Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 02-03-2004 - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING _ MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - February 3, 2004 6:00 P.M. Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and David Rietveld Staff: Glen posusta Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann Council Liaison: 1. C all to order. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held January 6th, 2004. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. . 5. Consideration of a request for development stage planned unit development for common signage and a conditional use permit for open or outdoor rental as an accessory use in the B-3/Highway Business District. Applicant: Glen posusta 6. Consideration of a request for development stage PUD for a town home development and preliminary plat of Hunters Crossing residential subdivision. Applicant: Bison Development/Sylvia Development 7. Considerati on of a req uest for a conditional use permit for the ex pansi on of a reli gi ous institution in the p~S/Public-Semi-Public District. Applicant: Resurrection Lutheran Church 8. Consideratioo of calling for a public hearing on comprehensive plan and/or ordinance amendments regulating attached housing development in areas guided for low density development. 9. Adjourn . 1- -,~,~ _.~_.~ . e-- . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - January 6, 2004 6:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, David Rietveld Council Liaison Brian Stumpf Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman - NAC, Angela Schumann Absent: Staff: 1 . Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6 P.M., noting the absence of Council Liasion Brian Stumpf 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held December 2,2003. A MOTION WAS MADE BY IIILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 2,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Open House/Workshop - Discussion regarding potential amendments to the comprehensive plan establishing an acceptable mix of single family and attached housing in low density residential districts. Steve Grittman provided the staff report, noting that the overall Monticello land use plan was developed to identify areas of potential growth. In particular, the plan outlines long range transportation corridors and illustrates potential development areas along those corridors. Many of these proposed growth areas have been defined as low-density residential. To this point, the City has guided a more organic mix oflow- density uses. including a mix of single family and attached dwellings. The low- density designation accommodates R-IA, R-I, R-2A, and R-2 zoning classifications, provided that overall density guidelines are met. Planning for these areas has used a guideline of a maximum of three units per gross acres, per parcel. Any development has to stay within that maximum and the standard of 40 units per developable acre. In anyone development within a low density area, 2 out of every 3 has to be single Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/04 . family, meeting traditional R-I standards. The Planning Commission has been involved in decisions that do not meet those requirements. Grittman indicated that those guidelines are concurrent with a more flexible planning approach, allowing developers to determine the best mixes based on land, rather than providing a very specific designation about what types of housing should appear where within each development, much like a zoning map. Staff believes that planning of this nature keeps attached housing values higher, avoiding over-concentrations, lowered values and related problems, such as traffic. This mix of housing also breaks up visual styles. Developers have thus far been very cooperative with this style of planning. Grittman indicated that it may be worthwhile to provide more guideline detail within planning documents in order to stay consistent. Grittman referred to the supporting documents to illustrate that Monticello is well within the current range oftownhome to single-family dwelling ratios in respect to surrounding communities. Monticello's actual density is a little over 2.5 per acre. This density meets basic R-l requirements. . Orittman posed the following questions for the workshop discussion: . Should these guidelines be formalized into the planning code? . Are there other alternatives or guidelines that should be discussed? . How much attached housing are we willing to consider in the new low density areas? . How will a formal decision affect long range land use plan in current and proposed annexed areas, and the comprehensive plan? Chairman Frie informed the audience that no decision on the ratio would be made this evening. Input would be gathered and a recommendation would be prepared if necessary. Chairman [rie opened the public hearing. Roger Fink of Woodside Communities of MN, a single family housing home builder and developer, addressed the commission, noting that he is involved in several active projects in surrounding communities. Fink encouraged the concept of a less prescriptive plan that allows creativity on the part of the developer. Such an approach permits the developer to perform land use analysis, and to evaluate market trends. He also expressed support for the concept of integrating attached with single-family dwellings, as they have had success with an integration of products. He did note the rising cost of housing and achieving attainable house prices for families. . Mike Benedetto, Superintendent of Schools addressed the commission, representing the School Board. He expressed the opinion that anyone decision affects many others. As such, there should be a spirit of cooperation within the community. He related that since 2000, the educational system has undergone severe budget cuts. His concern is the flat growth of student population in Monticello, due to the fact that 90% -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 0 1106/04 . of school funding is based on student enrollment. Therefore, continued growth in student enrollment is essential for funding. Currently, Monticello is averaging a 50 student growth per year. He noted that this is an unusual figure when one considers growth in the area and surrounding communities. Other districts are experiencing a growth rate of 5-10%, while Monticello's is only 2%. Benedetto related that this may potentially be a result of the number of townhomes. lIe provided examples of the low number of students the district gained from townhome developments versus single- family developments. He also noted that without open enrollment (a net gain of 100 students) Monticello's school district would actually be in decline. Chairman Frie asked whether apartments were included in his numbers. Benedetto indicated more students come out of apartments than townhomes. Mike Wigen, 8617 Darrow Avenue NE, addressed the Commission in his capacity as a member of school board. Wigen related that rather than having unattainable house prices, Monticello has an abundance of starter homes. With starter homes, families with school age children move on to other communities because of a lack of larger, "family home" stock. Wigen believes that Monticello needs more of these middle ground homes. Fric asked what middle ground referred to. Wigen thought that homes in the $200,000 - $300,000 range represented that sector. He is not opposed to townhomes, just believes that the community needs a better mix of housing styles. . Carlson inquired whether the school district had any numbers on exiting students due to a lack of middle ground housing. Benedetto and Wigen indicated there was no information on that issue directly. Tom Ilolthaus, 12354 Aetna Avenue NE, spoke to the Commission, indicating that the more expensive home prices arc, the fewer home buyers meet that qualification. Builders are responsible for selling lots and houses and are in a better position to analyze market trends. llome buyers need an incentive to pay more for homes. Mike Cyr, Monticello area builder and developer, spoke to commission, indicating that his comments were more from a citizen perspective than a builder's. He asked if the City and Planning Commission have a ratio goal, what is it? Frie stated that the goal should be based on the input tonight. Cyr related his belief that if the goal of establishing a ratio is to produce higher value homes, then it is critical to apply it consistently. Frie asked what ratio Cyr would be comfortable with. Cyr indicated an average of approximately 25% townhomes to 75% single family homes. . Dan Goeman, 201 West Broadway, spoke to the commission based on his experience as a realtor. Goeman noted that he has sold properties for both builders and developers. He expressed that a ratio of about 20lVo townhomes to 80% single family would be appropriate. 