Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 03-01-2004 . . . AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday - March 1st, 2004 6:00 P.M. Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and David Rietveld Council Liaison: G \en Posusta Jcff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann Staff: I. Call to order. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Fcbruary 3r<l, 2004. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing for an ice arena expansion to an existing educational institution in a PlM District and consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing the establishment of a joint parking facility, as allowed by the General Provisions of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: Monticello Independent School District #882 and the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital District 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permits to allow llve four-unit townhouse buildings and a Preliminary Plat for 7 townhouse lots in an R-2 District. Applicant: Mike Schneider - Homestead Multi-Family Development Corp. 7. Public Hearing - Considcration of a request for a conditional use permit fix the expansion of a religious institution in the P-S/Public-Semi-Publ ic District. Applicant: Resurrcction Lutheran Church 8. Public hearing - Considcration of a comprehensive plan amendment establishing a 3: 1 ratio of single family homes to attached townhomes. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission 9. Adjourn J - . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - February 3rd, 2004 6:00 P.M. Members Present: Chairman Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, David Rietveld, Council Liaison Glen Posusta Absent: S tafT: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, Angela Schumann 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M., and declared a quorum, welcoming new Council Liaison Glen Posusta. 2. Approval orthe minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held January 6. 2004. Chairman Frie noted the following changes to the January minutes: Page I: "January 6th, 2003" to read "January 6t,\ 2004". Page 1: "Any development has to stay within that maximum and the standard of 40 units per developable acre" to read "Any development has to stay within that maximum and the standard of 4 units per developable acre". Page 3: Mr. Mike Wigin's address to read "321 Riverview Drive, Monticello". Page 7: "Motion made by Dragsten to re-appoint commissioner Rod Dragsten to a successive three year term" to read "Motion was made by Dragsten to re-appoint commissioner David Reitveld to a successive three-year term". A MOTION WAS MADE BY CARLSON '1'0 APPROVE TI-IE MINUTES OF TilE JANUARY 6th, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOTING SAID CHANGES. DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None. 4. Citizens comments. None. Planning Commission Minutes - 02103/04 . 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 Steve Grittman presented the staflreport, indicating that the applicant is seeking approval of a Development Stage PUD 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 of the AMAX self-storage facility. T'he 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 devclopment is proposed, but the applicant is seeking approval of the sign portion of the project. Grittmml notcd that any future development in the northwest parcel will require the applicant to request development stage approval. The proposed sign would be located in the northwest corner of the development parcel at Dundas and TH 25. The proposed sign is 25 feet in height, more than the standard 22 feet allowed for this location. However, thc applicant would be exchanging the additional height for a singlc sign identifying the area - reducing clutter caused by multiple signs. Grittman indicated that this is a reasonable use of the PUD flexihility. The City has approved other signs with a similar set of conditions. . Grittman outlined the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 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 ordinancc would be permitted without PUD review. Any potential changcs to the freestanding signage on the site would require an amendment to the PUD. A separate component ofthe development contract should be thc 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 of the Dundas- 25 intersection. A finmleial security should be made a part of this agreement to ensure compliance. The applicant is encouraged 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 arc shown to be white internally illuminated boxes with applied letters and graphics. StaHwould recommend that the graphics are "reversed out" of a colored or dark background. This design results in a sign that has less glare and may be more readable. . -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 02103/04 . The applicant may maintain up to 25 U-Haul trucks and/or trailcrs within the limits of the self storage area, and as shown on the provided site plan. Staff believes this limit will not interfcre significantly with AMAX functioning. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Chairman Frie inquired whether Mr. Posusta had any concerns regarding the six conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. Posusta stated that he is aware of each of them, and with the exception of condition 4, none pose a problem. In reference to condition 4, Posusta indicated that the U-Haul sign design is a standard for the company. Hc indicatcd it may not be possible to change the design of that particular sign. [<'rie referred to a similar situation with BP Amoco, by which thc City made an exception for the template design. Grittman indicated that there is some llexibility in this recommendation, as the primary intent is to reduce as much white glarc as possible. Frie inquired whether a PUD has such flexibility that should thc applicant keep the sign at 22 feet, he would be allowed to have more signs. Grittman indicated that the PUD requires the removal of othcr otTsite pylons as a condition of approving thc taller SIgn. . Frie asked Posusta if he wished to address staff concerns outlincd in the staff report and whethcr he was made aware of the concerns and conditions as outlincd. Posusta indicated that he was made aware of conditions and had no conccrns other than prcviously addressed. Drags ten asked staff if other businesses in thc area have signs exceeding the ordinance height. Grittman noted that there were signs of varying heights, citing Ford and Ultralube as instances were some are highcr and somc lower. In some cases, PUD approval has been givcn for a tallcr sign than what was actually built. Carlson suggested that the inability to revcrse the color scheme on the U-Haul sign may actually improve visibility due to contrast. Carlson also questioned whether a security requirement was necessary, due to Posusta's position as a Council member. Hc stated that it would seem that the condition requiring the rcmoval of signs would negatc the need for a security. He askcd for other mcmbers' input. Carlson also inquired what impact future development on Lot 1, Block 1 would have on signage nccds. Posusta stated that should something develop, a diffcrent sign would be creatcd, with onc added or subtracted from the current sign. Posusta stated that approval of this sign, in conjunction with another sign delincating Dundas Road, will help to better dircct potential customers. . Reitvcld expresscd concern with the height of the sign. He inquired as to when the most rcccnt sign ordinance was adopted and whether this deviation should be a concern. Grittman stated that thc most recent change in thc ordinance was related to -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 . shopping center standards and did not address significantly the smaller scale projects. Reitveld asked whether the commission should address the complete ordinance in terms of standards at another point. Grittman stated that the current ordinance is in essence a sliding scale based on road frontage, location and sign size. Frie asked staff what the required security would be. Grittman noted that securities are usually based on the costs associated with the project, in this case the removal of signs. Frie stated that the security is on record for compliance, although it may seem strange as Posusta is a Council member. Grittman noted that in most cases, the conditions are met or the situation is resolved before the security becomes an issue. The security is common in most communities to avoid code violations. Grittman indicated that the City will continue to recommend securities in similar situations. O'Neill cited landscaping as another example of a project requiring a bond or security to ensure the process moves forward as required. Frie asked if the staff has a guideline fl:)r security requirements. Grittman restated that the security is related to whatever is being secured. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR COMMON SIGNAGE, BASED ON A FINDING THA l' TIfE EXCHANGE OF ADDITIONAL SIGN HEIGHT FOR PROHIBITION OF OTHER FREESTANDING SIGNS IN THE PUD MEETS THE INTENT OF TIlE ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS, WITH THE COMMISSrON NOTING SAID CONCERNS ON CONDITIONS 2 AND 3. REITVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. J. Other than the proposed 25 foot tall sign, no freestanding signage shall be permitted in the PUD property. 