The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 03-09-2020 (Joint Meeting) NO RTHW EST' ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC, 1;_, r i �p 4,150 Wsoin MeirnoHM liighway, Stem 320, GoWein VaHley, MN 55422 II Ism o irm m 763.957. 1100 We[)site- .irm c: II irm irm G irm .c:o ircn MEMORANDUM TO: Angela Schumann Mayor Stumpf and Monticello City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: February 26, 2020 RE: Monticello — Mielke/Jameson/Malone— Concept PUD Review NAC FILE NO: 191.07 — 2 PLANNING CASE NO: PROPERTY ID: 155-011-000092; 155-500-123300; 155-115-001011; (and parts of others) Application and Project Description. This memorandum reviews the elements of a proposed concept plan for a Planned Unit Development on a series of parcels adjoining the north side of 7t" Street, roughly between Fallon Avenue on the west and the Fallon Avenue roundabout on the east. The applicants include the developer and four primary property owners, including the "Malone" property (PID 1 55-01 1-000092), the "Jameson" property (PID 155-500-123300) the City of Monticello (PID 155-115-001011), along with a portion of a parcel currently owned by the St. Henry's Catholic Church (PID 155-115- 001010). Finally, a small corner of remnant park land is also included in the Concept Plan at the northeast corner of Fallon Avenue and 7t" Street. The parcels currently have a few scattered buildings, all of which would be removed. The applicant has been working with the State of Minnesota to "delist" the parcels and/or buildings from the National Register of Historic Places. The total PUD covers approximately 10.25 acres in area. Access to future development on the property is provided from Fallon Avenue via an internal private street. The applicant has made five specific requests as a part of the City's consideration of this project. A copy of that summary is included in this packet. A part of the applicant's request involves disposition of City property at no cost to the developer, and process aspects of the project's consideration. This memorandum focuses on land use elements and related site improvements. The proposed project consists of a 48 unit detached townhome development, a gross density of approximately 4.5 units per acre. This would be considered a medium density residential land use. The Comprehensive Plan designates much of the area for residential uses ("Places to Live"), with a portion guided for institutional uses ("Places for Community"). The Plan does not propose densities for residential development. As noted above, there are a series of parcels that make up the development site. The "Malone" and "Jameson" parcels are privately owned. The remnant park parcel at the corner of Fallon and 7t" Street is owned by the City by virtue of the dedication of that parcel for park purposes (that parcel actually extends across 7t" Street to include a small sliver of land between the street and the apartment building. A second city parcel extends from the Fallon Avenue roundabout to provide access into the interior of the area, particularly for the Jameson property which is otherwise landlocked (other than a private easement across the neighboring "Busch" property). This City parcel, while it fronts along 7t" Street and the roundabout, provides only technical frontage — the grade falls away steeply from the roundabout area, and presents challenges and expense for construction of a connection. As a result, the applicant has assembled the private parcels, and proposes to develop these along with the city parcels and land from St. Henry's church, utilizing a long single-entrance private street that gains access from Fallon Avenue on the west, extending for approximately 1,300 feet to the east, terminating in a cul-de-sac on what is currently the east end of the Jameson parcel. Detached townhome (or "patio home") lots are arrayed along both sides of this private street. For the project to proceed, there are a series of City land use 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 series of parcels that will have 48 units on individual lots, common lot area, and a private street; Further land use approvals would include the following: o Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment reguiding the proposed residential parcel from "Places for Community" to "Places to Live"; o Preliminary and Final Plats; o Development Stage and Final Stage PUD. 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 1 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. 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 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 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 Preliminary Comments and Issues. For this proposal, the primary considerations evident at this point in the process include the following elements: i. Land Use. As stated above, the proposed project area is guided "Places to Live" (Residential) and Places for Community. The applicants propose the entire project area be guided to Places to Live, a residential category that would support the proposed detached single family development. ii. Cul-de-sac street. The proposal relies on a single-entrance private street of approximately 1,300 feet in length. All 48 units would utilize the single street access point on Fallon Avenue. The City's Subdivision Ordinance typically limits cul-de-sac streets to a maximum of 600 feet in length. One of the purposes of this standard is to limit the traffic volumes on residential streets. In