1 Ie also noted that perhaps input from the hospital board would be beneficial. Goeman said that townhomes fill a housing niche for seniors, baby boomers, and new families. He believes that Monticello's geographic location creates -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 01106/04 . more townhome buyers. He suggested the Planning Commission consider consider the alternative of providing more direction in terms of a demographic mix. For example, a larger or more expensive townhomc would attract a different buyer. Goeman also noted the inter-relationships in communities; that those with more disposable income can influence other sectors, including commercial. Frie asked Goeman whether the City Council should consider adjusting the requirements for townhomes? Goeman indicated that he would like more direction given in townhome development, but said that whether we can fill the new higher range housing depends on builders and land. Carlson asked if townhomes satisfy both first time home buyers and retirees? Goeman believes so, indicating that young people arc looking for low-maintenance due to busy lifestyle, but sill desire equity. Gene Bauer, builder, spoke to the commission. Bauer's stated opinion is that the market should control the type of community you build. Regulation is difficult. Monticello should adjust guidelines based on those who choose to build here. Schools have to make the best use of the resources avai lable. . .Jay Roos, Bison Devleopment, directed comments to the commission. He is currently working on Hunters Crossing, a Monticello development that is progressing based on the 2: I ratio. Relating to the ratio, Roos stated that he thinks it is commendable that the city allows a mix oftownhomes within low-density. He alluded to greater tlexibility with that mixture. lIe also indicated that similar to single-family homes, townhomes do have variety and range. Monticello should provide a life cycle of housing. Tom Von Bishe,Heritage Development, addressed the commission. I Ie stated that Monticello has been passed by hJf many middle- to higher-end single family housing developments due to lack of land supply. I-Ie feels that Monticello has things most communities want - including business, industry and other essential amenities. As such, Monticello should be growing. However, land supply has thus far made growth difficult and expensive. Yon Bishe stated that Monticello should expand boundaries to make more land available to lower land costs. Yon Bishe approves of a flexible approach, which will allow developers to build what is appropriate to the land. Von Bishe also indicated that if there is a need more single-family the trade-off may be higher density in smaller lots. . Charlie Pfeffer, Pfeffer Companies of Maple Grove, addressed the commission. Pfeffer noted that the development ratio process is not unique to Monticello. He explained that Maple Grove went through a similar discussion regarding townhome development 20 years ago. Pfeffer believes that flexibility is a major key to wise development, and that the City should not "allow", but "provide". He stated that the market responds to changes in lifestyle. Providing flexibility will provide marketability. Setting limits will adversely affect marketability. Pfeffer stated that -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/04 . people will find a place to build a middle level home if they want to stay in the community. Workforce housing, transportation, education are the three big issues affecting this. Wigen again addressed the commission, indicating that his position is not to advocate less of any type of housing. He believes it is the planning commission's responsibility to make a good mix. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, provided further staff comments. O'Neill stated that the city's goal is to provide a mix of housing. He did acknowledge a lack of step-up housing. The City was addressing that lack by a recent amendment to the zoning ordinance which increased minimum square footage of single-family home and the foot print square footage. The City has designated R-lA areas, which require a minimum of 2000 finished square feet. Sprit Hills, Carlisle Village, Hillside Farms are all developments currently in progress which contain R~1A areas. Also, O'Neill clarified that Monticello's population is increasing. Monticello is averaging 200-250 new homes per year over the last few years. Chairman Frie requested that the Commissioners now ask any questions ofthose who addressed the Commission and to state other related comments. . Commissioner Reitveld concurred with the school board's analysis of the housing situation. Reitveld asked Benedetto if there was a correlation in attached/detached housing issues with student population growth in other communities? Benedetto did not address housing issue specifically, but indicated that Big Lake and 81. Michael's student enrollment is growing at close to 10% vcrsuS Monticello's 2.5%. Dragsten noted that is also important to consider the zoning regulations outside the city. Monticello Township's zoning restriction of 1 home per 40 acres competes with 8t. Michael, which has no similar regulation. Dragsten said that he thinks flexibility is key. Hilgart agreed that the township restrictions greatly affect higher-priced home development because the majority of those who build the larger homes want larger lots. He advised that those involved in planning should consistently adhere to zoning standards, particularly in R I-A. Hilgart also asked for a review of the size of townhomes in the R-l districts. Hilgart inquired if Fink found a large gap between townhouse and single-family in price in same development? Fink answered that too many factors influence the price of town homes versus singly-fan1ily dwellings, particularly in configuration. Fink views R-1 A as an opportunity that will help their products grow and an unmet need. Smart development will anticipate unmet need and create housing to meet the need. . -5- Planning Commission Minutes- 0 I /06/04 . Carlson stated that many families don't want to pay new single-family prices. He believes that the next couple of years will tell how the mixed-use areas will develop. Reitveld stated that perhaps the number oftownhomes isn't the question, it's the placement. Consideration should be given to the development layout. Chairman Frie questioned whether a community should develop many townhomes because that's what the market demands, or is it the responsibility ofthe Planning Comm ission to help guide the market? He stated that density becomes a main issue in development due to the fact that developers need density to produce profit. The result may be a high townhome ratio. He questioned whether the community and comprehensive plan should be so flexible as to benefit builders who paid too much money for land? However, would a more formal approach to density adversely affect builders and inhibit growth? Carlson stated that so far, the City ratio's of2:1 has been a positive factor. He notcd that a recent article in the Star Trihune has a majority of the metropolitan arca at ratios closer to 1 :1. . O'Neill stated that Monticello is still in an adolescent stage of growth compared to other communities. He noted that formal planning has not occurred in the proposed annexation area. A more general, guided approach has been taken. CI'he majority of the proposed annexation area will bc low-density residential. O'Neill indicated that growth will occur in a pattern similar to what is provided in the supporting table, assuming current ratios are followed. Chairman Frie requested that a summary of comments and a staff recommendation be prepared for February's agenda. At that time, the Planning Commission may provide a recommendation for Council. Secondary discussion on this item occurred prior to adjournment. Please see additional comments below. 6. Consideration of re-a David Rietveld. David Reitveld expressed interest in serving another three year term. