The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 04-06-2004 . AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 6th, 2004 6:00P.M. Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and David Rietveld Council Liaison: Glcn Posusta Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann 1 . Call to order. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Monday, March 1 st, 2004. 3. . 4. 5. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizen comments. Public Hcaring ~ Considcration of a requcst for a Conditional Use Pcrmit allowing for a detached accessory use structure in an R~ 1 district as allowed by the General Provisions of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: Jason VanderHeyden 6. Continued Public J learing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for five 4-unit townhouse buildings in an R-2 district. Applicant: Homestead Multi-Family Development Corporation 7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan establishing policy requirements for the development of townhouses in Low Density Residential land use areas. Applicant: City of Monticello. 8. Consideration ofa request to call for a Public Hearing regarding R-lA Zoning District design standards. - ..... . . . 9. Planning Commission Agenda 04/06/04 Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance regarding: a. Topographic survey requirements b. Tree survey requirements c. Final plat submission requirements d. Park dedication requirements Applicant: City of Monticello Staff and the Parks Commission 10. Adjourn. - ~ - . , . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday - March 1st, 2004 6:00 P.M. Members Present: Richard Carlson, LJoyd Hilgart, David Rietveld, Council Liaison Glen Posusta Chairman Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, Angela Schumann Absent: Staff: 1. Call to order. Richard Carlson called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M., and declared a quorum. Carlson noted the absence of Chaiman Frie and Rod Dragsten, and that Roger Carlson would be serving as the Council member liaison in place of Glen Posusta for this meeting. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held February 3rd, 2004. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 3RD, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. REITVELD SECONDED TIm MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None. 4. Citizens comments. None. 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 PZM 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 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/0] 104 . Steve Grittman presented the staff report, referring to the provided aerial photo which illustrated both the proposed site location and the existing parking. Grittman indicated that the school district is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit 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. Access to the arena will also be possible from interior corridors in the existing building. Grittman stated that 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 sitc. The district has identified more than 440 existing parking spaces on-site, at various locations around the building. Grittman 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. . Grittman reported that the applicants have reached an agreement with the Hospital District to utilize the hospital's existing parking lots for these overflow times. For this purpose, the applicants are seeking a Conditional Use Permit for ajoint parking facility. Grittman indicated that it is expected that use of the overflow facility at the hospital 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. Grittman also noted that to ensure that the existing school parking is used to the greatest efficiency, the district will recommend that bus parking be directed to the south side of the school property. Grittman recommended approval of the two Conditional Use Permits, based on the conditions that (1) the City may require additional parking to be constructed if overflow parking on City streets becomes a problem f(Jr the adjoining neighborhood, and (2) the applicants continue to work with engineering staff to resolve issues related to utility services and drainage of the site. Reitveld inquired whcther the current number of spaces was considered adequate for the proposed expansion. Grittman anticipates that more spaces will be needed at certain peak times, howevcr the school has indicated that those circumstances would be relatively few. It will be during those times that hospital parking would be used. Grittman stated that condition 1 requircs that should parking occur in residential areas at a higher than anticipated level, the City and school would work together to resolve those issues. . Carlson asked whether there were any specific engineering problems resulting in the statement of condition 2. Grittman stated that at this point there were no specific -2- Planning Commission Minutes -- 03/01/04 . problems. However, the plan is not finalized and the City would seek to ensure that engineering standards are met. O'Neill noted that School District Superintendent Michael Benedetto had relayed ms regret at being unable to attend the meeting due to a conflicting School Board meeting. Bill Holmgren, the business manager for the school district, spoke to the Commission on behalf of the district. Holmgren stated that he had no further comments to add and indicated he would answer any questions from the public or Commission. Carlson opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Carlson closed the public hearing. Carlson asked Holmgren whether the school district had a formal agreement with the hospital board to establish the joint parking facility. Holmgren stated that the school district and hospital did have an agreement to that eflcet. He stated that the school does not anticipate much use of the hospital parking, only during times of overtJ ow. . Carlson iuquired where CUlTent entrance points would be. Grittman noted that the current main entrance would serve the new facility with a corridor being provided to the arena. A lower level service entrance would also be provided. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN ICE ARENA TO THE EXISTING MIDDLE SCHOOL WITH COND[TJONS I AND 2 AS FOLLOWS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE FACILITY IS AN APPROPRIATE ACCESSORY USE FOR A PUBLIC SCHOOL BU1LDlNG, AND THAT THE PARKING MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS OFFERED BY THE APPLICANTS WILL MINIMIZE NEGA TlVE IMPACTS OF THE INCREASE IN USE. REITVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. I. 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 appli"nts 'Ontinue to wo,k with 'nginming "affto '''otv, i"u" "Iated to utility S"vioes and drainage of the site. MOTION CARRIED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP FOR TilE JOINT PARKING F ACIUTY, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE I 10SPIT AL PARKING IS IN REASONABLE PROXIMITY TO THE SCHOOL, AND ACCESS ACROSS BROAIlW A Y IS PROTECTED BY AN EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL. MOTION SECONDED BY REITVELD. MOTION CARRIED. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/01/04 . 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permits to allow fivc four- unit townhouse buildin s and a Preliminar Plat for 7 townhouse lots in an R-2 District. A licant: Mike Schneider - Homestead Multi-Famil Oevelo ment Cor . Grittman provided the staff report, stating that the applicant is seeking a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction offivc Jour-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 rcceived 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. Grittman noted that 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, thc plat request is for 28 units on Scven lots, however the Conditional Use Permits are needed only [i)r 20 new units. . (i-rittman stat cd that the area for the proposed development is zoned R-2. 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 of lot area. Grittman stated that each of the proposed lots exceeds 20,000 square feet, and as such, the density requirement is met. All units would tace public streets, including Prairie Road and a new cul-de-sac extending south from Prairie Road. Grittman referred to the preliminary plat, which shows 7 total lots. Two lots are located on land north of Prairie Drive, known as "The Meadows", and five are located to the south. The two lots to the north mirror the previous lot lines, while the five lots to the south arc arrayed both along Prairie Road and around a cul~de-sac. The cul-de- sac was plattcd as a part of the Brother's Plat, but never constructed. Thc proposed units appear to meet all setback requirements as designed. Grittman indicated that the four-unit buildings are allowed by CUP in this district and that 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 preferred by the City Engineer. Grittman stated that thcre were a number of issues related to the project, which were outlined J(Jr the commission in the staff report. Specifically, Grittman referred to the need for improvcd landscaping, as well as maintenance of the recommended landscaping and other common areas. Planning staff would recommend that any approval include a condition for additional tree and foundation plantings. Grittman indicated that this condition was noted when the applicant originally discussed this project with the City, and was also applied to the CUP approval [i)r the first eight units. Grittman stated that as with thc Timber Ridge development, a significant landscape buffer is recommended along the boundary of the property, adjacent to the single family neighborhoods. -4- Planning Commission Minutes- 03/0 I104 . Grittman reported that the City had required developers of the townhouses in "Sunset Ponds" to provide a landscaped berm along the interstate. The purpose of the berm is to provide some sound attenuation ii'om the adjoining ireeway. This requirement should also be applied to this project. Planning staff is concerned that housing adjacent to the freeway would have significant negative impacts from freeway noise. The applicant has objected to this condition, however, the City has received a written objection to the project tfom MnDOT due to noise from the freeway with a berm. This condition should be actively pursued to ensure the highest quality neighborhood possible. Grittman indicated that the berm requirement will likely change the plan layout due to the minimum setback requirements. Grittman noted that the project should include sidewalk on one side of Prairie Road that connects to the pathway in Timber Ridge. Grittman indicated that the applicant should make a number of design changes that will result in a significantly altered set of plans. Grittman also stated that all of the issues mentioned 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 recommends denial. At this time, Grittman recommended tabling action on the plat and Conditional Use Permits. . Carlson opened the public hearing. Marla Hughes, 147 Hedman Lane, Monticello, addressed the commission. Hughes stated that she does not see landscaping as the primary issue with the proposed development. Hughes stated that her concern is that an area which was originally platted as single-bmily homes is now proposed to put too many people in too small of a space. 