2. The applicant sha/J remove all other existing signage within thilty days of construction of the proposed pylon sign. 3. The applicant shall provide a financial sl.:curity guaranteeing removal of the existing signage and the step van. The step van may be parked on the same propelty as the U-J/aul rental equipment. 4. The proposed sign should be designed to add additional materials to the structural posts, and ensure that the sign does not create glare onto adjacent property or the public streets and highways. 5. The applicant may maintain up to 25 lJ-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 PUD shall be permitted wa/J signage consistent with the standards of the zoning ordinance. MOTION CARRIED lJNANIMOUSL Y. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR SALES, RENTAL AND -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 . DISPLA Y, BASED ON A FINDING THAT TJ-IE SITE IS APPROPRIATE fOR TI-IfS TYPE OF LAND 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 LlSTED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 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 Grittman provided the staff report, indicating that 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 17] single fami Iy lots and 86 town home units upon a site approximately 94 acres in size. Grittman indicated that the overall development density is 2.7 units per gross acre, excluding the power line easement. 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. Applicants have worked with staff over last several months to refine the proposed plan. Some of the issues that have been addressed include the street system and the location of the proposed public park. Staff and developers have also discussed how the project relates to surrounding land uses - current and future. Grittman indicated that stafThas a number ofrecommendations outlined in Exhibit Z. A comment letter from the City Engineer is also included as part of the recommendations. Grittman stated that he had met with developer brieily yesterday to discuss and resolve some of the conditional issues. Grittman discussed the plan in terms of the conditions outlined in Exhbit Z. The applicant was requested to clarify the rezoning request and address the need for the R- 2A designation. The developer opted not to pursue small single family lots (detached), leaving the large majority of the development R-I and R-2 in the remainder as part of development stage PUD. In terms of the Park Drive cul-de-sac, staff is recommending that it be enlarged (to have an 80 foot radius) to allow the placement of a centralized landscape median. Grittman noted that in general, public works discourages cuI de sacs, but when necessary, requires them to be larger with a center island for more efficient plowing purposes. -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03104 . It is also recommended that applicants revise the plat to meet lot width requirements so that 40 percent of aU single family lots are at least 80 feet in width. Currently, the plan meets the area requirements, but not 40% requirement. Additionally, the plat needs to eliminate lot lines that are not perpendicular to the street. This allows for huildable widths sufficient to satisfy the ordinance. The applicant is also requested to identify the locations of path recommendations along north boundary of plat Klein Farms, along Edmonson Avenue and along the proposed reconstruction of Fallon A venue. Grittman indicated that the City requires sidewalks along all streets meeting a certain level of traffic. Within this development, all streets, with the exception of the cuI-de-sac, require sidewalks. Regarding the six-plex townhomes, the City standard is that townhomes have no more than two common walls. The six-plex units do not meet this standard and are instead "multi-family" dwellings, which arc not permissible in low-density areas. Therefore, it is recommended that the unit become quads or twinhomes to meet the standard. Grittman indicated that this condition is not a density issue. - Condition 9 recommends that exterior huilding materials be changed hyadding contrasting materials and articulation to the rear building walls, which have exposure to Edmonson Avenue. Grittman notes that a PUD designation allows a trade in density for site appeal. Developers are asked to submit a revised landscape plan, adding a significant number oftrees, and including both cultured and naturalized landscape areas. lneluded in this plan should be an appropriate landscaping treatment of the ponding areas with both shrubs and grasses that will thrive in the wet-dry conditions. For condition 12, Grittman referred the commission to the commcnt letter provided hy thc City Engineer regarding grading, drainage and utility issues. Grittman noted that conditions 10 and 13 arc standard to plats and PUDs and arc suqject to attorney review. Condition 14 regarding phasing provides the City with a proposed inventory schedule and provides information on whcre access points may occur during phases. Grittman notcd that preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the land area encompassing the development being annexed. With the conditions noted, Grittman recommended approval. Grittman indicated that he had also spoken with the City Engineer and stated that it is possible to allow applicants to proceed as they have demonstrated intent to meet conditions. However, staff will need a full set of preliminary plat documents that meet the outlined conditions before going to final plat. -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 ~ .,., Dragsten inquired whether all streets within the development are public. Grittman stated that all streets within the single family area are public. One street through the townhome area is also public. Moving the intersection has been recommended to comply with City standards for that street. Grittman explained that no homeowner's association is required in R-l. However, lots surrounding islands requirc some form of association 1{)f maintenance. Dragsten inquired whether townhomes can be located so close to power lines. Grittman stated that they just need to be located olT of the casements. Dragsten also inquired whether there was enough stacking room in townhome driveways. Grittman stated that the City recommends that private streets and adjacent driveways measure 80 feet. It does not appear that they meet this. However, visitor parking is provided on-street. Carlson asked whether perhaps the private street alignment proposed by the developer served as a divider bctween townhome and single family arcas. Grittman stated that although the alignment would accomplish that goal, staffbelicves the intersection will be better if not ofT-set, as it will allow traflic to use Edmonson as collector route more easily. Grittman mentioned other options for realignment to the developer. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Jay Roos, Bison Development Company, stated that he and project engineer Ken Adolf of Schoell & Madsen Engineering would be addressing staff comments. Roos explained that they were uncomfortable with the number of comments coming into the meeting and normally prefcr to address concerns before requesting preliminary plat approval. Roos stated that in many cases, the concerns expressed by the City Engineer are typical and subject to easy change. In most cases, they are adjusted between the preliminary and final plats. Roos noted developer's error in accomplishing 80' lot width. By adjusting easements, lot lines that arc not perpendicular to the street. and eliminating an odd shape lot, 80 foot lot widths wi II be achieved throughout 40% of the development. Roos indicated that the townhome portion of the project would be a second or third phase and street alignment and exterior finishes in that area might be better addressed at that time, especially related to choosing finishes in context of adjacent neighborhoods. However, it is feasible to adjust street alignment fi.)l' the preliminary plat. Roos indicatcd that adjustments in the single family area will cause a loss of some townhomes, which will create space for the staff's proposed alignment. - Roos brietly reviewed the conditions listed in Exhibit Z in terms of resolving staff concerns. As R-2A is no longer needed, condition 1 is resolved. Roos stated that a redesign of cui-dc-sac to include a center island is not desired by the developer as this creates a larger radius and challenges setback requirements, which in turn eliminates -7- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 . lots. Roos believes that it would be purely an amenity island that doesn't serve a pUrpose. He also noted that there would be only one adjacent lot for maintenance pm-poses. He requested that requirement be eliminated. Roos noted that his previous statements addressed condition 3 and 4 and that conditions 5~ 7 and lO would be addressed in the revised plan. Roos did question whether the Spirit Hills development had a similar designation and was allowed six-plexes. (Please see page 10 for City staif comments on this matter.) Roos prefers not to lose these units. As far as the annexation approval, Roos recognized the process and understands that construction cannot begin until resolved. However, he doesn't feel it advantageous to hold off approving the preliminary plat as the mediation process could