a typical single family neighborhood, a 600 foot cul-de-sac would accommodate approximately 15 — 20 homes. The proposed project would generate up to three times the traffic along the street. Private streets are permitted under a PUD designation. iii. Pedestrian circulation. The applicants have identified two trail connections that extend to external properties. One is a longer route that extends from an internal cul-de-sac, generally along the route of the driveway easement across the "Busch" property. However, based on staff's understanding of the easement, no trail is permitted on that route — only the driveway that was to serve the Jameson house. The second trail extends from the end of the easterly cul-de-sac to a trail on the St. Benedict's residential property to the east. While this connection would be valuable to residents of this project and the St. Benedicts property, both trails serve private property and would not be accessible to the public— or each other unless the property owners agree. Instead of the trails proposed, staff would recommend a sidewalk along the length of the private street. This sidewalk would serve the residents of the development to gain access to a public street. The sidewalk would serve to 3 remove pedestrians from walking in the street—which as noted above, will be carrying significant levels of traffic. Moreover, the street is designed to be a relatively narrow paved surface. Pedestrians in the street would have no safe walking area without the sidewalk. Staff has suggested that the construction of the sidewalk, in specific the portions which provide access to a public system, could be considered an element that qualifies for a portion of the required park dedication. iv. Lot sizes and site planning. The applicants propose 50 foot wide lots, with detached buildings varying between 2 and 3 car garages. The plan details that garage setbacks would be 25 feet (although some are as little as 21.4 feet. Staff would suggest that 25 feet be maintained, as parking in the driveways for longer vehicles would interfere with snowplowing. The site planning presumes 6 foot side setbacks, leaving buildable area of 38 feet of width on most parcels. A three car garage will typically consume 30 feet or more of that width, although the applicants have not supplied architectural information on the proposed units. Rear setbacks are varied, and there appears to be little concern from a standard land use perspective, as the rear yards of the proposed units do not impact surrounding property. However, some of the setbacks are very shallow and would not accommodate the additions of decks or porches, additions which the City has seen can become problematic for townhome developments if not planned for initially. Staff notes also that one of the units in the center of the plat is situated without frontage or clear access to the street. This unit should be eliminated from the proposal. V. Park and Open Space. Based on the site plan and concept narrative provided by the applicant, the amount of open space is not addressed. As noted in the applicant's narrative materials, the applicant proposes that park dedication fees be waived, in exchange for construction of the trails shown on the plan. The applicant further notes that the connections could access the St. Henry's church property. However, this too is private property, and would not qualify as a park dedication credit. As noted, the illustrated trails are not feasible without additional agreement by other private property owners. Instead, staff has recommended a sidewalk along the private street. One area of uncertainty is a portion of the to-be-acquired St. Henry's church property that is not being developed, and is shown with hashed lines through it. The plan is not clear as to the intent of this area and would ask that the applicant clarify this portion of the concept area. 4 Staff notes that St. Henry's Church will need to verify the limits of its land conveyance as a part of the plat, and access to St. Henry's remaining parcel(s) will need to be clarified as a component of the development agreement. It is likely that a cross-access Conditional Use Permit will need to be processed concurrent with the Plat to resolve questions about frontage and access for the northerly St. Henry's parcel which is being subdivided in part for this project. vi. Parking and driveways. The plan shows two 5-space parking bays along the street to provide overflow parking. As a practical matter, the applicant should plan for one additional parking space per each 2.5 units, a total supply of approximately 20 off-street spaces. With the narrow street pavement dimension (26 feet), and the number of closely-space driveways from each of the proposed homes (not illustrated on the plan), there would be no other overflow parking than what is provided in the separate bays. Staff would recommend at least two additional 5-space bays be added to the plan. As noted, driveways are not illustrated on this plan. For the bulk of the project, there will be little conflict, and reasonable spacing. However, around the cul-de-sacs, driveways will be a significant issue as they converge — especially from 3-car garages — on the paved cul-de-sac area. Staff would recommend that additional spacing be provided between units on the cul-de- sacs, with at least 10 feet between driveway curb cuts. This can be accomplished with specific unit style and driveway orientation. Without this spacing, snow piling creates problems with