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further response, the public hearing was closed. . -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/04 D....Vl D A MOTION W AS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RE-APP01NT COMMISSIONER ~ l-we;LP ROD Dfu\OgTEN TO A SUCCESSIVE THREE-YEAR TERM. CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. . MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Park Dedication/Commercial Property: Report by Jeff O'Neill Jeff O'Neill provided a staff report on the park dedication for commercial and industrial land. O'Neill stated that park dedication for residential developments was scheduled to increase due to increases in land values. For 2004, the dedication fee will be $1200 per unit as compared to the 2003 rate of $868 per unit The Industrial Committee had studied the issue of park dedication requirements for industrial and commercial. The Parks Commission requested that no dedication fee be required for industrial land, as the committee felt industrial development did not pose a large strain/use on parkland. However, the Parks Commission did request that research be completed regarding implementing a dedication requirement for commercial development. City staff has studied other city's requirements and will update and provide a recommendation to the Parks Commission. Any park dedication amendment will come to Planning Commission for approval. . Secondary Discussion Regarding Hem 5. O'Neill asked the Planning Commission members if the 2:1 ratio, allowing ilexibility within developments has been an acceptable guideline. Frie stated that its acceptability for the community was the more important question. He indicated that some sectors were missing in the discussion. In speaking with citizens before the meeting Frie had heard such comments as "Only in Monticello are R-l areas high in townhome development". Grittman indicates this incorrect in that it mixed terminology. There are no townhomes in R-l designated areas, there are instead located only in areas designated low-density in the Guide Plan. Low density areas may contain both townhome and R-l zoning. Carlson said that it is difficult to take the proposed annexation area and divide it into zoning districts. However, the Commission still needs to consider the ultimate impact of development on the city while letting developers do their job. Grittman noted that it is common in other communities who have gone to more t1exiblc zoning to define overall density while allowing developers to mix housing styles within that density. This results in a much more interesting residential pattern. . -7- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/04 Developers have a stake in developing an appropriate number of townhomes in order not to adversely affect single-family homes. Frie asked ifthis is the case, why does appear as if Monticcllo is being overrun with townhomes to the average person? Grittman answered that many people are sensitive to townhome development (for various reasons) and that townhouses tcnd to be built in more prominent areas (higher capacity or traffic areas). Hilgart indicated that setting standards for larger townhomes may be a solution. Frie stated that tax value on single family dwellings verus multi-family dwellings has come up most oftcn on this issue. Grittman noted that higher density tends to generate more taxes per acre. Charlie Pfeffer, pfeffer Companies, indicated that if planning is guided by density, the result may ultimately be more green area due to the fact that park arca dedication is based on units. He stresscd that a change in one area of the development affects the whole development. 8. Adiourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AI' 8 P.M. REITVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Recorder -8- . . . Planning Commission Agenda -- 2/03/04 5. Public Hearin : Consideration of a re uest for Develo ment Sta e PUD for common si na e and a ConditionallJse Permit for 0 en or outdoor rental in the B-3 Zonin!!: District. Aoplicant: Glen posusta (NAC) REFERENCE ANn BACKGROUND Glenn posusta has applied for a Development Stage pun to allow a common sign plan for his commercial property along Dundas Road, Cedar Street, and TH 25, and a CUP to allow outdoor sale and rental as a part ofthe AMAX self-storage facility. The applicant had previously received a concept PUD approval for a larger project, including land to the south of the current project. At that time, the applicant indicated an intent to locate a common sign at the corner of Dundas Road and TH 25. At this time, no additional commercial development is proposed, but the applicant is seeking approval of the sign portion of the project. Common Freestanding Sign. The proposed sign would be located in the northwest corner ofthe development parcel at Dundas and Tll 25. The proposed sign is 25 feet in height, more than the standard 22 feet allowed for this location. However, the applicant would be exchanging the additional height for a single sign identifying the area _ reducing clutter caused by multiple signs. Planning staff believes that this is a reasonable use of the PUD flexibility. As a part of the proposed PUD, a development contract should be executed that identifies the future limitations to signage on the site. Wall signage consistent with the zoning ordinance would be permitted without PUD review. Any potential changes to the freestanding signage on the site would require an amendment to the PUD. A separate component of the development contract should be the applicant's agreement to remove other freestanding signage in the area. This would include the monument signage and other materials, equipment, and debris south of Dundas Road, and relocation of the step van currently parked at the northeast corner ofthe Dundas- 25 intersection. A financial security should be made a part of this agreement to ensure compliance. Finally, staff would encourage the applicant to consider two design enhancements to the sign. First, the structural poles would be more attractive with the addition of stone or decorative block, rather than the exposed steel posts. Second, the sign faces are shown to be white internally illuminated boxes with applied letters and graphics. Staff would recommend that the graphics are "reversed out" of a colored or dark background. This design results in a sign that has less glare to passing motorists, and is often more readable as a result. Outdoor Rental CUP. The zoning ordinance allows outdoor sales, display, and rental by Conditional Use Permit in the B-3 District. The applicant's proposed use is for a Planning Commission Agenda - 2/03/04 . U-Haul dealership in connection with the AMAX self storage business. Although outdoor display and rental can be a nuisance use in some locations, its association with the self-storage business would appear to be a good fit. Moreover, following development ofthe Highway 25 parcel, direct display of the rental equipment will not be visible to most passing traffic, thereby minimizing concerns related to this use. The applicant has submitted a site plan that shows the locations of the proposed rental equipment storage and display. Essentially, the trucks and/or trailers will be parked along Dundas Road in front of the northwest storage building, and between buildings within the storage property. The applicant indicates that 15 to 20 vehicles will be stored on the property, awaiting rental. The site is already developed and would require no additional site improvements to accommodate the additional use. With the conditions that no other parking, storage, and/or display is permitted in the PUD area, and that the rental and storage/display is limited to U-Haul vehicles, the use would appear to meet the intent of the zoning ordinance. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Development Stage PlJD for common signage. . 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage PUD for common signage, based on a finding that the exchange of additional sign height for prohibition of other freestanding signs in the PUD meets the intent ofthe zoning ordinance. This motion would be contingent on compliance with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the PlJD, based on a finding that sign identification of non-fronting businesses is counter to the City's intent for signage in the Highway 25 corridor. Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales, Rental, and Display 1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on a finding that the site is appropriate for this type ofland use, and that the applicant has met the conditions appropriate for the use and the location. This motion would be contingent on compliance with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a finding that outdoor sales and display in this location would cause conflicts with the existing self-storage use. . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 2/03/04 . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends approval of both the PUD for common signage and the CUP for outdoor rental and display. As noted in the report, the signage allowance is considered a net positive in that a slightly higher sign identifying the entire project area would be better than a number of signs in the same general location. It is noted that some design enhancements to the sign would provide further benefit to the concept. With regard to the CUP, the proposed location for U-Haul rental in connection to the self-storage facility is a natural one. Particularly in relation to keeping this type of display out of the primary commercial corridor, planning staff believes that the City's zoning objectives are being met. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Location B. Site Plan C. Sign Plan Z. Conditions of Approval . . 3 Planning Commission Agenda- 2/03/04 EXHIBIT Z . AMAX & Glass Hut Sign age PUD/lJ-Haul Outdoor Rental CUP Conditions: 1. Other than the proposed 25 foot tall sign, no freestanding signage shall be permitted in the PUD property. 