go faster than expected. Frie asked. whether the entire proposed devcJopment area was outside of the City. O'Neill stated that none of the area lies within the current boundaries of the City. Prie asked Roos for an estimated price of the town homes and inquired whether the single family housing being proposed would meet "middle ground" housing standards. Roger Hakonson, Bison Development, answered Frie's question, stating that inside townhome units, which arc less expensive, begin at $185,000. The single family housing, depending on amount of lots lost in the revision process, would start at $225,000. Roos clarified that in the single family area, Bison/Sylvia Development would be the developer only, not builder. Roos stated that it is their intent to create as many expensive lots and lot combinations as possible. Roos indicated that the City Engineer has concerns regarding the creation of walk-out lots due to the flat nature of land. Hilgart inquired what the square footage oftownhomes would be? Roos stated that the units were approximately 1200 square feet. O'Neill commented that the Parks Commission had reviewed the plan and is comfortable with overall layout of the plan. O'Neill expressed that with regard to engineering comments, this would perhaps not be the time to discuss standards, but rather address City Engineer's specific concerns. Frie asked when those standards should be addressed. O'Neill indicated that significant issues remain and that the Planning Commission may wish to consider tabling the item until input of engineer is provided. Ken Adolf: Schoell & Madsen Engineers, addressed the commission regarding the comments provided by the City Engineer. He stated that the comments were extensive and seemed to be at a review level exceeding preliminary plat detail. He stated that adj ustments on these recommendations may be somewhat counterproductive, because if the plan changes to meet other conditions, all related engineering changes. Adolf noted that a majority of the comments are relatively minor and don't affect the design. They will be accommodated on the final plat and construction plans. Adolf did address what he determined as the most significant issue _ storm water. The concern is of particular note to the City Engineer in areas where back yards have been -8- Planning Commission Minutes - 02103/04 . excavated to create lot variety. Adolf indicated that they would oversize the storm sewer or ereate depressions in back yards to storc water, or use a combination ofhoth methods. He stated that they would work with statfto develop solutions on drainage He said that the alternative is to create flat lots, which doesn't create lot and housing style variety. O'Neill stated that the engineering comments Were needed specifically because the plan may change significantly after those comments. It is important to get this level of detail so that the commission understands that the final plan may be different trom original preliminary. With regards to drainage, O'Neill strongly recommended that an overland outlet or some type of emergency watcr escape be provided. Adolf indicated that he thought this could be accomplished through drainage easements and back yard storage. O'Neill stated that although the City Engineer would be flexible, he would probably not accept a plan without overland outets. . Frie expressed that when the commission sees a large number of conditions, they question consideration. He noted that enough adjustments had already been made to change Grittman' s recommendation from tabling to approval with conditions. Frie inquired why the City Engineer hasn't heen given the same opportunity to review proposed adjustments? Grittman noted that engineering concerns may be morc complicated than planning. Grittman also stated statf's desire to complete as tborough a review as possible and present that review to the commission. Ibis avoids having the preliminary plat approved hy the Planning Commission from changing completely when it moves to final plat stage. Adolf once again stated that most engineering items will be relatively simple to fix with plan revisions. O'Neill indicated that with all of these notations, the commission can move it forward. Frie clarified that if the plan movcs forward, it would be contingent on the conditions being met. Roos noted that existing site conditions (street stubs, pOWer line easements, street alignments, water flow) dictate that even with significant changes to accommodate rear yard drainage issues, the plan layout will not change greatly. He indicated a desire to keep the process moving forward. Franklin Denn addressed the commission as an ahutting property OWncr and as Chait of the Monticello Township Board of Supervisors. Dcnn indicated that the township is still the road authority lor 85'" and Fallon Avenue and docs not foresee any changes in the road authority. He indicated that the COlmty prefers not to have driveway access onto major public roads. Denn also stated that he has concerns about drainage onto his property. In particular, he is concerned about the low area in the vicinity of Block 18 and 851h Street. Currently, the drainage flows from northwest to southeast and he noted nothing on the plans relative to Block 18 that would take care of draining water. Frie noted that condition number 12 specifically emphasizes drainage issues and indicated that Schoell & Madsen need to work with the City Engineer to resolve -9- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 . those issues. Frie stated that the drainage issue would definitely be considered in the way the motion is recommended. Frie asked Denn ifhe could clarity where the annexation stands as far as this property is concerned. Denn indicated that it was difficult to determine at this point. O'Neill commented that the mediation process was currently underway and a resolution could come relatively soon or not until November. Adolf addressed Denn's drainage concerns, indicating that the City Engineer has reviewed drainage related to this area and has added a storm sewer picking up low areas in the southeast corner and directing water into a pond system. Grittman noted that the general drainage is from north to south and will be altered to south-north. O'Neill stated that part of the City's requirement of the developer was to provide topographic information for areas surrounding this development, including Denn's property. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. -~ Hilgart inquired what the density designation is for Spirit Hills. O'Neill clarified that it is mid-density. Hunters Crossing is low-density, so there is no inconsistency. Hilgart asked Roos if the climi nation of the odd-shaped lot is sufficient to accommodate the 40% lot width requirement. Adolf indicated that it would, in conjunction with widcning of casement. - Dragsten asked if adjacent property owners maintain the "tear-drop" cul-de-sacs? Roos indicated that these are intended to be amenities to encourage higher value housing. He indicated that maintenance can be a problem in these areas and that their inclusion in the final design will depend on final agreement with City Engineer. O'Neill noted that in other areas, these are designated as outlots and assigned to a propetiyowner. These arrangements appear to be working well. In regards to the full cul-de-sac, O'Neill stated that Public Works initially wanted to remove the cul-de-sac and makc street go through. StafT tClt the island would be preferred to developer. Roos indicated that the cul-des-sac illustrated on the proposed plan is in accordance with the current ordinance. O'Neill stated that although this is true, the result of such as design is more maintenance and no benefit to surrounding properties. Posusta inquired how a cuI-de-sac with an island is lower maintenance when it requires more curb and gutter? O'Neill stated that John Simola, Public Works, would be better able to respond to eHiciencies. Posusta is concerned that the staffs proposed design for the cul-de-sac may not fit this neighborhood. Carlson questioned when cul-de-sac design standards had changed. Grittman answered that the standards had not changed, but the issue has become that the size of the cul-de-sac design (with a minimum turning radius) requires Public Works to push a vehicle around and around to get all snow out. This situation has resulted in the City Engineer and Public Works seeking to remove the majority of proposed cuI-de-sacs, with developers in contrast. - J 0- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 . The planning staff proposes that the islands accommodate cul-de~sac design, while providing a landscaping benefit and allowing for more efficient plowing maintenance. Grittman stated that City ordinance actually states that cui-de-sacs aren't allowed unless there is no other way to move a street through. I-Iowever, planning tries to balance out providing desirable lots with maintenance. Frie asked if the islands serve any other purpose than aesthetics? O'Neill stated that the larger radius allows for more snow storage and more frontage for each lot. Posusta indicated that the island may encourage a more expensive house, and in turn higher tax revenue. However, Posusta stated that this particular scenario may be different. O'Neill stated that Public Works would actually prefer the road to go through. Dragsten asked if Public Works could do one pass and leave snow