visibility. vii. Fire access. The project should be reviewed by fire department officials for firefighting access. One staff suggestion is to reinforce the "trail" shown off of the easterly cul-de-sac to connect to the fire lane that circles the St. Benedicts building. Fire department comment on the feasibility of this idea is recommended. It should also be reviewed to ensure that the City would have access rights between this project and the fire lane on St. Benedict's property. viii. Existing park parcel. The applicant is asking that the City vacate the park interest in the remnant park at the corner of Fallon Avenue and 7t" Street, as it is proposed to be utilized for a portion of the western-most unit. This process can be a lengthy and expensive one which cost should be borne by the applicant. In addition, there are utilities within the parcel which will be required to be retained. These easements would limit the usability of the parcel. Other design options to work around the park parcel may be more easily implemented. ix. Building architecture. As noted, no building designs have been submitted with this concept. The City may wish to identify architectural elements that may be important for meeting the threshold of PUD design. Staff would recommend that the baseline standard be drawn from the T-N, Traditional Neighborhood building materials as a minimum. 5 X. Tree impacts and landscaping. There is a significant amount of tree cover on portions of the proposed development site. The plan does not detail the impacts on tree cover on the site. A tree survey will be required as part of the platting and PUD process. It would appear to be beneficial to shift the built area to the south if possible, toward the boundary with St. Henry's Church property to minimize tree impacts. Tree loss and replacement would be a factor in reviewing the eventual landscaping plans for the project. In addition, given the high visibility of the site, attention to landscaping should be given along the 7t" Street/Fallon Avenue roundabout area. xi. The City Engineer has provided a concept review letter detailing additional comments on this project. 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- 1. Overall Land Use. 2. Density. 3. Cul-de-Sac Street Length. 4. Lot Configuration and Building Layout. 5. Park and Open Space Requirements. 6. Parking and Driveways. 7. Firefighting Access. 8. Existing Park Vacation. 9. Building Design and Materials. 10.Tree Impacts and Landscaping Requirements. 11.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. As noted, the applicant has made five specific requests as a part of the City's consideration of this project. A copy of that summary is included in this packet. These items are subject to Council feedback and direction. The waiver of various land costs and development costs is a matter of legal and policy consideration for City Council review. Staff does not recommend waiving park dedication requirements, but it is common to credit constructed improvements (such as trail) where the improvements show benefit to the City's park and trail system plans and objectives. As noted initially, this memorandum reviews the land use and site planning elements of the request. The City Council should provide direction, either as a part of this joint 6 session or in a separate proceeding, regarding the public finance aspects of the request, although no formal decision can be made as part of the concept review. The City Council will likely be asked to participate formally in the plat and land use process as a property owner, and should provide direction to the applicant on any items requested as part of that consideration. SUPPORTING DATA Aerial Site Image Applicant Narrative Summary Schedule Requests Concept Boundary Concept Plan City Engineer's Comment Letter 7 o u r� U „em I I r -4-+ �l N r i Y Q p O 6 _ Ln i Ln r® Ln III I r-I C D OO Ln f6 Ln Ln f'6 O w - - Q Ln [Ck ff 011/1/l0/i f / u Ln d U q, / l O O O Ln O _ O ' OLn �L7 � f Q) OLn Ln /il l f 1 CA IBI+�gar , Pederson Associate Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES February 25, 2020 Angela Schumann Community Development Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Ms. Schumann: Mielke Development, LLC is interested in developing the property to construct a Planned Unit Development (PUD) townhome development near Fallon Ave NE & E 71" Street, Monticello, Minnesota. (Parcel # 155500123300, 155115001011, 155115001010 & 155011000092). The property is approximately 12+/- acres in size. The balance of the property is unimproved and is covered with prairie grass, and trees. Legal Descriptions: PID 155-500-123300 That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 01 degree 24 minutes 50 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, 534.50 feet; thence South 88 degrees 35 minutes 10 seconds East, 318.00 feet; thence North 12 degrees 24 minutes 50 seconds East, 292.79 feet to the south line of Old Territorial Road as described in Document No. 765393 and a point hereinafter known as Point "A"; thence South 67 degrees 59 minutes 57 seconds East, along said south line of Old Territorial Road as described in Document No. 765393, a distance of 989.48 feet to the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 01 degree 24 minutes 40 seconds East, along said east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, 70.50 feet to the north line of Old Territorial Road as described in Document No. 765393 and the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing North 01 degree 24 minutes 40 seconds East and along said east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, 297.76 feet to the southerly line of the Burlington Northern Railroad, formerly Great Northern Railway; thence northwesterly, along said southerly line of the Burlington Northern Railroad, 1045.83 feet to the intersection with a line bearing North Bogart,Pederson&Assoc Phone: 763/262-8822 13076 First Street Fax: 763-262-8844 Becker,MN 55308 Toll free: 888/210-8301 www.bogart-pederson.com Page 12 13 degrees 57 minutes 39 seconds West from the aforementioned Point "A", said line being the centerline of Old Territorial Road and its southerly extension; thence South 13 degrees 57 minutes 39 seconds East, along said centerline of Old Territorial Road to the northerly line of Old Territorial Road as described in Document No. 765393; thence South 67 degrees 59 minutes 57 seconds East, along said northerly line of Old Territorial Road as described in Document No. 765393 to the point of beginning. Also that part of vacated Old Territorial Road described as that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12,Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 1 degree 24 minutes 50 seconds East along the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 534.50 feet; thence South 88 degrees 35 minutes 10 seconds East, a distance of 318.00 feet; thence North 12 degrees 24 minutes 50 seconds East, a distance of 292.79 feet to the south line of Old Territorial Road being the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 67 degrees 59 minutes 57 seconds East along said south line, a distance of 989.48 feet to the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 1 degree 24 minutes 40 seconds East along said east line, a distance of 70.50 feet to the north line of said Old Territorial Road being distant 66.00 feet north of and parallel with said south line of Old Territorial Road, a distance of 1012.57 feet to the intersection of a line bearing North 13 degrees 57 minutes 39 seconds West from the point of beginning, said line being on center line of Old Territorial Road and its southerly extension; thence South 13 degrees 57 minutes 39 seconds East along said center line and its southerly extension, a distance of 81.94 feet to the point of beginning. PID 155-115-001011 + Part of PID 155-115-001010 That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Church of St. Henry, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the most northerly corner of said Lot 1; thence South 67 degrees 59 minutes 57 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the northerly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 350.00 feet; thence South 22 degrees 00 minutes 03 seconds West, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly to the intersection of the North line of the South 10 acres of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12,Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota, and the North line of the South 10 acres of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. One, according to the recorded plat thereof, with the Bogart,Pederson&Assoc Phone: 763/262-8822 13076 First Street Fax: 763-262-8844 Becker,MN 55308 Toll free: 888/210-8301 www.bogart-pederson.com Page 13 northeasterly right of way line of 7t" Street, as dedicated on the recorded plat of Church of St. Henry. PID 155-011-000092 Those parts of Lot 1 of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter according to a survey by E.B. McCord and Lot 9 of Auditor's Subdivision No. One according to the recorded map thereof being part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence north along the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 534.50 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence east deflecting 90 degrees right, a distance of 318.00 feet; thence northeasterly deflecting 79 degrees left, a distance of 155.44 feet; thence northwesterly deflecting 79 degrees 30 minutes left, a distance of 252.20 feet; thence west deflecting 21 degrees 30 minutes left, a distance of 113.00 feet to the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence south along said west line, a distance of 245.00 feet to the point of beginning. Part of PID 155-050-000010 That part of the Park, as dedicated on the recorded plat of Construction 5 Addition, Wright County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the northerly right of way line of 7t" Street East. Zoning: Mielke Development, LLC is interested in developing the property to construct a Planned Unit Development (PUD) townhome development. The properties (Parcel # 155500123300, 155115001011, 155115001010 & 155011000092) are currently zoned R- 1 Residential. The zoning will need to be changed during the PUD process to allow for a villa townhome development.The proposed development will allow for approximately 48 townhomes to be developed. Bogart,Pederson&Assoc Phone: 763/262-8822 13076 First Street Fax: 763-262-8844 Becker,MN 55308 Toll free: 888/210-8301 www.bogart-pederson.com Page 4 Proposed lot Configuration: The Building setbacks used for the sketch are as follows: • Front 25' Typical with a Minimum of 21.4' • Side 6' (10' between overhangs of buildings) • Corner Side 20' • Rear 30' The overall standards of the development will be: • Minimum Lot Width 50' • Street Width 26' Proposed Density: Area (s.f.) Area Percentage Total Property 520,157 100% Homes 114,500 22% Driveways 48,000 9 Road 60,000 12% Path/Sidewalk 14,500 3% Public Utilities: Public water main and sanitary sewer will be necessary to serve a configuration with the desired lot sizes. The public utilities are located on the west end of the site and on the north side of the roundabout on E 7t" Street. BPA has confirmed with the City of Monticello that the utilities will allow for gravity flow with the sanitary sewer (from Engineering Drawings of the E 7t" Street reconstruction project). Bogart,Pederson&Assoc Phone: 763/262-8822 13076 First Street Fax: 763-262-8844 Becker,MN 55308 Toll free: 888/210-8301 www.bogart-pederson.com Summary What the developer is providing 1. 