2. The applicant shall remove all other existing signage within thirty days of construction of the proposed pylon sign. 3. The applicant shall provide a financial security guaranteeing removal of the existing signage and the step van. The step van may be parked on the same property as the U-Haul rental equipment. 4. The proposed sign should be designed to add additional materials to the structural posts, and ensure that the sign docs not create glare onto adjacent property or the public streets and highways. 5. The applicant may maintain up to 25 U-Haul trucks and/or trailers within the limits of the self storage area, and as shown on the attached site plan. 6. Existing and future commercial uses in the pun shal1 be permitted wall signage consistent with the standards ofthe zoning ordinance. . . 4 :::JP\. I PL?J . . ~e''1S~.ol~< "'Q<i"'.olr ..; :i N.E. 85th STREET L___ I j I . , i 04 .. i 1? 3.0~,OO..OOS OO'YZ6 LL ot'9S (!;od __ j,.D,.., ",-- 6901>951 -- I U-N."l fR.l1lK+- i~ iV-It 'tl' p~ K/wd1 ~~. /~-21J ve~ I I I I \ \ \ I . . .... .-; . prf~ y #'J...," . - ~'l"" <.-- C. ....;". ... ~ ~ 11>< ::r ~ <31: I- o~ i'~; !5 I ..... Z .~' 0... ~~... 85 <,..j: ~~ !iz~ 2~ D..~ 60 = I , .... ... ...-. .... - ---- .......- ....... 0 --_ >-... --- ':. ...... / -....... I -................. ~ .......... ......9 .,~ .......... '\ .......... $ ~~cIt~ ......... PARe"€.\. _.>........... .,~"J. ot ., -- ...... ""rot ., - - P ,..~\...3-- ----........ o z :: -- ~ __......... <Ii -............~ C> !f} ""...: ......... Od III 01 \t) 3 'i.J 5fjl1 ~ Locallon . / / / / / / / / A'MA-~ ~~~ :I~/- I , I ... ' I \ ~ I ; , "" I ! I CO) .' I ~ -; ..04- f.-e: (j-f/;1uL rM-..E5 , , I ' I I. , I 4 '-0")<' 6-=-C/" 2 o?,~l-f / 2-~ - 0 '\ \ _ ,'~ ' __ - . /2.;- :;, -<.' .-< 5 -<", 1.<) 5/-T7- . I , , . THE ,~, Qi LAS" S ~ . ~' ' " . ) ~!, - '",,- :-1 1I01II1Jf! _~ , I '1 ',,~ "". j 7 Auto, Commercial' Residential ~i~: ,I i... ._J /:.... .'7091 rj- 4 --c.1 ;<. .::, - 0 .? I . r B 51.A'f/ON(L'{ Y --:r ~.",j.eV 6ClLVd g,'.<-"," >< 6'!-,?' !S- ~../( A c !3c>rof;fL '5J' fT .. - ~. ;1' g":><. ,&';' ~:I s.:<W\r- J~e..~ ',5r-.e.eL / /.lNtl"L~/J(tV,c:...,,' v--? /fh d.ec~ 1o.eP.~ ~,r_ .!.6f?r-.JPr oF- ?_/ l' .7' r If ~ ;a-w1 {?I~.A... toet + tu s h <€:, IY r 60...5 <€- f'P",,~'"-" c# !7"~N7,jt s~"'~, &@ OUMCNTSIGNS :;<00:;< . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/03/04 6. Public "earin!!: Consideration of a request for Development Sta!!e PUD and Preliminary Plat for "unter's Crossin!!. Applicant: Sylvia Development/Bison Development. Inc. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND Sylvia Development and Bison Development, Inc. have requested Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat approval of a 257 unit residential development located south of Cobblestone Court and east of County Road 117. The development consists of 171 single family lots and 86 town home units upon a site measuring 94.6 acres in Size. In August of 2003, the Planning Commission considered a request for: I. Rezoning of the property (from A-O, Agricultural Open Space to a combination R-I, Single Family Residential, R-2, Single and Two Family Residential and R-2A, Single family Residential), 2. Concept Stage PUD ., J. Subdivision Sketch Plan. The previously considered concept plan submission called for 284 units on the property, 27 more units than presently proposed. In consideration of the preceding development requests, the Commission concluded that the proposal was consistent with the City's planning objectives for the area and recommended approval of the rezoning and concept stage PUD (subject to various conditions). No action on the sketch plan was required. Density. The development proposal calls for a total of257 dwelling units upon 94.6 acres of land. This results in an overall development density of2.7 units per gross acre. In previous concept plan consideration, the City Council determined the proposed number of dwelling units (and resulting development density) was acceptable. It should be noted that the vast majority of the open space in the project is within the Xcel Energy transmission line easement - more than 18 acres. Based only on the buildable acreage in the plat, the density is approximately 3.4 units per acre, still within the City's definition of low density. Streets. The proposed development includcs both public and private streets. Public streets are proposed throughout single family residential areas and as a primary roadway through the townhome area. A private street system has been proposed within the interior of the townhome area to provide access to the individual townhome units. Planning Commission Agenda - 02/03/04 A ,., Generally speaking, the proposed street configuration is considered positive and provides desirable access locations and functional circulation pattern. Appropriately, 60 foot right-of-way widths have been proposed within the single family residential area of the site while a 52 foot wide right of way (Ivy Ridge Lane) has been proposed within the townhome area of the site. One recommendation would be to realign the townhouse public street (Ivy Ridge Lane) to conneet with Partridge Way, rather than leave the offset alignment as proposed. This would facilitate better traffic distribution within the subdivision. One other issue ofrelates to the configuration of the Park Drive cul-de-sac in the northwest corner ofthe site. While the cuI-de-sac is within the City's maximum length requirements, the turnaround area should be oversized (with an 80 foot radius) to allow the placement of a centralized landscape island. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. . Lots. As previously indicated, the Planning Commission previously held a public hearing to consider a rezoning of the property to a combination of R-l, R-2 and R-2A designations. While the proposed uses are considered generally acceptable, some question exists in regard to the need to apply the R-2A district designation to the property. According to the ordinance, the R-2 A District is intended to accommodate "small lot" single family detached dwelling units with a minimum lot area requirement of 7 ,500 square feet and width requirement of 45 feet. In review of the submitted preliminary plat and proposed lot sizes, small lots typical of R-2A districts have not been included. This issue should be clarified by the applicant. Within the R-l District, an average lot area of 12,000 square feet and an average lot width of 80 feet must be provided. District provisions further state that not less than 40 percent of the lots in a subdivision may be less than 12,000 square feet in size and 80 feet in width. Additionally, no lot may be less than 10,000 square feet in size or 70 feet in width. The single family lots within the subdivision have been found to average 13,069 square feet in size and 81.3 feet in width. While documentation has been provided that at least 40 percent of the proposed single family lots exceed 12,000 square feet (44 percent), the lot widths do not meet the requirements. According to the zoning ordi nance, lot widths must average 80 feet, with no fewer than 40 percent of the lots at least 80 feet wide. As listed, just 32 percent of the lots meet the 80 foot minimunt. The plat must be revised to meet this standard (55 of 171 single family lots). . Finally, some ofthe lots in the proposed plat have side lot Jines that are not perpendicular to the adjacent street. This results in ditliculty in fitting housing onto the building portion of the lot - effectively reducing the buildable width. The Subdivision Ordinance requires perpendicular side lot Jines, and this should be rd1ccted in the plat. 