in the middle. Grittman explained that Public Works may see that as unsafe. Frie asked Roos to respond to putting the road through. Roos stated that a third access point would be frowned on by the County. Posusta asked the developer whether the park in the southwest corner was something they planned for the development or whether it was required by stafT? Roos said that in the early stages of planning, a larger community park was desired by sta1f. The developer's original concept plan did not include any park. O'Neill stated that the Parks Commission had tried to find a place for an active play field. The Commission couldn't find an adequate spot, so they determined that one-half of the park dedication requirement (5 acres) should he land, and cash required f()r other half. Posusta asked if the dedication was a requirement of city. O'Neill explained that one of the Parks Commission's objectives is to provide neighborhood parks. Posusta noted that Pioneer Park is located nearby and the area across street 1-I'om the proposed park may be more conducive to park. Also, in talking with the Parks Department, he questioned why there are little parks all over the community. O'Neill indicated that the Parks Commission did look at the area across the street and considered twin parks. He also noted that higher density neighborhoods need a separate park. It was also decided that the dedicated funds (1/2 of the park dedication requi rements) be applied to the constructi on/purchase of the large community park. Posusta asked if a neighborhood park makes sense on a 55 m.p.h. road. O'Neill noted that once in the City, the speed limit will change and that the park will be laid out to address street traffic. There will also he a sidewalk around the perimeter of the park, keeping pedestrians off the road. Frie suggested the Parks Commission look at balancing geographic locations and the types of park in order to provide a balanced mixture. O'Neill pointed out that 94 acres and 250 homes creates a need for a neighhorhood park. Pioneer Park met the needs of Klein Farms, another was needed for this development. Frie indicated that he would rather they had requested more land for the large park. O'Neill eXplained that a larger park at that location would pull people into a non-centralized park site. The Parks Commission would rather have it in a more centralized area and reiterated that recent dedications have been made to allocate funds to larger community parks. O'Neill suggested that the Parks Commission Chair address the Planning Commission at a future meeting. -11- . . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 Hilgart asked O'Neill for his perception on how close the revised plan would he the next time the commission meets? O'Neill indicated that it would he relatively close, but that he will rely on the City Planner and Engineer's feedback. Improved backyard drainage will bc a major goal. As far as the cul-de-sac, O'Neill said that the commission may Want to defer to City staff for a review. A MOYlON WAS MADE BY FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR HUNTER'S CROSSING, BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE FEBRUARY 3,2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS, AND ON ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PROVIDED BY PLANNER STEVE GRITTMAN AFTER A SECOND MEEYlNG W1TH DEVELOPERS AND ENGINEER. MOnON BASED ON NUMBERS 2, 8, AND 12 OF CONDIT10NS LISTED IN EXfUBIT 7. BEING RESOLVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND STAFF AND HIE DEVELOPERS OF HUNTER'S CROSSING. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. I. The 'ppll"m "arlfy 'he "zonIng 'eq"" and addre" the need for 'he R-2A d"lgna'inn. 2. The tumaround area of the Park Ddve cul-de-"c be enlarged (to haw ,n 80 faa, rodl,,) to allow the pla"ment ofa centrollzed laod',"pe mcdlan. TIll, I"ue '"ould be 'Dbjectto furthcrcommenl by the City Engineer. The appllcon' "vIse Ihe pIal to meet the lot wld'h "qul"men" that 40 percent of all ,Inglc famlly lots are at least 80 feet in width. The pial should be revIsed tn etimlnate sIde 10' IIn" 'hat a" not petpendlcular 10 the street rlgh' of way. The appllean' identIfy pathway loeat/ons cons;"en' wIth 'he recommendatIons of , he City Englneee. Vetify pa'hw,y locat/on along 'he Proposed reeon"roct/on profile of Fallon A venue 'nd 85'" S"", SIdewalk, should be added to one sIde of all "reets, with the except/on of , he "'-de-"". The two sIx unIt tuwnhome bulldlngs be elimInated and no bOilding within the 'ownhome portIon of the plat exceed fi:)tl/" units. BuildIng ma'erlals 'hnuld be ch,nged by addIng contrastIng matet;als and 'rtkulat/on to 'he "ar building walls on the townhomes. A property oWner's a"oclation be created forthe 'ownhome area of , he pmject addre"ing maIntenance respon.,lb"'"es fa, common acees, covenan's etc. The by-laws for such assoclotlo" shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. A land."ape plan 'hould be revised '0 add a ,Ignlfiean' number of""s, and inclade both calrured and naru"hzed landscape areas. Included In 'hI, plan should be an appropriate landscapIng treatment of the pond ;ng arees wIth both shrubs and g""" that will 'hrlve la tbe wet-dry conditions. 12. The CIty Engine" provIde comments regardIng gradIng, d"lnage and ullhty Issues. -12- Planning COlllmission Minutes 02/03/()4 13. Th, "I'l" Ice", em" ;010 , dcvc/opm,,,, 'g"'mem wllh Ih, ell y ",d po.vl nlllh, '"".,.,,'" '"'",llIev required by it. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOlJSL Y. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIM INAR Y PLAT FOR HUNTER'S CR OSSlNG, BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE FEBRUAR Y 3, 2004 PLANNING COMM1SSlON MEETING AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH 2,8 AND 12 AS lTEMS TO BE RESOLVED. MOTION SECONDED BY RElTVELD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Consideration of a rcc uest for a conditionalnse Jemlit for the eX,Jansion of a religions jnstitution in the P -S/Pub I ic-Sem i - Pub I ic Distri c1. A PI' Ii cant: Resurrecti on Lutheran Church Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public heming, A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE REQUEST TO THE MARCH 2ND MEETfNG OF THE PLANNING COMMISSlON, SUBJECT TO SUBM1SSION OF A COMPLETE APPLICA TION. HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Consideration of caIIing for a public hearing QI) comprehensive plan and/or ordinance amendments reGulatina attached housin . develo Jment in areas uided for low density development. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Chain1lan Frie closed the public hearing 0' N ei II provided the staff report, stating that staffi s seeking d irccti on in temls of how low-density areas are treated in relationship to the guide plan. Thus far, staff has used a guideline of aIIowing I townhomc for cvelY 2 single h1mily homes in low density areas. O'NeiII referred to the testimony on this suhjcct provided at thc Inst meeting Planning Commission meeting. O'NeiII inquired whether the commission would consider requiring larger townhomes to enconrage family units. O'Neill also stated -13- Planning Commission Minutes- 02/03/04 that the City has identified designated areas specifically for townhomes at a ratio higher than 3 units per acre. Frie asked for the commission's input in regard to standards. Frie asked Hilgart whether he felt larger townhouse size would encourage family residence. Hilgart answered that it may in part, but that it would also keep values up. He stated that 1200 square feet seems relatively small. Hilgart stated that he isn't questioning townhomes or their use, but thinks they should be comparable to surrounding houses. He suggested confining smaller townhomes to mixed-use or higher density areas. Frie stated that any type of guideline that helps resolve community concerns should be addressed. Hilgart stated that he believes low-density area ratios be lowered from 2 to 3 homes for each townhome. Grittman indicated that R -1 A areas already meet that ratio. O'Neill noted that the Planning Commission had the option to count townhouses as attached or detached for density issues. He also noted that when looking at ratios, the commission should make sure that small lot single-family is not considered as part of the ratio. Dragsten suggested that the ratio should perhaps apply to site size. Any development 20 acres or less should require a specific ratio. He indicated that developers do not want to do small developments due to inefficiencies, so smaller sites will take care of themselves. Dragsten agreed that a minimum size requirement may be an option. O'Neill asked whether the commission wanted to require townhomes to meet single- family standards. Grittman stated that very few townhouses meet that standard, most arc in the 1300-1400 square foot range, which suits the buyer. Frie indicated that he strongly supports a 3: I ratio and as do others with whom he has had conversations on this topic. He noted that a possible moratorium has also Come up. He wondered whether this decision would be best made before annexation. Carlson asked Frie why he recommended a 3: I ratio. Frie suggested that it may satisfy the housing balance issue. Carlson indicated that the commission should be cognizant of the comments regarding flexibility made at the last meeting. Frie indicated that he would rather have a 3: 1 ratio required