48 unit villa development 1" phase/4 properties potential 57 units/all 5 properties 2. Higher end villa development . Estimated $350,000 average unit sales price 4. Project estimated to produce just under $200,000 per yr tax revenue. 2 million in 10 years. . Project Solves® a. Jameson/city access issue/jameson property can be developed r�. Vnur`n get s ine type of project is wanes c. Malones can sell their property d. City gets- 1. city/jameson access issue solved (developer builds 2 lane access) 2. mct iincior onn,nnn Nor;r tax revenue 3. provide a type of housing product currently lacking in Monticello market 6. developer will also absorb all the additional costs ($500,000+) associated with a. the removal of two severly deteriorated historic properties b. Extra grading costs due to difficult topography c. Tree study I PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE 3 Fehruary I • Mid-February start topographic survey (2-3 wks) i • Submit city application • End February start Civil Design and Update Concept plan (3-5 wks) March • March 2"d Concept PUD meeting with joint planning Commission and City Council • March 3`d Start tree study(if required), Landscaping plan,Geotechnical Soil Investigations • Mid-March acquire permits to start remove all of the delisted historic houses. Hopefully can Arrange a controlled Burn with the Monticello Fire Dept. April • April 61n Application Date for Preliminary Plans and Plat • Mid/End of April Address City comments to Plans and Plat May • May 5t" Planning Commission (Preliminary Phase) • May 26th City Council (Preliminary Phase) • May 27th Application Date for Final Plans and Plat June • June 8th or 22"d Final Approval of project at City Council July • Prepare bid documents • Put the bids out • Review and chose contractors August • Start construction of project September • Continue infrastructure,surveying, utilities,construction September/October • Start construction of Model Homes October forward • Market,sell and build homes Move in expected to start Spring 2021 • Expecting a 3 yr total build out In order for me (the developer) to develop this project as proposed- request the following 5 items from the city—NONE REQUIRE THE CITY TO SPEND ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY 1. Vacate the city's small triangle shaped parcel at the SW— corner or tine Malone property and get it on the tax roles. 7 N®1n gQ®t t%h® hic12+nrir ehmeen vni thin hANtnnn® 1n4rnnort7 ri®ligat®94 frnnm +h® y historic register and issue a demolition permit. If cannot get it delisted, waive the EAW fee and help expedite the process and issue a demolition permit. _r �_vr 6A w. lal.a .dn..®Innarl ran huild 3. Deed the narrow city strip oT land G 1 1e ,v 1 lute \ACVC.VN�.; ^-�••-� the access across it to the Jameson property solving the Jameson/city access issue. Additionally puts the strip of land on the tax roles. 4. Waive any park dedication fees because we have an agreement with aV_ MUM] &- 4...91.! w'+h�e��vc frnm the Villa development to the 'Enc. M ] 6U wunU Naa11VVC1 1J ...+... m.... r - adjoining church's park/ gardens. So in lieu of park dedication fees, we are spending money to construct pathways to connect to a park. 5. A collaborative effort between the city and developer to expedite all n®r®ceary nnnrnvals_ at the staff. planning commission and council - leveis due to the very time sensitive issues with this project. :ON 3113 ....... NW `0-1-13011NOW 3113 0MA :AB 0NO3H0 s aNtll :AN—a 'ONI `S31tlIOOSSV '8 wvawla -l3Davd M 3 :ANOIS30 N0SH303d .Lav00a y NVId 1d30NO3 w N01-3S30 31tl0 Na 31tl0 P' %W ,,.�. IB AS // ri AM AN l/� Sao /. /%/ r , 11 / ,,. /%/ as ego "OV OWN %i ON 31I3 t��s-ao�ss-pry d��,3a,3�a.= NW '0113011NOW :33I3 OMA :/9 a3 NO3Ha s oNtlr :Ae N—a 'ONI `S31tlI30SStl T SlOI 3W0H 011`dd MVO :ANOIS30 NOSH303d IU11008 V N`dld 1d30NO3 w NO-NOS30 31VO ON :31V0 ai 0 Z Y Q O Z.N O � C d 1f1 N c-I c-I � c-I V � o In d ai N z 0 Z O LL O O Q 0 N N M 0 x D 0 o w w �/// �� %/� r �l r rrr!r✓i//�iii rr/i r rfii'/ � �'ai o jim Z w w w 0 % � // / rilr !I (�ir% //i///r // /�✓ / /Ji // aax�mm oz w Y z w— z z w 0 70�>�� 0z¢ yiiiiiii� w O 0 z`n`n w z w o O 0 x w a 0 0 w V a V r0 /,�/o J it/` � ` /p l ( ` ✓ ��iiii o / /Gi/ ///�j �j{lI i/ t�f (I %� fI ///,J ( I(li ��/, `�� ✓//i viiiii ,„ /iiii i ff Aw a /illiW, All ��//��f/✓/ r� �/ 11 rl %ir i �/� , //✓ rra�%i�� l%/HIV a/%��i�%%%��J ii,,,>� �� r, r� ' ,,,,� /�✓i�� ufv�u� �/;, �! f�IIIJ��/�i°o�lirDr✓ia�r�iifli�/�%//O"/�///�� /�/r//' / jI ,; %//�,��/ fail fl��fc / ///, //!Orr///i � °��/iro, ri/✓fI�17�"r�ray!/ �%/ /ii///// ri �i% � r //��%/// Wm �%/ Ji / l I /i/// ✓i %/r//ii //' ,�/, {Sli/ iow i i i%�j j% r;: �I��r�-;�i�G// // //�/i//�m1%//rl/spa%✓% �/ �i�r,-r�F,,, �%// �, �(fllu /�f �ry �(!