O
_�
0
�;
� �,
a� �
� i
� �'
�--' c�
�
Q � U
� � �
o � ca
U c..� +
�
�
�
�
c�
�
�
0
�
Q
�
N
0
�
�
�
�
a-=�
�
0
V
�
�
f�
�
�
�
0
J
�
�
�
�
i
V
f�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
N
0
�
�
�
N
c�
�
�
f�
�
�
V
O
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
•�
�
�
_
u
�
�
f�
i
�
O
V
�
W
�
a
�
_
�
O
a�
>
a�
a�
�
�
�
�
�
a�
L
V
.�
�
�
cz3
cv
�
ca
L
�
0
J
W
U
O
�
0
U
����`��� �: ��i��i'�� i�1���1��5
Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection (1) R-4: Medium-High Density Residence District
Section 3.4 (I)
R-4 Medium-High Density Residence District
The purpose of the "R-4", medium-high density residential district is to provide for medium to high
density housing in multiple family structures of 13 or more units per building, and at densities of between
10 and 25 units per acre. The district is intended to establish higher density residential opportunities in
areas appropriate for such housing, to be determined by the City on a case by case basis. The City of
Monticello shall zone land to the R-4 District only when, in its sole discretion, all aspects of the property
support the potential uses of the R-4 district, including location, private and public services, and
compatibility with existing and future land uses in the area. In making a determination as to the
suitability of a site for R-4 rezoning, the City will prioritize the following site and area factors:
Replacement Land Uses. R-4 zoning fits the following zoning categories and circumstances:
• Land already zoned for R-3
• Land currently zoned for commercial uses, but which would not be considered "prime" commercial
(the City would like to protect "prime" commercial areas that show the most promise for that use in
the future).
Proximity to Other Residential Neighborhoods.
R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to other medium to high density residential areas, however
the nature and concentration of existing multi-family structures shall be carefully considered to avoid
an over concentration of these uses.
R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to lower residential uses, if it is determined that the high
density site can address the site and area factors provided here.
Architectural Compatibility and Building Massing
• In the vicinity of lower density residential areas, R-4 District buildings need to be lower profile with
regards to size and mass, or need to be screened or buffered by distance and natural features.
Requirement for Adequate Public Facilities. High density residential development shall be located to
provide for the following essential services and amenities:
• Access to public parks, pathways, and open space, without overburdening them. R-4 development
may be required to provide additional facilities to meet the City's open space planning policies.
• Connection to public utilities.
• Access to major streets, or at the very minimum, avoidance of traffic generation that would utilize
local streets in lower density residential areas.
• Proximity to commercial and/or medical services.
This district is intended to provide exclusively multiple family housing as defined in this ordinance, as
opposed to lower density housing types such as townhouses, two-family homes, or single family homes.
�i�y o� �Von�eeiio �aning �r�trr��r�4.� ,��� ��
���P�`�� 3: ��►�►i�� L3►S°T�►�i"S
Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection (1) R-4: Medium-High Density Residence District
Minimum and Maximum Density:
10 — 25 dwelling units per acre
Maximum Base Density:
1,750 sq. ft. per unit (25 units per acre)
Maximum Density through Planned Unit Development:
1,750 sq. ft. per unit (25 units per acre)
Base Lot Area
• Minimum = 30,000 square feet
Base Lot size �
Gross Density
Max Density w/o PUD
Net lot area per du
Frontsetback
Corner side setback
Interior side setback
Rear setback to building �
Clear open space setback from
ROW
Clear open space setback from
Property Line
Buffer Req. to Single Family
Common open space per du
Landscaping
Parking requirements
Arc h itectu re
Roofs
Unit square feet
Garages
Garage Setback
Garage Doors
R-4 District
Multi-Family (13+ units / building)
30,000 sf
10-25 du/acre
�
30 feet
40 feet
60 feet
40 feet — no more than 50% of any yard facing a street
C buffer
500 sf/du
2 ACl/ 2,500 sf open space + 4 shrubs / 10 feet bldg. perimeter
2.25 spaces/du, with max I.I space/du uncovered
20% street min frontage covered with enhanced materials, horizontal siding of steel or
cement-board only (no vinyl or aluminum)
5:12 pitch, plus roof ridge line articulation of 3 feet min. or roofline or building line
articulation, including flat and/or varied rooflines, parapets, canopies or other similar
features which increase architectural interest and variability.
900 sf finished floor area per unit, minimum
IAttached or Underground
Detached accessory garages allowed only after base requirements are met
I May not access street directly — must be served by interior driveway
Must include glass and decorative panels if visible from public street or adjoining
residentiallv zoned propertv
Page I 00 �ity of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
Multi-Family Buildings
Landscaping
Open Space
Parking �
Building Materials
Arc h itectu re
Site Work
Housing for Seniors restricted
to 55 years of a�e or more
eHaPrEre a: zor�rNG Disrreiers
Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection (1) R-4: Medium-High Density Residence District
Increased landscape quantities and/or sizes beyond code minimums; Special landscape
features including water features, recreational structures, patios, etc.
Increased open space areas per unit beyond code minimums of 10% or more
All required garage parking underground �
Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or on other exterior walls
Extensive use of ornamental features, building and/or roofline articulation, fenestration
and building wall undulation atypical of other buildings in similar zoning districts
Use of decorative paving materials in parking, sidewalks, etc.;
Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or similar features.
Accommodations to design and density through PUD process only
City o f Monticello Zoning Ordinance
F'age I U I