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 02/03/04 . Typical of most townhome developments, a base lot/unit lot platting configuration has been proposed for the townhome area of the development. The unit lots correspond to the generalized f()otprints of the dwelling units while the base lots overlay remaining common areas. The processing of the PUD is necessary to accommodate the creation of lots without public street frontage. Townhomes. As shown on the submitted preliminary plat, the townhome area is comprised of two-unit, three unit, four unit and six unit buildings. As a matter of City policy, the City has discouraged the construction of "back to back" residential buildings with more than 4 units. While this style is allowed in mid- density designs, they do not meet the zoning ordinance definition of townhouses. By definition, these buildings are "multiple family" structures due to the fact that more than two common walls are required for some of the units. Of particular concern with such buildings are the limited outside views such units provide (windows on only one side). As a condition of pu~ approval, it is recommended that the two six unit buildings be eliminated and that no building within the townhome portion of the plat exceed four units. Tn the alternative, a "row house" design may be used for more than four units. . With regard to architecture in the townhouse areas, the drawings illustrate a combination of brick and vinyl lap siding on the fronts. The side and rear walls have vinyl siding only, with no ornamentation. Several of the buildings with have rear-wall exposure to the streets in or around the project. Planning staff would recommend the addition of other building materials to these walls, as well as variation in the line of the rear wall. As designed, the buildings are essentially a single long vinyl wall with a patio door and a few windows. A cantilevered window is included on the upper 1100r of each unit - this area could serve as an opportunity to vary the line of the entire wall, rather than just a small window area. To be noted is planned unit development is intended to result in a superior design (which justifies the flexibility granted by the PUO). In this regard, high quality building design and use of finish materials may contribute to such PUD intention. As part of the City's building plan review, this should be recognized. Setbacks. All proposed single family lots demonstrate an ability to meet applicable R-l District setback requirements. A limited amount of setback averaging is proposed, consistent with the City's R-I standards. . For the townhome area, setbacks of 30 feet have been proposed along public streets while 22 feet setbacks have heen proposed along private streets. Such setbacks result in a 96 foot "face to face" building separation along the public street ((Ivy Ridge Lane) and a 68 foot, "face to htce" separation along the proposed private streets. While the public street setbacks meet the City's standards, the private street separation does not. Staff recommends a face~to-face building separation of 80 feet. "rhis 3 Planning Commission Agenda -- 02/03/04 . essentially requires a 25 foot driveway on each side, with a 28 foot wide private street and two, one-foot curbs. This design allows for on-street visitor parking, as well as private vehicle parking in the driveways and landscaping in the front yard areas. Other designs used in the community have had difficulty with parking areas, turning movements, and a higher degree of impervious surface. It should he noted that the plans differ in the treatment of the driveways for attached units. Driveways fl.)r adjacent units arc required to be separated hy a six foot wide landscaped area. Property Owner's Association. As a condition offinal stage PUD approval, a property owner's association should be created for the town home area of the plat addressing maintenance responsibilities for common areas, covenants etc. The by-laws for such association should be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Park Dedication. As shown on the preliminary plat, a 5.0 acre park has been proposed in the southeast corner of the site. The dedication of such park responds to a recommendation of the Parks Commission to include a 5 acre park for neighborhood play and tot-lot space. Because the park land dedication requirement for the plat is approximately 9.4 acres, the additional dedication not taken in land will be captured as fees. . As a part of the City's pathway system, a pathway is planned along the northern boundary of the plat, coordinated with the Klein Farms subdivision. The applicant has provided an outlot over only a portion of this area. The City Engineer has specific recommendations in this regard. l'he plat shows sidewalk along some of the streets in the project. However, sidewalk should be required along all streets with the exception of the cul-de-sacs. Landscaping. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for the proposed project. 'fhe planting schedule calls for 104 trees in the 84 unit townhouse portion of the project. In typical plats, the City requires at least 2 trees per unit, per frontage. At a minimum, this would result in a requirement for 168 trees in the townhouse area. Moreover, the use of the PUD technique presumes that projects have higher levels of amenities and open space. In planning staff's view, a significantly enhanced landscaping plan should be prepared that focuses on creating both "natural ized" and "cultured" landscape areas throughout the project area. Grading, J)rainal!:e and Utilities. Issues related to site grading, drainage and utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. . Development Agreement. As a condition ofPUD and final plat approval, the applicant should enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required hy it. 4 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/03/04 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS. Decision 1: Development Stage PUD for Hunter's Crossing: I. Motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage PUD for Hunter's Crossing, based on the comments from the stafr report for the february 3, 2004 Planning Commission meeting and the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Development Stage PUD for Hunter's Crossing based on a finding that the submission of additional plans is necessary to comply with the requirements of the City. 3. Motion to table action on the Development Stage PUO for Hunter's Crossing, subject to submission of revised plans consistent with approved conditions. Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Hunter's Crossing: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Hunter's Crossing, based on the comments from the staff report for the February 3, 2004 Planning Commission meetil~g and the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. lVlotion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat for Hunter's Crossing based on a finding that the plans will require some revisions to comply with the requirements of thl.' City. 3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat for Hunter's Crossing, subject to subnlission of revised plans consistent with approved conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There are a number of issues related to the design of the plat that will result in significant changes to the lot count and layout. Planning staif recommends tabling of the plat and PLIO until revisions arc made that are consistent with planning and engineering sta1l recommendations. . While it would be possible for the Planning Commission to pass the Development Stage PUD and the Preliminary Plat on to the City Council with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, staifis concerned that the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission should be eloser to the final design than this set of drawings. 5 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/03/04 StJPPORTING DATA A. Site Plan B. Preliminary Plat C. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan D. Utility Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Building Elevation Plan G. City Engineer Recommendations Z. Conditions of Approval 6 Planning Commission Agenda -- 02/03/04 . EXHIBIT Z Conditions: I. T'he applicant clarify the rezoning request and address the need for the R-2A designation. 2. -fhe turnaround area of the Park Drive cul-de-sac be enlarged (to have an 80 foot radius) to allow the placement of a centralized landscape median. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. 3. The applicant revise the plat to meet the lot width requirements that 40 percent of all single family lots are at least 80 feet in width. 4. The plat should be revised to eliminate side lot lines that are not perpendicular to the street right of way. 5. The applicant identify pathway locations consistent with the recommendations of the City Engineer. . 6. Verify pathway location along the proposed reconstruction profile of Fallon Avenue. 7. Sidewalks should be added to one side of all streets, with the exception of the cul-de- sacs. 8. The two six unit townhome buildings be eliminated and no building within the townhome portion of the plat exceed four units. 9. Building materials should be changed by adding contrasting materials and articulation to the rear building walls on the townhomes. 10. A property owner's association be created for the townhome area of the project addressing maintenance responsibilities for common areas, covenants etc. The by- laws for such association shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 11. A landscape plan should be revised to add a significant number of trees, and include hoth cultured and naturalized landscape areas. Included in this plan should be an appropriate landscaping treatment of the ponding areas with hoth shrubs and grasses that will thrive in the wet-dry conditions. 12. The City Engineer provide comments regarding grading, drainage and util ity issues. . 13. -fhe applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. 7 Planning Commission Agenda - 02/03/04 . 14. A phasing plan is submitted for review, and subject to staff recommendations on access and utility extensions. 15. Annexation approval of the project area into the City of Monticello. . . 