��/// /�/'/�/�/i/ /i/fir�i%✓/��/r/i��/%%rr; �r�/�i/,r)/� 1 9�N ,/r/,,., /r...........,,,,,,, %%/O ws b February 2 , 2020 Matt Leonard City Engineer/Public Works Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 e: Mielke Patio Home Development Concept Stage PUD Plan Review City Project No. 2020-00 WSB Project No. -015651-000 Dear Mr. Leonard: 0 We have reviewed the conceptual stage PUD site plans dated February 20, 2020. The applicant Q. proposes to construct 48 single-family homes. 0 . J M 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. 0 0 CO 1. Streets and utilities shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City Subdivision „O Orclonnances and the City's General Specifications and Standard Details Plates for a Street and Utility Construction. 2. Street access spacing, grades, and sight lines will be reviewed with future submittals. 3. Below are General Stormwater Requirements for the Site: E 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 n.. b. Proposed runoff rates shall be less than or equal to existing runoff rates. ct uJ 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 existing pond. d. The proposed site is tributary to the ditch adjacent to the Railroad tracks. The 0 City's water resource management plan identifies the need for new outlet pipes LJ (3-30" pipes) under the railroad tracks. The implementation of this improvement has yet to be determined. e. Significant upstream drainage area is tributary to the ditch system along the RR tracks. The proposed building first floor elevations should be set to provide adequate freeboard accounting for the upstream tributary area. f. An operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater BMPs is required and JJ >, should be submitted with the stormwater report for review. g. The site is outside of the DWSMA and is not subject to requirements of the City's Wellhead Protection Plan. J X K:\015651-000\Admin\Docs\2020-02-21 Submittal-Concept PUD Plans\_2020-02-24 LTR Mielke Concept PUD-WSB Plan Review.docx Mielke Patio Home Development Concept Stage PUD—WSB Plan Review February 25,2020 Page 2 4. Consistent with state requirements, an EAW or delisting process is required prior to the demolition of the place of historic significance on the Jameson Property. The City will not waive the fees associated with performing an EAW. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. The building department will review required fire hydrant location(s) and emergency vehicle access/circulation. 8. A more detailed review of the development plans will be completed when the applicant submits complete civil plans and a stormwater management report. The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City's standards. 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 James L. Stremel, P.E. Senior Project Manager Summary- What Territorial Properties is providing to the city residents 10 unique 4a unit viva aeve'o enz/ ®ui'z in a quiet arK 'ike Setting 2. Higher end villa development/larger lots/2 & 3 car garage options/basement & 2nd level options/customize options 3. Estimated $350,000 average unit sales price 4. Project estimated to produce just under $200,000 per yr. tax revenue. _ $2 million in 10 years. 5. Project Solves— a. Jameson property access issue/ which allows the Jameson property to be developed as proposed /Removes the severely deteriorated historic house. SHPO has delisted it. b. St Henry's Church approves of this neighborhood friendly project. c. Malone's can sell their property/ Removes their severely deteriorated historic house. . Provides a safe access on and off old Fallon Avenue e. City gets- 1. Territorial Properties builds a 2 lane access to the Jameson property/solves the Jameson property access issue 2. Project is estimated to produce just under $200,000 per yr. tax revenue = $2 million in 10 yrs. 3. provide a type of housing product currently lacking in the Monticello market 6. Territorial Properties will incur significant additional costs ($500,000+) associated with development on these challenged Monticello city properties including but not limited to-- a. The removal of two severely deteriorated historic properties b. Extra grading costs due to difficult topography c. Tree study/removal and mitigation costs d. Extra costs for watershed issues due to city identified inadequate culverts under the railroad tracks. 3 requests In order for Territorial properties to developthis project as proposed, I originally requested items from the city. We dropped 2 unneeded requests. 2 DROPPED unneeded REQUESTS- 1. Vacate the city's small triangle shaped parcel at the SW corner of the Malone property and get it on the tax rolls. If the city offers it, we will take it. 2. Help get the historic house on the Malone property delisted from the historic register and issue a demolition permit. If cannot get it delisted, waive the EAW fee and help expedite the process and issue a demolition permit. 3 NEEDED REQUESTS to make developing these CHALLENGED properties a VIABLE project— NON REQUIRE THE CITY TO SPEND ADDITIONAL MONEY 1. deed the narrow city strip to Territorial Properties— . Territorial properties will then build a 2 lane access from Fallon, across the city strip, and to the Jameson property. This gives the Jameson property a 2 lane Ins+ncs aasMes+�a 'llnuse Hoar Olill' hnvssl^wrraara+ ase +hair raarrnra+ 1 M.-oner aask;ok Qfwa.caa VVB I BUS 1 431IVwa VIA Y®I/Q VCYCIVF1/II=I I Ya LI/cI/ %oUI I=I It A ICI IC Q4trcaa YYI IIbII would not. Solves the Jameson access issue. B. Territorial properties will then develop a 48 unit Villa Development producing an estimated $200,000 a year tax revenue. 