11ughes believes that the proposed plan would create too much traffic and the potential ior more accidents. Hughes stated her opinion that the entry points onto the development's main road are too small. She explained that children now walk through backyards because it is no longer safe for children to walk from bus stop to home. Hughes also indicated that she had spoken with the applicant, who told her that the proposed properties would be rental units. Hughes stated that she believes that this will bring down home values in the area. Mike Schneider, Homestead Multi-Family Development Corporation, addressed the commission. Schneider stated that he had only received staff comments over the weekend and inquired whether he could review with the commission the changes that would meet the recommendations during this meeting. ..... ,.,. O'Neill stated that the comments provided to Schneider for the meeting were almost identical to those provided during a meeting with him over a month ago. O'Neill said that at this stage, planning stail would prefer to complete a review of a revised plan set -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/01/04 . based on the provided comments. O'Neill stated that although a new plan set had been provided by the applicant, none of the recommended changes had been made. I-fiIgart stated that he would prefer that staff had the opportunity to review any changes made as a result of the comments listed in the staff report for this item. Reitveld also stated his preference to table the item to allow the developer work with staifto develop a more detailed plan. Carlson asked Schneider to clarify whether the proposed units would be for sale or rental. Schneider stated that they would be owner-occupied. Carlson expressed his opinion that Prairie Road does not seem to meet City specifications as far as improvements. O'Neill stated that after a review of this particular site plan, the City had initiated including Prairie Road as are-construction project. That project would occur within the next year, with or without this development, and would include sidewalk, widening, and curb and gutter. Some of the cost would be assessed to property owners, but much of the costs would be taken on as part of the City's reconstruction fund. O'Neill explained that the City had also authorized a study to determine a crossing point over or under County Road 75 in the area. . Schneider commented that when he first considered developing the property, he spoke with Mr. O'Neill, whose response to the project was favorable. He also indicated that he was cncouraged to re-plat the entire area rather than combine the lots. What he is being requested to do now is different than what he understood fi-om meeting. Grittman clarified that the land usc is consistent with zoning and that staff has no objection to density of project. The overall goal is to creatc a product consistent with thc slIn'ounding neighborhoods and with adequate buffering measures in relationship to the freeway. I lilgart questioned whether the proposed re-platting would change the density. Grittman statcd that it would not; it would actually be below density. Hughes asked for a clarification of how zoning designations work. If this area was originally platted lcx single-family home lots, when and how can it change? Grittman statcd that an R-2 designation allows for both single family and attached dwellings. Townhouses arc a Conditional Use within that district. Hughes noted that thc proposed layout is so tight, it would not allow for porches. Grittman noted that although this is true, it would have also been true for single family homes along the eastern boundary. Hughes re-stated her concerns regarding traffic, density and safety. I learing no further comments, Carlson closed the public hearing. -6- . . Planning Commission Minutcs- 03/01/04 Carlson questioned whether having 16 units with driveways backing onto Prairie Road is an issue. Grittman stated that re-construction will turn Prairie Road in to a minor eoJlector and that this configuration is actually preferred by the City Engineer due to greater backing room and visibility factors. Hilgart stated that it would appear that overall, City statT is in favor of the project. However, they are simply requesting that the recommended changes be made. Carlson inquired whether Nicholas Circle would be a public street. O'Neill stated that it would be a private with a public easement or simply public. Reitveld indicated he supports the concept, with the provision that the developer work to address the conditions in exhibit Z before approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO TABLE DECISIONS ON THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMlSSION MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY RElTVELD. MonON CARRIED. Carlson encouraged Schneider to meet with staff to re-configure plans in order to meet conditions before re-submission. 7. Consideration of are uest for a conditional use ermit amendment for the ex ansion of a reli ious institution in the P-S/Public-Semi-Public District. A licant: Resurrection Lutheran Church Grittman provided the staff report, indicating to the Commission that Resurrection Lutheran Church has requested a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow an expansion of their church facility located at the intersection of Highway 118 and Fenning Avenue. 