8 . WSB (oG, . Associates, Inc. January 29, 2004 Mr. Ken Adolf Schoell & Madson, Inc. 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305-1525 Re: Preliminary Plat Review I [unters Crossing (Klein/O'Brien) Bison Development City of Monticello Planning Project No. 2003-08 WSB ProjectNo. 1160-99 Dear Mr. Adolf: . We have reviewed the revised preliminary plat and the preliminary grading and utility plans for the above-mentioned project. This letter summarizes our comments on the provided information. We will also provide copies of the actual plan review. There are several significant design concerns that would be best addressed in a separate meeting. It is our recommendation that the preliminary plat not be approved until revised plans are reviewed and approved. We would otTer the following comments: Existine: Conditions 1. Define existing and proposed lot lines in the Featherstone development. 2. While ground topography has been shown on adjacent developments, the existing homes are not identiJied. We will need the actual topography shots on a separate drawing. The 2-foot contours do not easily depict drainage issues. 3. The plans should identify the ownership of all private utility companies. 4. County Road 117 should be shown as a City street and labeled Edmondson Avenue. 5. Show the existing street/pavement construction at the end of Country A venue. 6. All of the adjoining property owners are supposed to be listed on the plan. . F: AngeluS f)/(llIlli/!).t nl('.~ :O()3'.]()03.008.lllIIllel",\"( '/"l).\'sillg WSH.cul/llIll..'lIlsl.d()( Mr. Ken Adolf January 29, 2004 Page 2 . Preliminary Plat 1. The horizontal curve on the south end of Eisele A venue just north of 85th Street should be eliminated to provide a straight connection. This curve is very sharp and can be more smoothly constructcd. The desired road alignment could be made up in thc curve north of Quail Run. 2. Access to Unit] 9 (townhome), Block 8 along Trophy Lane appears confining given the curve in the roadway and the location of this unit. 3. Show the existing home that is proposed to remain on Lot 12, Block 16. 4. The side yard easemcnts should be shown as 6 feet and 12 feet for the side and front yard typical lot details. 5. All cxtra-wide easements should be shown on the plat. 6. Do the street names conform to the county naming policy? If not, these should be correctcd. (Contact Fred Patch at 763-271-3214 for detail.) . 7. Lot 6, Block 15 is a very unorthodox lot. It will be ditTicult for the homeowner to use the property. 8. Truck access shall be provided to all rear yard catch basins, ponds, or other Public Works f~lcilities if allowed. Thesc should bc shown on the plan and will need to be constructed to support these vehicles. 9. Show the easements n011h of Outlot D for connection of the sanitary sewcr and watermain. 10. The easement between Lots 8 and 9, Block 14 should be expanded to 25 feet and 10 feet from the centerline of the sanitary sewer and watermain, respectively. Considering the 10-fiJot separation, the total casement corridor must bc a minimum of 45 feet wide instead of the proposed 30 feet. 11. Extend the lot lines through Outlot D and eliminate the outlot. 12. Considcr the connection of Partridge Place through Lot 14, Block 14 to eliminate the cul-dc-sac. This would. provide 15 extra feet for thc utility corridor through Lots 8 and 9. . 13. Can the horizontal curve west of Eisele A venue be flattened? 14. The drainage and utility easement for storm sewer can not be evaluated for adequacy without elevations. F: IAlIge!oSl,ji!il11f'lJl); /-'i/es'i](I()31,]()(J3. (JON.! /1/IJlers( ')'W.\'illg'l WSU, ('I 11111/)('111.\]. d()j . . . Mr. Ken Adolf January 29,2004 Page 3 15. We do not prefer small, short center islands as proposed at Hunters Crossing and Edmondson Avenue. Put monuments on each corner. 16. Outlot A should be combined as part of the Block 7 of the townhome area with a drainage, utility and conservation casement over the ponds and the property the responsihility of the townhomes. 17. Outlot B should have the lot lines extended from Block 6 and Block 4 into the middle of that area with drainage and utility casement provided on those lots. ] 8. All 90-degree curves should include a I OO-foot radius at centerline. 19. AIl corner lots should have a radius matching the street radius t()r the right-of-way lines. 20. A 20-foot outlot should be provided on the north side of Block 2 for a future pathway system. 21. The outlot shown at the northeast corner of the property in the Klein Farms 6th Addition is not correct. It should be a 40-foot outlot to the south and a 30-foot outlot to the north. 22. All references to County 1 Tighway No. 117 should be changed to Edmondson A venue. 23. Sidewalks should be added on the north and west side of Quail Run. 24. Sidewalks should be added to the east side of Eisele Avenue. 25. The bubhle cul-de-sac should also include a ] DO-foot radius at centerline. 26. AIl lot lines should be designed perpendicular to the street right-of-way in accordance with City planning recommendations. 27. Ivy Ridge Lane should be realigned to connect to the North Partridge Way. The design should be according to the new Monticello 52-foot right-oF-way design with a 32-J()ot wide f~lce-to-face street offset 2 feet to all ow for sidewalk. The private streets should be designed to a 28-foot face-to-face standard with a 25-foot setback from the hack of curb to the face of the building for a total face-to-face building width of 80 feel. 28. The cui-de-sac at Park Drive should be constructed with a island according to the same design that is used for the bubble islands. /-": 'd'l):dllSlj!/mIJlillg /- 'iks',1()()31]()()3. f)()i','.I/lIJlfl'I"..,{ "'(/.\,1'11';:'1 H'SH ,"tJIJ/IJ}('/lrs.i.dl'," . . . Mr. Ken Adolf January 29, 2004 Page 4 Gradine:. Drainae:c. and Erosion Control Plan I. The high and low points should be called out with the corresponding elevation. 2. Lot corner elevations should be shown at all lot corners. 3. Conservation casements will be required on lots abutting ponds. 4. Emerging overflow routes should be shown. 5. The HWL and outlet elevations of all ponds should be noted. 6. Silt fence should be placed along the HWL of the ponds following excavation to prevent excess siltation. 7. 1\ center left-turn lane and right-turn lane should be included for the two entrance roads off of Edmondson Avenue. 8. Rear yard catch basins are discouraged. Their use is allowed if no other options exist, if a positive overflow is provided and if maintcnance provisions are described. Typically a minimum 4-foot depth of structure is required. 9. How will the area west of Lots 11-14, Block 15 drain? The topography does not indicate existing conditions very well. 10. Describe the existing tree stand behind Lots 11-14, Block 15 and locate any significant (>6 inches) trees. 11. The topography suggests that the area behind Lots 6- ] 4, Block 15 will be landlocked. This could present a stonnwater concern. 12. All rear yard swales must be contained within a drainage and utility easement. 13. The City standard for a minimum street grade is 0.50%. Eisele Avenue at the intersection of 85th Street is noted as being 0.22%. It is unclear how the roadway grades will match into 85th Street. 14. Why is there storm sewer extending through the park to the wetland on Sheet Io? 15. It is unclear how Lots 1-9, Block 13 will drain. Drainage should be routed away from the homes along the easements. 16. Swales between lots should be more defined. J..,. UII}:I'/US',/Ihflllllllg I, i/e\-!,]()(J31]O(),~, 00.\'. / Jllllfl'/"S( 'm.\",lillg\ n'SH ('(III1J1I('//I....;', II!)" . . . Mr. Ken Adolf January 29, 2004 Page 5 ] 7. A typical strcet section should be revised to show a 4% slope behind the back of curb. The street section may be modified according to a review of the soil conditions. 18. Provide elevations of the existing house corners to verify how that property is intended to be drained. 19. Grade the park to the Parks Department requirements. This will be provided upon a review of how the park would be intended to be used. Re-Iabel the park as an outlot. 20. The arca hehind Lots 2 and 3, Block 17 does not appear to drain. 21. We will provide a proposed profi Ie for a future reconstructed Fallon A venue that will identify how the lots should be graded to accommodate that future design. 22. Label Fallon A venue so that it can be read. 23. The proposed design includes four locations (Block 17, Block 16, Block 15, and Block 10) that are designed with walkouts completely landlocked with a catch basin serving as the only outlet. This type of design is not allowed in Monticello nor is it recommended due to the potential for significant flooding. 'fhe plat should be redesigned to accommodate positive drainage out of the rear yards, preferably without the use of catch basins and limitation of walkouts where positive overflows can be achieved. 24. Lots 1-3, /31ock ] 3 do not appear to drain in the rear yard area. Provide additional information as to how this is intended to drain. 