2. Waive any park dedication fees as a recognition of our willingness to take on the significant extra costs ($500,000+), to develop these CHALLENGED properties. . A collaborative effort between the city and Territorial Properties to expedite all necessary approvals, at the staff, planning commission and council levels due to the very time sensitive issues with this project. ---------- T- - ------- LA Cl) co 15- oq 0 a 9�5 0 04 co R AV NO-, NOw01 7 z 91 F T7 T�' cm ®� X co) 30' 91 42'N Li 'n in G 9 7 ILI .1d CL -L -- -------- Oo 0 1 r ar �!i/fir%r�(�l ..• J/ INN Jl r� i(�dlAr�� IMI iL i i� Gr/ i ( p Y✓ � �rPli y�/ � Y� �r r u� � Y ll a - t YF FI L ri i��' }Y i��Y'• I u I ^r �YIBM piPv r v, ii Y'� JI IV-ld A8VNlWll3Ud z ti g NVId ld3oNOO NW '011MINON ST111A 3001H Nwnin ---------- T— SCHOOL BL M (PUBLIC) -------- ........ < 0 I fr, vz o bb.. 9, o o 9 i i 92 U u g, :45 n, o 2 2 2 a z 4o'-w , Bluffs In Monticello Februaryaath, aoao TO: Council Members FROM: Terri Hofer Owner of the Bluffs Apartments RE: Proposed 4a UnitTownhome Development I am unable to make the City Council meeting but I wantyou to know mythoughts regarding this development. According to the most updated information I have at this time, I support this project with only one concern.I see only one road coming out of the community and dumping onto Fallon. If you figure twovehicles per unit, no guests,that is approximately ioo vehicles thatwould routinely use Fallon. Fallon is asmall side road thatwas not designed for a lot of traffic. Many of our residents at the Bluffs, especially in the 7o7 building parkon this street. The 7o7 building is avery small lot surrounded by streets on all sides. It isverymuch an island in the middle of roads. Now with the new roundabouts, the traffic has increased and the on street parking has decreased. I believe itwould be bestto have the main access forthis newdevelopment, open to 7th street not Fallon. Quite honestly, I would prefer Fallon to be closed all together or at least made a onewayto avoid short cuts from 7th toWashington. Otherwise, I am in full support of this project. Thankyou foryour consideration. THE HISTORIC RAND HOUSE A Bed& Breakfast Inn National Register of Historic Places March 9, 2020 TO: Members, City Council and Planning Commission City of Monticello, Minnesota RE: VILLA HOME DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL We have been asked to comment on the proposal for development of the combined Jameson / Malone/ St. Henry / City land parcels as a 48 unit villa home development, in terms of its potential impact on the Historic Rand I-louse and its 3+ acres and related access questions and other issues raised by the concept plan. --We are in full support of any development that is architecturally harmonious with the neighboring structures (the Rand I-louse and St. Henry Church), is well-planned and well- designed, offers a reasonable solution to the Jameson parcel's access challenge, and does not create unmanageable traffic problems for us and the surrounding neighborhood. However, we do not believe the plan as proposed offers a workable solution to Jameson's problem, and lacking any specifics or design details of the homes to be built, we cannot comment on their suitability for the combined land parcels or their harmony with surrounding structures. However, the plan as detailed does create significant, and in our view, intolerable traffic conditions for us and the immediate surrounding neighborhood. Not addressed in the City staffs comments is the large traffic load that will be placed on the development's single ingress/egress point. We believe that this will create a serious chokepoint at the entrance to Fallon Avenue, and at the intersection of Fallon Avenue and East 7 th Street, less than a couple hundred feet away. Based on a commonly-used rule of thumb of 1.5 trips per household during the morning "go to work" window, there will be sufficient numbers of residents' cars and school buses on the planned private street during that time to create a significant traffic jam in trying to enter Fallon, and then to immediately try to enter East 7 th St. The problem will be compounded by the ongoing use of Fallon Avenue as a substitute parking lot for the neighboring apartment. Although technically a two-lane street, functionally Fallon is often just one lane, sometimes all the way from 7 1h St. north to near Washington, due to the preference of the apartment's residents to park on Fallon and A National Geographic Mississippi River GeoTourism Destination 506 Old Territorial Road Monticello, MN 55362 763.295.6037 2 shortcut to the building's back door. Existing City regulations barring such parking in the winter have been routinely ignored and have never been enforced, despite complaints, so we anticipate that the driving problems presented will continue into the future. Entering E. 7th from Fallon is already difficult, without any new development. It has a blind corner on the left, with steady, often speeding traffic coming down the hill and around the curve. A driver trying to enter has only a few seconds to react after seeing them. The large numbers of cars and trips this development will generate will have real challenges in inserting themselves into the flow at busy times. The existing lack of a full view to the left will be made even worse if a two-story home is built close to the comer, as is shown on the project plan. --We are opposed to the proposed conversion of Old Territorial Road to a "trail" serving the residents, and were