in the annexation area. O'Neill noted that there would still be areas designated as mid-density within the annexation area. O'Neill referred to building permit statistics over last 5 years, which illustrated that 20% of permits issued are for townhomes, while 80% are single family. However, an inventory of all proposed lots does shift supply towards townhomes. If development continues according to that trend, there may be an oversupply oftownhomes. O'Neill stated that there are approximately 411 single family lots and 211 townhome units on the books for next year. This number does not include Timber Ridge's 150 townhomes. -14- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 Frie stated that it seems that single family homes are selling much more quickly than townhomes. Grittman stated that if the City can provide adequate areas for land uses in all areas, the market will fill in the spaces. Grittman suggested specifying areas of density, but not specific zoning within those areas. Grittman indicated that a mature city will end up with a ratio or between 2-3 single family homes to 1 townhome. Carlson reminded the commission that the current ratio guideline is 2: 1 and that is the actual ratio represented in the community. He also noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting, 5 persons spoke about flexibility. He asked for Grittman's reaction on requiring a square footage minimum. (i-rittman would be reluctant to recommend an increase in square footage beyond what is currently required. O'Neill asked Grittman whether he thinks larger townhomes will provide the desired demographic. Grittman stated that all the studies seem to show that families want single family homes. As such, O'Neill suggested that it may be better to change ratio and not square footage. Reitveld indicated that he sees no problem with current townhome size and sees adjusting the ratio to 3: l as a better solution, in conjunction with creating more R-l A areas. Chairman Frie asked for Council member Posusta's comments. posusta indicated he is opposed to a moratorium. MOTION llILGART TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NECESSARY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND/OR ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS FOR THE REGULATION OF A TfACHED HOUSING IN LOW DENSITY AREAS, SUCH AMENDMENTS TO INCLUDE AN A TT ACHED TO DETACHED HOlJSING RATIO OF 3:1. MOTION SECONDED BY FRIE. MOTION BY FRIE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARING DURING THE APRIL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED lJNANIMOlJSL Y. 9. Adiourn A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:00 PM WAS MADE BY TO RETIVELD. DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Angela Schumann, Recorder -15- Planning Commission Agenda - 3/01/04 S. Public Hearin!!: Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowin!! for an ice arena expansion to an existin!! educational institution in a PZM District and consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing the establishment of a joint parkin!! facility, as allowed bv the General Provisions of the Monticello Zonin!! Ordinance. Applicant: Monticello School District and Monticello-Bi!! Lake Hospital District. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The school district is seeking approval of Conditional Use Permits that will facilitate the construction of an ice arena as an addition to the south side of the Middle School Building along East Broadway Street. The arena will have its main entrance near the southeast corner of the existing school building, west of the tennis court area. Access to the arena will also be possible from interior corridors in the existing building. The applicants have worked with staff to identify parking issues and solutions that will be available when the arena use raises the level of activity on the site. The district has identified more than 450 existing parking spaces on-site, at various locations around the building. It has been noted that the most intensive use of the existing building occurs when the auditorium is being used for a performance. Even then, only full use of the 600 seat ice arena would likely cause an overflow condition. In this case, the applicants have reached an agreement with the Hospital District to utilize the hospital's existing parking lots for these times. It is expected that this would most likely occur on weekends and/or evenings when the hospital parking lot is at its lowest level of use. Individuals using the hospital parking area will be able to cross Broadway at the existing signal, using the existing sidewalk system. It was also noted that to ensure that the existing school parking is used to the greatest efficiency, bus parking would be directed to the south side of the school property, along an existing driveway around the baseball field. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of an ice arena addition to the Monticello Middle School. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on a finding that the facility is an appropriate accessory use for a public school building, and that the parking management proposals offered by the applicants will minimize negative impacts of the increase in use. Planning Commission Agenda - 3/01/04 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on findings identified at the public hearing. Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit to allow off-site parking for the school ice arena on the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital property. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on a finding that the hospital parking is in reasonable proximity to the school, and access across Broadway is protected by an existing traffic signal. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on findings identified at the public hearing. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Staflrecommends approval of the Conditional Use Permits as proposed, with the conditions that (1) the City may require additional parking to be constructed if overflow parking on City streets becomes a problem for the adjoining neighborhood, and (2) the applicants continue to work with engineering staiTto resolve issues related to utility services and drainage of the site. SUPPORTING IlA T A A. Site Location B. Aerial Photograph with Parking identified C. Site Plan E ~: ::::::;; - ...... F G H 95th STRE:rT a.j :i I I I i I I I CO ii I ' Iz I . I W r---:', j I -r .. i J I I I : ! I : I I : i I : I L----.-4------ I ,I ... WSB 4150 Olson Memorial Highway Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55422 K & Associates, lnc. 763-541-4800 FAX 763-541-1700 INFRASTRUCTURE "" ENGINEERS "" PLANNERS 11 12 13 14 15 o;::f'" c:::> c:::> C"-l ~ .-' iJj o i.. I I" if t!q;~ , nUn .l.H I ~h r~! (I I . us.h Ii.! S!I ...1 ~.I il Ii In ill II li i I IHI I I I I ~ J ~ I I i i RE FEB 0 9 CITY OF Mm d H , Ii I ~g ~j l ,iw ~u iffi ; IS:: i L.I . i Ii iil I ~ J H ~u M . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 3/01/04 6. Public Hearing:: Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permits to allow fivc four-unit townhouse building:s and a Preliminarv Plat for 7 townhouse lots in an R-2 District. Applicant: Mike Schneider - Homestead MuIti-Familv Development Corp, (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of five four-unit townhouse buildings on property along West Prairie Road, south of the Timber Ridge Townhouse project. The plat is a replat of "The Brothers" plat, a single family plat that has existed for some time with no homes. The applicant recently received approval to begin construction on eight units north of Prairie Road. It is the intention of this application that the two projects will be combined for final plat and association purposes. The final plat must be processed through the City and County prior to occupancy of any of the buildings in either project. As a result, the plat request is for 28 units on seven lots, however the Conditional Use Permits are needed only for 20 new units. Zoning and Density. The area is zoned R-2, and four-unit townhouse structures are Conditional Uses in the district. The zoning ordinance permits townhouses at a density of one unit per 5,000 square feet oflot area. Each of the proposed lots exceeds 20,000 square feet, and as such, the density requirement is met. All units would face public streets, including Prairie Road and a new cui-de-sac extending south from Prairie Road. Preliminary Plat. The plat itsclf shows 7 total lots - 2 are located on land north of Prairie Drive, known as "The Meadows", and five located to the south. The two lots to the north mirror the previous lot lines, while the five lots to the south are arrayed both along Prairie Road and around a cul~de-sac. The cul-de-sac was platted as a part of the Brother's Plat, but never constructed. The proposed units appear to meet all setback requirements as designed. It should be noted that there would not be room for porches on the rear of the Building 7 units due to the minimum setbacks being proposed. Future owners should be made aware of this issue, as many future owners expect to be able to add this type of space at some point. With regard to the layout, the units on all buildings appear to be reasonably situated, with the exception of Building 6. Due to its location at the end of the cul-de~sac, the applicant shows driveways that will require turns in the middle of the driveway for backing vehicles. 