25. The south end of Country A venue is 2 feet lower than the adjoining property. There will need to be a slope easement or some other provision provided to address that issue. A temporary turnaround will be required in that location or preferably, a turnaround on the adjoining property. 26. Lots 8-9, Block 13 are also flat and do not drain. 27. The center island should be removed from Hunters Crossing Boulevard and relocated as monumentation on the sides. 28. All townhomes and single lamily homes should include a 30-foot usable backyard area with a slope no greater than 8: I and not including drainage swales. 29. All townhome units should include a minimum 6-foot separation between driveways. F: IAIJ;c:dtlS',/'lwlIIil/,l.!; Flle.l'I.:.1(j()3', JO()3. (JON. HfllI/('/s( 'm.\'.\'illg', W\H.c(IIJJlII(,III.\"l.doj Mr. Ken Adolf January 29, 2004 Page 6 . 30. Lot 4, Block 2 should not be designed as a walkout that is only served by a catch basin. Lots 1-8 should be directed to the pond through a swale. 31. Provide spot elevations at intersections and better information on the topography along the streets surrounding the property. 32. Lot 1, Block 4 has an extensive setback due to the gas main which should be discussed in greater detail as to how that is designed adjacent to the existing homes in the Klein Farms 6th Addition. 33. Lot 3, Block I docs not appear to drain. 34. All catch basins should include silt sacks for erosion control protection. 35. The typical basin grading detail should include a 10:] bench at the outlet elevation, Y2 above and Y:- below the outlet elevation. Do not label the ponds as normal water levcL Stormwater Analvsis . 1. This site is in the middle of a developing sub-watershed system. To adherc to the City's Comprehcnsive Storm water Plan, the storm sewer plans should include a trunk storm sewer, which conveys 6.6 cfs from the southeast corner of the site to the northwest ponds. The CSMP has planncd for the southeast corner ofthe site receiving future peak runolf of 6.6 cfs discharging at an elevation of 952. 2. The Curve numbers arc to low. The IlydroCAD storm water program uses SCS Curve numbers. ^ single-family residential development should use a straight curve number of 7~. (It is not necessary to create a weighted average) 3. There is concern ahout the backyard hounce elevation if the storm sewer pipe is at 0% slope. The HydroCAD model does not accurately model the design described in the narrative. Therc will be a time lag in which all of the basins will equalize. To determi ne the flow of watcr through this pipe system and bounce levels, a more detailed software such as XP-SWMM must be used to determine the backyard hounce and the time it takes the system to equalize. 4. The applicant also needs to provide a storm sewer schedule for each catch basin manhole and closed conduits to demonstrate that the site facilities can manage a 10 year rainfall event. . 5. Ifinfi.ltration is to be used as a method of water management the following will be needed: · Hydrological Soil Group · Infiltration Rate used I"~: UOKdt'rSlj!/wlI/;!I}.: j'lles'il()(U',]O()3.IJtJ/'l'. fhflll('!'.\( 'r().\'.\-;)}}.:', WSH (,'Ollllm'III.\'2.d()( Mr. Ken Adolf January 29, 2004 Page 7 . . Soil Textures . Infiltration design storm event . 72 hour infiltration volume . Details of the infiltration trenches Wetlands There is one jurisdictional wetland located on this site. It is a small Type 1 wetland located in the southeast corner west of Fallon A venue NE. Because this wetland is in Wright County and not part of a shoreland district wetland, up to 2,000 sJ. can be filled under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) exemption. Any other activity in which the wetland would be filled would require a sequencing plan in which avoidance is not feasible. Based on the location of this wetland, meeting this criteria will be difficult. No credit will be provided for park dedication in the area of the wetland. Utility Plan 1. Eight-inch watermain should be used as opposed to 6-inch watermain. Eight-inch is the minimum pipe size as per City standards. Six-inch should be used on hydrant leads. . 2. 'fhe sanitary sewer should be aligned along the street centerline. Additional manholes should be added to accomplish this. 3. I Iydrants on the 12-ineh line should be kept at high points for air release. 4. Catch basin leads should be kept within the street and not connected out of the street at intersections. 5. Gate valves should be added mid block on Quail Run and Eisele Run. 6. All utilities should be re-aligned to be kept out of the islands in the cul-de-sac bubbles. 7. Watermain should he extended across Edmondson Avenue from Hunters Crossing to the featherstone Development on Sheet 16. 8. Utilities should be realigned at the intersection of Ivy Ridge Lane and Trophy Lane. 9. Hydrant spacing in the town home areas should be 300 feet apart and be located at intersections. . 10. Two gate valves should be included at all T-intersections. F: lilllgehlS\jl!Wlllill}.f j,"i/4!,,>"I]003i211fJ,l. ()oS. Hili/fer.\'( '1"I.1.\'.~ill~\ IV....'I', i'(JIIII1II.'II'S~.("){ . . . Mr. Ken Adolf January 29, 2004 Page 8 11. Watermain has been extended across Edmondson A venue on Sheet 17 at lvy Ridge Lane. 12. 'fhe watermain and storm sewer lateral alignments should be switched to the opposite sides along Park Drive and Ridge Lane, from Whitetail Way to Edmondson A venue on Sheet 17. 13. Silt fence should be wire back type. 14. Sanitary sewer and watermain should be extended south of Country Avenue and 85th Street NE to serve the area to the south. We will determine if this area can be served by the existing system. 15. Storm sewer structures should include invert elevations and/or builds. Storm sewer sizes should be labeled. 16. We are completing a water study and will provide additional comments on the size of the mains throughout the project in a future letter with the revised preliminary plat. We will also evaluate the sanitary sewer size and depth and provide a recommendation on those issucs on the same time. 17. Easements will need to be acquired to connect to the existing sanitary sewer and water in the Klein Farms 6th Addition development. It will be necessary to discuss service to the future Partridge Place and other property owned by Dave Klein in regards to the extension of sanitary sewer. The City would assist the developer in this effort if requested. 18. I low is Lot 3, Block 1 being served with sanitary sewer service? 19. Lot 8, Block 2 may be too low to be served by the sanitary sewer in Park Drive. We would prefer to keep sanitary manholes a minimum depth of 12 feet to eliminate potential cont1icts with water services. This may not be possible unless the street grade is revised. 20. The watermain at the end of Park Drive should be looped through to Ivy Ridge Lane. 21. We need to check the as-built on Park Dri ve in the Klein Fanns 6th Addition as I am sure the watermain is a 6-inch. Because this process is being completed prior to annexation and because the annexation date is not determined, any new City policies or other agency requirements will be enforced once the project lnoves f()I'ward. j- ': ',AlIgj'laSl!llwll!ill~ j'l!esl_'(l1J3'I;]003. (jos. /IIIJJ/e/".\'( '/"il.uillgl, f.VS/t.1 '1!/IIIIIi.'/JI...'2.t./i)( Mr. Ken Adolf January 29, 2004 Page 9 . Please give me a call at (763) 287-7190 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Bret A. Weiss, P.E. City Engineer cc: John Simola, City of Monticello ./eff O'Neill, City of Monticello Jay Roos, Bison Development Company, Inc. Shibani Bisson, WSB & Associates, Inc. Steve Grittman, NAC sb . . F: IAf1j;elaS\/ !lwl//ilJ): I, I/,,'sl, JOO }'I :!()() 3. ()()8./i 1/1111'/".'>'( 'm.\'Siflxi, IF.\H C( !I111}J~ '}}ls_1, due . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/03/04 7. Public Hearine:: Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for the expansion of a rclie:ious institution in the P-S/Public-Semi-Public District. Applicant: Resurrection Lutheran Church. (O'Neill) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Resurrection Lutheran Church is seeking a conditional use permit allowing the expansion of their facility to accommodate for education and community spaces. 'rhe public hearing on this item was scheduled in anticipation of the City receiving a complete set of plans for Staff/Planning Commission review. Plans provided were missing important information relative to meeting conditional use permit requirements, so it is being recommended that consideration of this item be delayed until the March meeting of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission is therefore asked to simply open the publie hearing and continue it to the March meeting. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to continue the public hearing regarding the request to the March 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission, subject to submission of a complete application. SUPPORTING DATA None . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 02/03/04 8. Consideration of calline: for a public hearine: on comprehensive plan and/or ordinance amendments ree:ulatine: attached housine: development in areas e:uided for low density development. (O'Neill) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND At the most recent meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission obtained comments relating to the regulation of attached housing in areas guided for low density residential development. Considering the recent dialogue on the subject, the Planning Commission is asked to discuss this matter further and to consider providing direction to stafT and an associated recommendation to the City Council. The following is a summary of the input gathered on the topic at the January meeting. Current policy guides attached housing in low density areas at a ratio of two single family homes to one attached home. 'l'here arc areas within the community that are zoned or guided to allow a higher ratio of attached housing to single family housing. None of the developers present at the January meeting objected to the 3 units per acre standard, however some believed that the "market" should be allowed to drive the style of housing being developed within a community. This alternative would allow an entire development to be comprised of attached housing, but would also result in signitIeant common green space. Most of the developers appeared comfortable with the City establishing a limit, or ratio, of attached housing to single family, but requested freedom in defining the location of attached housing relative to single family housing areas. Developers wanted the design discretion in applying the ratio. Developers did not support the establishment of specific zoning districts for attached housing within low density areas. Many of the developers spoke of the economic realities and the housing needs associated with the emerging demographics of the area. They noted that empty nesters and first-time home buyers comprise a large share of the market. These sectors arc what developers are responding to in housing style choices within developments. It was also noted by staiI and others that Monticello has a history of providing We-cycle housing. School District representatives noted the school funding formula that relies on school population. Representatives believe that attached housing development does not produce school age children. It was suggested that single family housing developments have been successful in this area. Their opinion was that it is likely that attached housing areas, if they had been developed for detached housing, would have produced a higher number of students. Therefore, we should avoid more attached housing in areas that arc guided tlW low density because the detached housing is also selling briskly within the marketplace. Planning Commission Agenda - 02/03/04 . The need for step-up housing was also outlined, with concern expressed over families needing to leave Monticello to find "mid-range" housing opportunities. The Planning Commission and City staff noted that recent code and policy changes wcre designed to result in more step-up housing. StafT explained that the recent zoning district code changes and new developments in progress (Carlilse Village, Hillside Farms, Parkside) are providing more selection for home buyers in the step-up market. It was also noted by Steve Grittman that attached housing development is located predominantly in higher traffic areas, thus reinforcing the perception that attached housing is taking the greater share of the housing market than it really has. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to call for a public hearing on the necessary comprehensive plan and/or zoning code amendments for the regulation of attached housing in low density areas. Such amendments to include: a.) I,anguage providing for an attached to detached housing ratio b.) Minimum standards for attached home livable square footage . In discussing this alternative, the Planning Commission should provide staff with direction in regards to establishing the acceptable ratio. Is the current 2-1 ratio appropriate or should the City adopt a stricter ratio? How should the code treat small lot development in low density areas? Should a small lot be treated as an attached home area for the purpose of establishing the ratio? This example has been applied to planning for the fIunters Crossing development. Should the motion include a provision requiring a greater minimum livable square footage standard for attached homes constructed in the low density areas? If so, the minimum size should be discussed. 2. Table action pending collection of additional data or input. . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 02/03/04 . RECOMMENI>A TION It is the recommendation of City stafT that Planning Commission direct the publication of a hearing notice regarding the development of comprehensive plan amendments relating to the Planning Commission's decision on ratio and minimum livable area for attached dwellings. It is our view that given the testimony and the potential for significant attached housing in areas guided for low density development, it is reasonable to look at tightening the ratio. Also, requiring larger attached homes in low density areas may support planning goals and should be explored further. SUPPORTING DATA A. January meeting minutes on this topic. B. Table - Total Development Project Housing for Low Density Areas C. Table - Proposed Phasing for Development Project Housing for Low Density Areas . . 3 . . f/) cG ~ ~ o- f/) C Q) C ~ o ~ .... o 't- >< 0- :E en c o- f/) =' o ~ 1:) Q) 0- o .... Q" .... C Q) E Co o - Q) > Q) C en c oi o .r:. UJ Q) - .c cG I- . M o o N ... It) ~ cG =' C cG .., "C S cG "C Q. :;) ~ '0 '~ ~ e ... u. c. 0 .8 .!:! ~ .r:. E Cl E C :I ,5 0 l-~ z tn::C ~ 'w ~ i c c - J!) s ,- o C l- :::l "C Q) .c (,,) ~ < M o o N .... Q) .c E Q) u Q) C f/) ca e ca .... u Q) 0...... o .... 0- n; .... o I- -g i o I III ~ ~ I- ,g 3 u. ~ VJ VJ 'E ... u. cu 0:: VJ 'g s VJ III ~ 1ii I:: o U Q) III E ::J !f ~ ~ Q. ns :i E E N cu cu LO u.u.d Q) Q) aa I:: I:: fi5 i:i5 ~ ~ I I 0( 0( z z co o N ~ ~ d ... ~ $ ~ u. ... ... Q) a C fi5 ~ ~ ... I ~ LON coco... oC"> 0> co O! O! ... ... r--. NIri......NMN LO LO N C"> co (") M LO co ...,. 0> (0') (0') N co ...,. ...,. o ... ...,. N ~ ~ ~ ~ >- Cl Cl "0 I:: I:: CU 'C 'I:: $ a. a. u.. VJ en - (0') !;2 <C '0 g = ...,. "0 I:: Q) ! ]! "0 , Q) 'Ii) > i: e (!) ~ ~N !:::~gS;~ N N ogSi~ ... f2 o LO N r--. ~ ~ N ... LO r--. ... ... ... r--. ...,. N ... r--. 0> ... ... r--. ... ~ LO Cb a; ~ ~ LO 0 o co"'" N LO ...,. r--. C>> ... ~ ~ ... 0 Q) N >- E Cl -g E 'E Q) ::J a. 0:: VJ VJ 88 N N >- Cl Cl "0 I:: I:: m 'C 'I:: .... a. a. LL. VJ VJ ~ o .. .r:. g' III I-~ 0( III ~ 'jz -gi5a::~E]!e ~~~~~5<; $~~Q)~~j I:: 'I:: 'I:: :g _!!,_ 'C I:: ~~~1f:I:a:f M-.:r an CD"" c:ocn LO ... N , ~ L() Cl ~ C 0 'Ii) Cl ~ ~ "0 U. Q) VJ U Q) s = ~ ,S .sa -g -g ~ uo. ~ ~ "0 Z'~ 'E _'0 oS Q) 15 Cl E C III 'Ii) ..... _ cu o = o .$ ~ ~ ! o I- '" ..... -~ ~ () \, BJ? ~ ~ o t ~ Ii, " il il :1 ~ c o Q) C) ns ... II> ... ns ii: ~ ns c 'E ,- f D. 'tU C) c 'en en e (J f .e c :I ::t: .. -- --' C) c 'en :I o X "C ~ Q) (,,) So( ns""u. ... ><... en Q) ,- 0:: 0:& o 0 ~ ~ 0 8 0 ~ ~ ... ... ~ -' 1 ~ ---"'"" \:, ,;> '" r__ ~..... ,-- )1 .J '/- ,~""., ~.... '7:::)(../ ("') ("') N 0 CO 1.0 c.o ("') J!} 'l:t ""'" 1.0 CJ) 1.0 V ("') I'- CO ns 0 ..-- - 0 !:: 0 I- :J N . M@iIEJiilll.Ii@iGJi/iiiiIi "C ""'" ~ Q) 0 J: 0 , en \- N C Q) (.) 5: E ea 0 0 ~ M = f- ..c .... 0 <( ~'-,' .- tn 0 ~~~' 0 ~~"~~' g .~' ~., _.~ s::: N "'0 U-. Q) Q) ..c . i i . V \() ~ } ~ (.) C Lt") ctl - Q) ~ ~ 0 "- 0 ns - 0 ..J ~ ....J ~ l..L. >< s::: C) CO (/) A- ns c:: E .- (/) :?: .., .- tJ) :s ("') CO CO ("') V ~ "'C V ("') V CO 1.0 en 0 l..L. N Q) .,..- s::: J: 0:: (/) .... -L '-' .- ns "C tn Q) ~ "'C J:: Q) 0 1.0 c.o ..-- . ~ '- 0 0.. u :s <( 1.0 ("') N ..-- ..-- ::J ea ..... , l..L. :I: ..... >< ..-- (/) ~ Q) .- 0::: . .... I C :!: CJ q- \, Q) 0 ..-- 1.0 c.o 1.0 CJ) I'- ""'" ("') 0 en N I'- ..-- N N ..-- N ("') CO .~ 0 Q) N 0 '- N (.) s- <( C. I .... ~ ""'" s::: - , ""'" ""'" 0 V ""'" V en 0 Q) 0 c 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::t- E .... 0 N N '- N N N Q) s::: Q) en en en >- E en >- en en 0.. Q) E :::l C c "'0 E c "'0 c c - ";:: "i:: ctl "i:: ctl "i:: ";:: 0 0 ctl 0. 0. Q) :::l 0. Q) 0. 0. > - I (/) (/) (/) 0:: (/) (/) 0:: (/) (/) - s::: Q) Q .- > ........ Q) en Q) C c: E, .- 0 - i< en t/) ..c + en ~ c c. s::: ns 5: <( en Q) en en ..-- en en .r:: "'0 0 0::: Q) E .- f- c ctl 0 ~ c ..... '- C- O !!2 en 0 ctl :> 0 - Q) 0.... en l..L. en 0 '- "'C "'0 - I I Q) Q) .f!;! -..... .r:: "Cii Q) ..c :g "!':!2 Q) en - - Q) ~ ";:: "i:: - - c CO en "i:: c f/') ..... "a. t/) CO :::l 0. Q) ctl :::l 0 ~ 0.... (/) (/) (/) l..L. I 0 I . Q) Q) N M 'lI:t Lt) CD ...... CO en - c.. ~ .c - 0 c.. ca ns ..... s- ea 0 I- a.. :!: .....