very surprised to see it included as a critical part of the development, since—as the owners most affected—we were never approached or consulted with regarding the idea. We are opposed to any plan for the development of the combined properties proposing conversion of Territorial road to a"trail" unless the Rand House property is incorporated into that development's plan. Territorial is not just a"driveway that was to serve the Jameson house," as stated in the report. It is also our property's front door. Old Territorial Road has provided the principal and only access to the main entrance to the Historic Rand House for more than 135 5 years. "The entrance is marked by two stone pillars (photo attached), and a long stone fence (wall) along the eastern border of the property, along with a second pillared entrance farther south, originally accessing a road to the stable barn. Old Territorial Road predates the formation of Monticello as a city by many years, and is the last remaining local portion of the original territorial road system that brought settlers from Minneapolis and points east to the Mississippi ferry boat crossing then located at the foot of Washington Avenue, now Ellison Park. 'The pillars at both entrances, the stone fence connecting them, along with the road's restricted usage, are all covered by long- standing easement agreements with the Jamesons and the City. On other aspects of the plan... --We are opposed to the requested "gifting" to the developers of the narrow parcel of land purchased from St Henry as a part of the acquisition of property needed for the bridgehead and roundabout. The stated purpose of its purchase at the time was to provide for future construction of a new street connecting to the roundabout in order to provide joint access to the Malone, Jameson and Rand House properties. That purpose was reinforced just a few months ago when we and the other land owners involved were asked by the City to join in a petition asking for planning for such a street to begin. Our petition was approved by the City Council, and a preliminary budget was prepared. If the parcel is deeded to the developer as requested, the possibility of building this new, more convenient street access to the three properties will be permanently eliminated. (We also wonder about the authority of the City to give away property it just recently purchased at market value to a private developer at no cost.) --We are also concerned that the rear yard depths determined for the four units to be located on the Malone parcel along our southern property line are a sufficient distance from our carriage house/garages and do not compromise the grove of mature pine trees along the line. The concept plan shows very skimpy rear yards for these units. --We support the demolition of the historic Mealey house located on the Jameson parcel. The house has now been vacant and boarded for more than 10 years. It has been an "attractive nuisance" for all of those years, regularly drawing teenagers and curiosity seekers as well as frequent Wright County Sheriffs calls. Given the acres of dense brush and dead trees surrounding it, the house has been a constant source of concern to us and is a significant fire hazard to its neighbors, St. Henry and St. Benedict. --We also support removal of the long vacant former Rand House stable barn located on the Malone property. Going forward, we are very open to working cooperatively with the development group and City staff in finding reasonable solutions to the problems noted, including approaches to possibly incorporating the Rand House and its 3+ acres into a larger development scheme. Doing so would solve many of the problems associated with the current plan: provide immediate access to the Jameson parcel, enable a trail along Territorial Road, considerably relieve the potential traffic circulation problems by providing additional, more convenient entry /exit points for the combined properties, and possibly allow for the construction of two, shorter internal roads serving the residents. Such a solution would also enable the proposed plan to be substantially expanded, with the potential of developing additional housing units immediately surrounding the Rand House, which could be incorporated as a private residence or adapted for other uses. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these concerns and issues. errill and Duffy Buse 0 THE HISTORIC RAND HOUSE Attachment: Front entrance photo / Rand House ~\ �� n � p�� i��rh�, � �� "4V0�� p�' � II tea y �, %�1 r 1 i1 r iy I r,r � '" ^" / r ¢"�i ,, �� s n �, II uh � ,r�,��l{9 ir�� ,ip�ii i P i i i��IIY�i��'4�I�I��r i �� I r �,v f ,�; „ � �� (�, ,� ��1 �'�'�,��,ax ' � ��' r u ( f � ,'i, 4^'� �r �r �y� r i Y 1�'��,� � i e � � � ,, uF / (f�� '"�1',� '""��N�9�`� � t�l r1 i I ilia yu' IIP'iVY� I "� � rya�/fx� "i �� jl ��M�II�i I�uil�� C II � � 01 ��A � � II�� I�I��I� ��i�l��l �I�I � �F,I� �, r, � ' � � air r � �� -`, � � �. �� r � i r�'� �' � ��IJy' 1 Y �'h� �``v. �6y ��.�, i'^�� of i � r � � ��, � D �j�„��i i� ( r 1�� i/r � � �� %�6�r"a/ i�/i� � t�j` 4 ri//t ° �/G ✓ �` �r �qn/��f� ��ry '� (lt�� l fl��hJC /d�%� 1 r�� ) ' '4 �� i I `+.�' � r ��, � I��4N4 «� t X ,! �. F ///Y�� ,��/f 1 �� f � � I s� dry 'f �;�jy��4i�`',� �^,� I� �; e 5 � � � i�, �r�� l � I �M�b� lr��r � �r, , �� '�; ,-�,�,, r�,�, ,�.� W 5 I�i I � fir', � ',. rr i'�Ii � � �� / r � I i °� � � �1 ��rt'` �,}M J 1 j � �` �u�iylF i��at�l�f��, � � � � �� r��'�"�/1�4� , w/ya A�r�, , i��i`�%%r� i% i �, I,�i � �i Gr`!`d r �a.�� .,