'fhis condition should be corrected to result in straight driveways. If necessary, the units should be broken up to allow fi.)r more direct alignment with the street. The City Engineer will review street design, grading and drainage, as well as utility plans f()r the plat. The submitted plans raise some concerns related to drainage, and . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 3/01/04 the City is preparing a feasibility study for the improvement of Prairie Road in this area. Conditional U'le Permit. As noted, the four-unit buildings are allowed by CUP in this district. The density easily meets the zoning minimum. The general layout of the units is reasonable, and the existence of all public streets in the project is the preferred dcsign. Thc following issues are noted with the project: a. The center two units of each structure share a wide driveway. This design docs not meet the zoning maximum of 24 fcet wide driveways at the strect. Planning staff recommends a landscaped island that di vides the driveways to meet the maximum width standard. b. The project is set up for a single four-unit building on each parcel. It is unclear from the plans whether separate sale or ownership would be possible for these units, nor are any association proposals provided with the application. The applicant should clearly describe the proposal for the association and common area maintenance. c. The landscaping plan shows a row oftrecs along the frecway, and boulevard trees at the ratio of one tree per unit. At least two trees arc typically required to be planted, and no provision has becn shown for f(mndation plantings around the buildings. Planning staff would recommend that any approval include a condition for additional tree and foundation plantings. This condition was noted when the applicant originally discussed this project with the City, and was also applied to the CUP approval for thc first eight units. As with Timbcr Ridge, a significant landscape buffer is recommended along the boundary of the property adjacent to the single family neighborhoods. Without revised landscaping plans, the project is not ready to proceed beyond preliminary plat. d. The City required that the dcve[opers of the townhouses in "Sunsct Ponds" provide a landscaped berm along the interstate. The design of the berm is to include reasonable slopes with a height of 8 feet above the ground floor elevation of the adjoining structure. The purpose of the berm is to provide some sound attenuation from the adjoining freeway. This rcquirement should also be applied for this project. Planning staffis concerned that housing adjacent to the freeway would have significant negative impacts from freeway noise. Such berms are commonly employed in other communities where housing adjoins thc freeway, and the application of such a berm in this devclopment would be consistent with thc requircments made in the Sunset Ponds projcct. On the berm, a planting of intensive vegetation should be provided, including native grasses and wildflowers on the slope to minimize the nced for mowing and maintenance. The applicant has objected to this condition, however, the City has received a written objection to thc project from MnDOT due to noise from the freeway with a berm. This condition Planning Commission Agenda - 3101104 . should be actively pursued to ensure the highest quality neighborhood possible. e. The project should include sidewalk on one side of Prairie Road that connects to the pathway in Timber Ridge. A future project would be necessary to extend the sidewalk to the east through the existing neighborhood. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Preliminary Plat for seven four-unit townhouse lots. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the plat, based on a finding that the plat is consistent with the zoning requirements, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the plat, based on a finding that the re-plat changes the nature of the surrounding neighborhood. Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit for five four-unit Townhouse buildings. . 1. Motion to recommend approval orthe CUP, based on a finding that the zoning supports the use, and the proposal meets the density requirements for the area, subject to the conditions found in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a finding the existing single family plat is the most appropriate land use for the area, and the neighboring single family area would be negatively impacted by a townhouse project in this location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff docs not recommend approval of the CUP and plat at this time. As noted in the text, the applicant should make a number of design changes that will result in a significantly altered set of plans. The revised plans should be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to sending them on to the City Council. Moreover, all of these issues have been raised with the developer in previous discussions and reviews, but the applicant has chosen not to make changes in his plans. Without the changes recommended, staff would recommend denial. At this time, it would be appropriate to consider tabling action on the plat and Conditional Use Permits. . This report will serve as notice to the applicant that the City may need to extend the period for review of this project an add.itional 60 days, up to a total of 120 days from the date of the application. . . A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Z. . Planning Commission Agenda - 3/01/04 The City has seen several townhouse projects in recent months. This proposal does not show the level of development amenities (mostly landscaping) that is present in the other projects the City has reviewed. Particularly because of the location of this project adjacent to the freeway, special care should be taken to ensure that negative impacts are mitigated. When a poor residential environment dominates a neighborhood, building quality and property values will sufTer. As such, the changes recommended in Exhibit Z are designed to minimize those impacts, and bring this project in line with others recently approved. SUPPORTING DATA Site Location Map Preliminary Plat Existing Conditions Utility Plan Grading and Drainage Plan Landscape Plan Building Elevations Building Floor Plans Mn/DOT Comment Letter RE: Freeway Proximity Conditions for Resubmission of Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Agenda - 3/01104 . Exhibit Z - Conditions for Resubmission of Preliminary Plat I. Submission of a final plat and execution of a development contract prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Establishment of an association to maintain common areas, including the cul-de- sac island landscaping. 3. Elimination of sharply turning driveways. 4. Separation of combined driveways to meet City curb-cut width maximums. 5. Increase number of boulevard trees per City standards and this report. 6. Provide landscaping plans for foundation plantings. 7. Provide a landscaped berm along the freeway per this report, consistent with the requirement for Sunset Ponds. 8. Provide sidewalk along Prairie Road to connect to Timber Ridge. . 9. Provide landscaped buffer along the east and north boundaries of the project consistent with Timber Ridge and this report. 10. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations on grading, drainage, utilities, and street construction. 11. Compliance with City Public Works direction for mailbox locations, garbage collection locations, street lighting, and other requirements. . ~',--- .-, --- ... ,,--- ----,,- . . ~ ." w ....,;_' .--/,' z _ "_.../' " "in- " " ?5 <k: ~ U . /'0 Ci (pA . . ~ -It-' "\ ~ -1lJ' ,>-- "'1;- ~ . L ~=-= f II \ \\ '" ~5 j1 ~~ ~\ ~~ ~\ ~ r'l J3 ~l)1 ro ~ NA\_\~.J,=-J g ~J1 (""- \.- ~o'l ~ ~ ~ J3 f /~--=-- - / !: I / ~---- ,{ (""~..L ~~I J ~ I [I" ~ L------ \::: f -1' IJ'.-e'/ -- I ff ((~~ I o C --l r o --l -~ I JJ f-- T -,~ ~ I. I .., N ~ . --.L (J,f ~ !!. ~ !!. N _ L.- ! (J,f! <.N ll' .., L_ ~c- _ " ""'" "'- !!. ""'" ~ ~ CD ~ -- !!, t- - t-== - r~ ~1 . !!. L-- 1/....60.f 2'.U. ~f 25# ~f .J260 ~t 1 ~ N ~ ----i I f--- c-- N ~ ~ ~ ~~ I / / I ...",..1, f()1 I / / ",-- I ! ~ / ll'----- If , " ""'" (J,f N ~~~ :::; r \)f- b. "- l;g ~ ; - I ""'" ~ ~ .J>.. ~ I m I ~~=-~r- : L'~ T C!lJ.<!.-- _-o~--t- --0,1 _ +-"".:0 ::E - '",;-lff;t1\:l 5'1101-l:lIN ro \ II ~ t - r=4: - ~ - /' I 1.....\\ -"~ - - ------ --- j~ =:tJ '=' ...... !!. , 152" '-". ll' r,., -- -' ~~ / ........ N ~~ (J,f / "'- ........ ..,. L- ~ ------ ---- -U I 1I~r::' o + .... .,,'d. 0'> <0 ""'" \ ~ N ______ ____ -- ;ogZf .... ~ ""'" ~ C) I I~ J ~f ------- /' ~t>Z \I' ."Z I' oglf ll'_ nit; ------ ------ ---....... -'AI."' ...~._.,._,:,~~"',~,'~~~. <f~ ~ Is? 0 ..J>- 'w ~ ..J% 0 0- <(w "'ID ~ 5 ::Ii 0 <>Ow w- ID Vl *~i <Dz w '..- W ..J": :tiE <D <D 8~~ ::J w ::J iliVl <D ..: ..J '"' ~~~ . Vl 0; ..J t:]';J ..: C) ~::i~~ ::;z Vl G\ :-;tJ 0... .w---l ..Jw w 'h w81..L.)- "';i -z V> :J w :0", COll::O~ 0i ~u <: "'w ~8:S tj :J WVl w bt5: :> w iH: :r",<D I- ,.. f5 u (/JtI}::J5 0 ",Vl :> . I..J Z <cn Vl ",'" ~;= ~'<i'l( "'''' ~~ b:lr 0:0 ~~~~ >- <:0 "'8 >-w <cv> "'" 0:5 ~~~~ l- V> . '::0 -.Jo~ ~ -' ZVl <c' ~~ <FOw i'" ~~~ ~, ;!:f W::;l~U ::::J .-' " ..; '" ...; .. V1 CD ~ r- (/) '" w r- <( '" o z <( '" ~ Ii .1 _ I r, .-;-,.::::::; ,-= 1 :'\ th w ----1 j"-'td ~~'" N ..- k--- (/) w '<t I"") I r-r--- r- Cl r- _ : : ~~~~\ \,r..J1I \ 5!f;i~F'.~ ........... t)L.I.J<((j'} 'i.... ...L-- ~~ ~ ~ :- - \ .'>'. ...... / \ ~- ~~~- - - - - ~ NICHO o r- tx~a:i 2;!a or-(/) a:::::J<( "- w -I) Cd: . -~~:. ) s CIRCLE ~~ A ->---~ ;~ I, F=./' '<t l'I1 lO N ~- (/) V' C\J cD.$.. t;l:l::l1> ::Ilit:3:: 1 N Z I Fn r---- [j- I i=' t!-. r- I ~ - r--- Z I -~-- I 8 l ~M ~Ij:=: . ~! l!1 _ 1. ~ I I ..=-1 II - I--- '<t I"") "<t L{) N - ...q l'I1 N to "<t ~ .!!i ~- .,l:l ,,'I' !ffi 15 ~g 8" ~" ...ill ~~ Ii;/; SH1 ~~ffi:l1 d8h Jl<n. a:=:lLJ:lI:~ -"'Il'6: ~~/:'" " , w ~ .....lI) !<<1l'1Il~ N m ~ ---'--- ..- ~----. . I '--- ~ ~- ~:<i \ '<t I~. ::: r----r--.. I to ;~ I "<t T"""" - 11.0:; ! ",it N 1'0 1'<1 - ..- I "!,,, N I I... N~ ~ ~ O":n t- O __J - -----,..;.. => o I z o i= <( 'I!'""""" 01,0 ~o~~ ~z(nQ) LLO~~ . ~CL",,, I I / /~ _I _ _--" 926 --- --- \. \ ----1 I /' 9~6 -- /' ..__-- I,.t ~ - rrl /- - --- CD CD /9't---- ,,/ --- --- '" / /\.J ~,,--- I/O /,/'''0 n ----1 /"j" / - __ _[ -A/~1- h."/ \ j ./'0_----'- :::::0 ____ ......-- I (J) (Jl I -I>- \ -- ~~- I 0 \ "--~' \ -0) t- /' - ~ ------~ ' -;- __ L- 9J ~ O_~ ~ _----- ______ 5" / ---- /' - - / C/ - - - --=-=-=r:,,~ _-.-/- / -'- ~ \ CO - , ". r---- I \ /.- l-' " / ...- - '~. __"7 -,-' ,./C- / --- ...-' --- CO -- 0) ~1 (Jl .,,:'. . ~ " "" .:: '.~ \1"" I~ i ~ 'I!!~~lili I' :l' !:~:I~;L I ! :h~ai:~::~ ~I~ ~~~ ~~=~il~~!;! :d~~ifjhi~. ~~~ ~~~ i!!F~i5 ~~~ ~ ~ .,U i~{~;is~ ~~~ (5i~ ~~l1~ii~d!! :~g~!I;!I!!i!~ E~~ b d~~g~~~ i ~ !i:!'i;i:li~ \I! ill; iim~t~! II ~"~I~~~i~!~ell~i!i ~I~s ~l!l!~;~"'IO'~ III s; ~illl ~dc;hl5 !If" li'~ ~~ibW.~~ I ~ :u '!:Nl; ,11'i' !ll:hl~! 1'1 llil!lillilll:, ;!,j ':i!il.!I ,Ill ii~h~ihU~~ hi ~n~ :~d~~~:i ~5 ~; ~n' ~iUIi5hi;~ ~~ ~~ ~ ..~",,,...,_'_..I ...... ,~....:......-.~'"''''' ,..... g~~ _il ilj~~ ~h);:5 "h~i i ~~ 8 N \ 1l I: 1 11,: 11 I I I n lit! ~ \ I I x ~ :.1 i ill ...._1 I ~~ c 7--.-- ~ ~~ I 8 llt" II "Ii . " NO; o o 'tI!W .Z~ o I() ~~ o!;j ill ~ '" o z '" ~ 9 ;5 ~ J:~ ~:J 0: t;:;: F.i 0 ~ !Ii 0:> 'J ,... ~~~~~~11l ~~ c e~:'i~be5 l;1~ z OF "'''-S.... ~ t;; Z 8~~~tn VJ w cr W ooow8Shl 88 ~ ~~~:g:g:g~ :g:g W \f1\f1~@;l5[!;15 @; [5 ---l wwwliliifif If Ii ... I " ~ L- ~ .~ I $11 ~ ~ R~ ~~ !il ~'" ~: ~ 1; ! ~ "! a ! '" ~N :; .9 III . ~ s ~-"ij-_.-----=: s- [/] to F' [/] ~ <( '!;; lit' II --,- -- st-.- - - --, \ _ 1~-926--.---. '\ ___ .r- '!;; " '\J w ---- (-~~~ II~- __ \\ \ )J ~'I --, --/ f ~~ ~ II I I~ ~\ II - ~\ 1\ L '" <,\~l )1 \1 ~ N>\J)~-/ V!" y =-- I ~-=-- (I --=----- ) lL~, ---------- L //' _ ___ 7L- --- \ -( ......------ .......------ ~-- ........... \ // / !Iii!!'! i IW'I!1 :: I ~ i, j I ';!jl,1r ' I" ~ i!ll ihi,i! 1',J]:lj'll 'lJ"j' HHn!; ! Ihi'h :~qlh~ fiiil'!I'! "11'1 lil"l'ili I " 1- . ~ --l U> o m j!! m < ~ ~ ~ ~ em g m g m ~ ;0 mm1 ~ ;0 ~ l> ~ eB1 g m g --l o 7' '. ; ~ ~ & il ,(;\ Ii Hi t' ". u> b 0 m f f ~ ~ ~m ~ I . I' I' Ii Ii Ii Ii ~~. ..r il ii- ~; Ii . j~ ~.'~ III 8 I~ ~ ~;$ Q;n rn . 'I o ~~ 'l~ :; ~ \..rJ "'*' --a- II"~~I!I .. ;HI' o.c. ~~~ ~~" !~~ ~ . ~ ~ o W '" J () ~9 ~ l> 'l ;u ~H ~~ h' ~~ ~ h~ ~. ~~ lO\ m -------------------- ~~~jl ,z 0 H~~ ~r __ ~r ------------------ ~ ~ w ~ ~ I () ~9 ~ ~ ;\, ~ 10 i~~ ~l ~ tt~ ~~ l> ~~~ ijJ ~ ~ ~ ~ w v, -&-- 1~~~6 ":14' OG. III () I~ ~ ~ . Q ~ ~ ~ elNrli!llt. CI" I' ......."'" r ----~I ...... ~ "..c. >>11:" w ~ lf~. "- f>. ~;! "" I~ ~~ ~s ;H t .....,.., II".c. 40 ..2' ~ MO 1/"1" ~ ~I~ X ;U .... - 0 o Q 6 ~( . ~ .. ~ ~""'- ........ D.C. :i>: :I ~ 1;; X ~ -". ~ o - . iit ~~. l ~~~ " ~ODP:~ ......o.C. , 'I ~ ~~ 'l~ v.J...., fO!r::J>mIT~ 'tIM'IO.C. f: ~~~ I ~J ~ X lO\ . "~ . - ;U ~ .. Q - ~-------~ ---:- J> ':I;' iit ~ I:: ~ g ~P.Nt!Jl! c "'_ iii~- !. ~-~ J - ~ ~ ~~ ii_______i;U __ .J~ ~ -:'_ Q O- J> ~:I iit ~ :-' . 'I ~~ 'l~ " "1 ~~ ;~ " ~'.. ~~ "l}__ .. """' O.C. l' :I ~ ~ [lijil X ~ ' '-, =. ~ 6 - , --j m --3~1~-1-- ---~-- () ".. tl o. ~ ~,;~~ ~ ~ ~~~\!' :I ~ . 'I ~k ~~ ".. c ~ ~I~ )( Q o Q --'0.1--- . ~ , 'I ~" s~ '" ~""'- 1'_ ~ II- (J> ~~ ~ -- ~ 0, =i m ~~l ~~~ :; I l(~\\<NE~SOI:q ~ :IJ ~ ~ g "'1--" 4 Or-HII>->i' Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation District 3 3725 12'h Street North S1. Cloud, MN 56303-2130 Office Tel: 320/654-5134 Fax: 320/203-6089 February 20, 2004 Mr. Jeff O'Neill Deputy Administrator - City of Monticello 505 Walnut Avenue Monticello, MN 55362-8822 RE: Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat Mike Schneider - Applicant Public Hearing on March 1, 2004 Dear Mr. O'Neill: The Minnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the notice of public hearing for the Mike Schneider PUD and preliminary plat and offers the following comments: . - Mn/DOT does not encourage residential development next to transportation corridors. Monticello residents living near 1-94 have complained to the department about the traffic noise. Traffic volumes on 1-94 are expected to increase, as will the traffic noise. It is Mn/DOT policy not to construct any noise attenuation devices along existing transportation facilities. Alternative measures such as building setbacks, use of local topography, or establishment of earth berms on private land should be investigated. - The development should not direct drainage toward the 1-94 right of way. . As more detailed plans become available, please forward them to our office for review. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the public hearing notice. Sincerely, U~~a-, t- Claudia Dumont Senior Transportation Planner Cc: CS 8680 - An equal opportunity employer bl . Planning Commission Agenda - 3/1/04 7. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Resurrection Lutheran Church has requested a conditional use permit amendment to allow an expansion oftheir church facility located at the intersection of Highway 118 and Fenning Avenue. The original CUP was granted in 1997. The subject site is zoned P~S, Public/Semi-Public which allows religious institutions by conditional Use permit. . The proposed building addition measures 11,121 square feet in size (168.5' x 66') and is to be located on the south side of the existing church building. The proposed addition includes 14 classrooms, a 2,760 square foot "community square", a nursery and toilet/storage facilities. CUP Requirements. According to the zoning Ordinance, religious institutions such as churches, chapels, and synagogues are allowed within P-S districts provided: 1. Religious institutions on parcels exceeding 20,000 square feet in area shall be located with direct frontage on, and access to, a collector or arterial street. 2. The huildings are set back from adjoining residential districts a distance no less than double the adjoining residential setback. 3. Parking areas are developed to accommodate the most intense concurrent Uses of the property so as to minimize overflow parking onto the public street. 4. Compliance with the requirements of Section 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Off~Street Parking. According to the ordinance, churches must provide at least one off-street parking space for each four seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. According to the applicant, a total of 305 seats exist within the sanctuary of the church. This equates to an off-street parking supply requirement of 73 stalls. . Planning Commission Agenda M 3/l/04 Presently, the churches parking lot includes 133 stalls significantly exceeding the minimum required parking supply. No additional stalls are required or proposed as part of the expansion project. Site Circulation. Generally speaking, no change to the present circulation pattern on the site is proposed. The existing drop off-lane is to be extended to the southeast to accommodate classroom drop-otT activities. Landscaping. A ring of 2-inch caliper sugar maple trees has been proposed on the northeast side of the addition. While there are no specific screening issues related to the project, it is recommended that additional building foundation plantings on the west side of the building (near the entry area) be provided. It is believed plantings in this area is the site will further reinforce building entry (by adding color) and lessen the starkness of the building to ground. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. As required, a grading, drainage and utility plan has been submitted. Issues related to grading and drainage should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. . Setbacks. The proposed building addition complies with applicable building setback requirements of the P-S District. Building Design/Materials. Generally speaking, the design of the addition matches the architecture of the existing church structure. The side and rear facades of the addition are to match the existing vinyl lap siding of the existing structure. While it may be assumed, the color of such siding, should match that of the existing structure. Unlike the existing structure however, the west (front) cIevation of the addition is to be finished in brick veneer. Such change in materials is viewed as a positive feature of the building design by drawing attention to the new building entry and establishing a higher sense of building quality. The gable roof line and asphalt shingles of the existing structure will be carried through on the addition. . A unique feature of the addition is the proposed spire that measures 58 feet in height. The spire is considered an exception to the maximum 50-foot building height requirement imposed in the P-S District and is therefore considered acceptable. As notcd on the submitted building elevations, the spire is to serve as a "light towcr" of sorts as it is to bc finished in a translucent material and illuminated from within. Planning Commission Agenda - 3/1 /04 . Lighting. According to the submitted site plan, decorative lighting is proposed at exterior door locations. As a condition of CUP approval, all exterior lighting, including the illuminated spire feature, should be directed such that the source of the light is not visible from adjacent properties or rights-of-way. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Pcrmit Amendment to allow the expansion of a religious institution within a P-S, Public/Semi-Public zoning district based on the comments from the stafT report for the March 1, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the expansion of a religious institution within a P-S, Public/Semi-Public zoning district based on a finding that the submitted plans are inconsistent with goals and objectives of the P-S zoning district. 3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the expansion of a religious institution within a P-S, Public/Semi-Public zoning district subject to the submission of revised plans which respond to comments of the staff report dated March 1, 2004. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed building addition is considered well conceived and should visually enhance the site. Based on the preceding review, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment subject to the satisfaction of the listed conditions. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Survey B. Site Plan C. Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan D. Building Elevations E. Floor Plans Z. Conditions of Approval . . Planning Commission Agenda - 3/1104 EXHIBIT Z Conditions: 1. Building fcmndation plantings be provided on the west side of the building addition near the entry area. The variety, location and size of such plantings shall be subject to City approval. 2. The color of the building addition siding match that of the existing structure. 3. All exterior lighting, including the illuminated spire feature, shall be directed such that the source of the light is not visible irom adjacent properties or rights-of-way. 4. The City Engineer provide comment regarding grading, drainage and utility Issues. ...... -.-. Planning Commission Agenda - 3/01/04 8. Public Hearing: Consideration of an amendment to the MontieeJJo Comprehensive Plan establishing policy ."equirements 1'0." the development of townhouses in Low Density Residential land use areas. Applicant: City of MonticeJJo. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Attached is a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, in the form of a Policy Statement, relating to the development of townhouses in Low Density Residential areas. We have integrated the Planning Commission's discussion requiring no more than one townhouse unit per every three R- I single family units, and have added some additional thoughts. To make sure that future projects don't attempt to squeeze around the requirements, we have proposed that the amendment distinguish R-] A areas from "regular" low density areas and exclude R-I A areas from the use of density averaging and townhouse development. We have also added an additional open space element for any use of R-2 or R-2A development, and placed the burden of proving the propriety of anything other than low density single family on the developer. Finally, we have added a listing of potential considerations for allowing R-2 and R- 2A housing in a low density project. Included in this list is a review of the proposed project, its building design, and its building sizes in relation to the requiren1ents for R-1 units. This should help the City leverage larger townhouse units in these areas by holding out the likelihood that such units will need to be comparable to single family homes to qualify for consideration. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment ]. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that it provides for appropriate levels of control in the use oftownhollse development in otherwise single family development projects. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that adequate controls exist in the current land use plan and ordinances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends adoption of the amendment. It is becoming increasingly difficult to communicate to devcJopers the importance of maintaining a low density land use Policy Statement Monticello Comprehensive Plan Townhouse Development in Areas Desi1!nated for Low Density Residential Land Uses In areas of the City designated for "Low Density Residential", the predominant land use shall be single family detached dwellings at densities of no more than four units per net developable acre, or three units per gross acre, whichever is less. Net developable land shall be defined as lands which are buildable without significant alteration. Land with slopes of greater than 201XI, lands within designated environmentally sensitive areas (such as Shoreland or Wild and Scenic Rivers), existing wetlands or other water features, land subject to existing conservation easements or similar instruments, and areas of poor soils that can not be readily built on shall be excepted from the gross acreage for purposes of determining "net developable" acreage. The City shall require that its standard single family zoning district (R-I) be applied to those areas designated for Low Density Residential, except in the following situations: 1. The area is designated for Low Density Residential R-IA, in which case the applicable zoning district shall be R-IA, and the density allowances or mix of housing styles discussed in this Policy Statement shall not apply. R-IA development shall not be used to leverage higher densities in other Low Density development areas. 2. A developer proposes to apply the R-2A zoning district, rather than the R-I District. In cases where such a proposal is approved, the applicant shall provide one usable acre of common open space (private or public) per each fifteen units in the project area to be set aside for landscaping and naturalized planting. The common open space shall not be used to leverage higher densities in the developed portion of the project area. This requirement shall be above and beyond the applicable park dedication for the project. 3. A developer proposes to construct attached townhouse units as a part of a project. In cases where such a proposal is approved, the applicable standards of the R-2 District shall be applied to the townhouse area. For the purposes of this type of development, no project shall include more than one R-2 or R-2A unit for every three Planning Commission Agenda - 3/01/04 pattern in the City. This amendment sets specific thresholds for such development, and should serve to streamline the design and planning process for residential projects. At the same time, planning staff believes that the continued allowance for limited numbers of attached townhouse-style housing in low density areas is important to avoiding an over-concentration of such units in only a few areas of the City. This dispersal serves to maintain an apparent low density pattern, even for areas of attached housing, and also serves to encourage developers to increase quality for their townhouse projects so as to minimize any negative reactions that attached housing might bring. SUPPORTING DATA A. Proposed Amendment - Policy Statement . R-Ilots. In addition, the applicant shall provide one usable acre of common open space (private or public) per each twenty units in the project area to be set aside for landscaping and naturalized planting. The common open space shall not be used to leverage higher densities in the developed portion of the project area. This requirement shall be above and beyond the applicable park dedication for the project. The City of Monticello may allow, at its discretion, the use ofR-2 or R-2A zoning in its Low Density Residential areas. Factors that may be considered include the relative number of townhouse projects in the immediate area, the mix of housing in the community at the time of the proposal, the proximity of the project area to sensitive environmental areas, the proximity of the project area to R-I A development areas, the design quality of the project and the proposed units, the size in square feet of the proposed units in comparison to requirements for R-l units, and the general abi Iity of the City to provide adequate public services to the project area and future development beyond the project area. Such services include sanitary sewer, water, storm water management, local and regional street system capacity and traHic control, park and pathway facilities, and other public health, safety, and welfare considerations. In all cases, single family detached housing shall be the predominant land use and development form. . A presumption shall exist that the application of R-2 or R-2A zoning in the Low Density Residential arcas is inappropriate. The inclusion of R-2 or R-2A lots and units in any project in the Low Density Residential area shall not be considered a right of the land owner or developer. The burden of demonstrating that such development is appropriate in a particular project area shall be on the landowner or developer. The City shall not have any burden to show that such development is not appropriate. .