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. Grittman stated that the proposed expansion meets the requirements of a Conditional Use for that district. -7~ Planning Commission Minutes - 03/0 1/04 . The church has also met the requirements for olf-street parking. According to the ordinance, churches must provide at least one off-street parking space for each f(mr 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. Presently, the churches parking lot includes 133 stalls significantly exceeding the minimum required parking supply. No additional stalls arc required or proposed as part of the expansion project. Grittman did note that a ring of 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. Grittman stated that additional plantings in this area will further reinforce building entry (by adding color) and lessen the starkness of the building to ground. Grittman stated that a grading, drainage and utility plan has been submitted. Any issues related to those plans are subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. . Grittman noted that a recommended condition of approval is that the side and rear facades of the addition arc to match the existing vinyl lap siding of the existing structure. Reitveld inquired whether the lighting as proposed would present any issues. (i-rittman stated that although the City normally requires a photometric lighting plan, staff does not expect any issues that would necessitate this submission. Carlson sought clarification on whether increased square footage requires additional parking. Grittman indicated that because parking is based on the seating capacity of the sanctuary, which is not changing, no additional parking is needed. Paul Grunswick, a representative from Resurrection Lutheran Church, addressed the commission. Grunswick stated that he had been involved in the campus planning eiTort and that he had no further comments, but was available to answer questions related to the plan. Hilgart inquired whether the current expansion was the only proposed addition. Grunswick explained that a master plan for the church does show further future expansions, however none are proposed at this time. Carlson opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Carlson closed the public hearing. . -8- . . Planning Commission Minutes - 03/01/04 A MOTION WAS MADE BY REITVELD TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION WITHIN A P-S, PUBLIC/SEMI_ PUBLlC ZONING DISTRiCT BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE MARCI-:lI, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. Grunswick thanked the planning staff for their consideration and effort on the project, ensuring that the process moved forward in a timely manner. O'N ei I! noted that in thc case of the church's application, the developer did respond to the list of concerns prepared by staff and produced a revised plan in time for an adequate review. 8. Grittman relerred to the policy statement provided. Grittman asked for the item to be tabled to the April meeting when a full compliment of commissioners would be available to review and comment. ^ MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO CON11NUE THE PUBLlC HEARiNG REGARDING THE REQUEST TO THE APRIL 6"' MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. REITVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. O'Neill asked the commissioners whether they would like the staff to complete an inventory of R-2 areas in relationship to the mixture of single-family and attached dwellings, in light of public comments provided on the Homestead Multi-Family application. O'Neil! stated that an inventory may help determine whether changes need to be made in terms of density and building standards in these areas. Carlson indicated that the general perception seems to be that the closer development is to the downtown area, the more density is acceptable. Carlson stated that he is not opposed to taking a second look at these areas, as wel! as some of the outJots on other projects that didn't develop initially. -9- . . Planning Commission Minutes - 03/01/04 9. Adiourn A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:00 PM WAS MADE BY HILGART. MOTION SECONDED BY REITVELD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ~------------.----------.- Angela Schumann, Recorder -10- Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/04 . 5. Public Hearin : Considcration of a rCi uest for a Conditional Use Permit for a detached accesso structure in an R-l District. A licant: .Jason VanderHeyden. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Jason VanderHeydcn is requesting approval of a Conditional Usc Permit to allow the construction of a second garage on his property at 4537 Cobblcstone Court. The new garage would be detached, and a total of 960 square feet in area. The existing attached garage is 544 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance permits a total of up to 1,200 square feet of garage spacc as permitted accessory space for an R~l Single Family home. In addition, no accessory building can exceed more than 10% of the rear yard area. However, up to 1,500 squarc feet of total area can be constructed with a Conditional Use Permit, under the Jollowing conditions: . (a) Accessory building space is to be utilized solely Jor the storage of residential personal property of the Occupant of the principal dwelling, and no accessory building space is to be utilized for commercial purposes. (b) The parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is of sufficicnt size such that the building will not crowd the open space on thc lot. (c) The accessory building will not be so large as to have an adverse effcct on the architectural character or reasonablc rcsidential use of the surrounding property. (d) The accessory buildings shall be constructed to bc similar to the principal building in architectural style and building materials. The applicant's rear yard is more than 12,000 squarc feet in area, and as such, the 10%) threshold will not be a concern. The total square footage of the garage space on the propeliy, as designed, would be 1,504 square feet. By reducing one side of the new building by a few inches, the building can be madc to meet the standard. In addition, the applicant's plans and application lcttcr indicate an intent to mcet the rcquirements of the Conditional Use Permit provisions. Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/04 . AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Pcrmit f()r a detached accessory garage, with the condition that the applicant meet each of the requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the 1,500 square loot threshold. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that the building would be out of character with the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends approval of the CUP, based on findings that the building will meet both the intent and the specific standards of the zoning ordinance. The rear yard for this parcel is quite large, and the 10% rule was designed to ensure that large accessory buildings do not overwhelm the open feel of the lot or the neighborhood. The applicant easily meets the threshold with the project. With the comments that the building will be finished to match the house, and the 1,500 square foot maximum is met, planning staff believes that the building is appropriate for the site. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Location Map B. Letter of Intent C. Floor Plan D. Front Elevation E. Side Elevation F. Cross Section G. Site Survey 2 ti $. ::: .. --'. ~ - . .' - I ! " $. on ESI3 T .!i!I._ It) ... J:;3Z .~ (/J :! l o .!!J.- ! 1 ~ :i ~ .... ..,. ~i~ .. j -- . . - - F" ...' , " . ... ,~.. -,f? Monticello Planning Commission, We are applying for a conditional use permit for the purpose of building a detached garage. Our intended use of this accessory building is to be utilized solely for the storage of residential personal property. As residentslhomeowners of the city of Monticello, we have realized that common purchases that many single~family homeowners buy have become too much for our standard sized attached garage to store. The items to be stored and that we are referring to are a fifth-wheel camper, riding lawnmowerlsnow blower, snowmobile trailer, 4 wheelers, motorcycle and potentially other recreational items as we continue to grow as a family here in Monticello. This accessory building will in no way be utilized for Commercial purposes and will not be crowding the open space of our lot. By granting our request for this conditional use permit you will allow us to store all of the above listed items in one place contained very neatly in a similar architectural style building to our current principal building, our home; rather than our current method of storing such items which is outside next to our attached garage. . rJ rU ) .<, t' .:....1/../ ,. J t- O' 0:_ ~ ~ , t:, C) l,.. -.. v[; x k 0.' (j <:C r6 CCJ ~ ;c.}:;' - l:f )7> P "'q) H j~ <+:::>: q.x 'e - ~ J~P\()(!) H ... ."' 'I ",-. r ;~: J .' t 'i't "r.l.} ",..j,. ~~-\ . ~-:;' l,. ~ I <)' )<.. I 1%/ l ~.il / ..ji . ~; ~I i ::,J j =>1 a-~ , '-><1 9'=1 ~~1 j <1"1 : qI,~ r:r \6 / ! ; I . ... ~ Iv) I'""'IOjOu.'n, h 'e ;(. C?t;; I""V\Or""'.\ I"'i r -- ----'------ 'e I/n S'S-f')-\- -...AOV,J UJ.O J :>0 h'e or It , , ~ !(J .,. 4J 1- So-S'S'f\J 1 itoOl) j7; IS pu 7 / /") ~S'f'J.l ya pJ ~ 9 -- .-., --'t---,,-.- ~............ .'....-....-, _ ...._., _ _.,'..... __.. -.-. ,._ ~ /, t, It l j II " r v> (y V7 V) :> \- -r ei- o Q c:r:. i ._k _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,.. - -', ..... -" ~ ~ - ~, ~ <d ~ lrJt/) VJ '($ 2 - -;- ~...... ~~ ... .V) :r- J ............V) ..,.. o Ii 0 ~ /1" . 0/, v '-.- 2 I 6\ S I ~ ! --..J ;'N i I I' 1 r i 0- f \ t.,.. )c. I N r. _ I Ql- - (]~ )<. I N ,. i:t: ' , ,f f"6 i~ _. _ I I i l { ----it . .....:.'., '.W"~ - "'"'l!!'..~~;".... ....c. [( ------ ---:--~___M..~.~.'"'".'".-=:::::::=_--.,..-~. <.... '.' 'Hi' "c.", - _. - ""> , --- .::>0 - >1 ( . -~ ... .+- -- ~- 'tV II cV J--il - J ..... C: .so ) -t'.- .- ;J c 1 ..J ~ ~ ~~ 0:."'" . o -. ')<. Qa - N C>I) I ("~ i ...... :x- i !'J i - \ ) ,. ! I ~ ~ Ij I" . if ( 1 ~ . ~ is .- V} 1< - .5 c > ~ .~ - 4, qJ - <V II .:r ,i/ [/1 ,J ,/",/ ~ J;' ,t , , ./ ; l i i , I' } j .I "" Q)-ff u .... V) 1~ . ..... r- - ~,~, >/ o o I , t ~ I I I 1 , , I j 1 1 t f ! i I ~ , I :~ ,/ \ [J ~ I 10 V , _ \l j <::2;2 ~ , i i <? o 'Z '- ~ . :r ~~i ; I I ; / . I J ' , / ! ! / / i/I II I' I 1/ / l J j I I .I . 1 , N L "'..9 / '" v I -4- l 1 "~t-l c< " ! ~ ~ ~~~? ~\9~'1 I (. Q - U M~~ l"J-..... '\f ~_~v () ~ QI l" Cl- ~ V7 ::. - .. "'V' ~ _:::-"" ~ J'" " ~ ,~.....~N{\..l II Q...,..Q~ -- .~ 1"'~1 )"6 ~~ J ~ -t- -I- (t) ~ 6 ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ I .sf oJ - if) VI ~ -s:> 1'.3 ~ "i': dhVC"!. 0 '~j..... ~ -V\-1- -r I;.J .... ~ cO ~ l~ ! '- \-'" IfI e> ... S I qi M "!...):~... ' , .:r V) )c =- : 1 %- "J. - ~ ~ 0 q) G c6 ;:-N ! iV}, ""1 IV) - 3- II) II ',' ~ ~ I II. \ -'; .ro~ 0 ~ ~ ::! ~ I v1 1 -i- VI 3. <:J ,11C:Y ~") I' ,0.- I ~~~ . ~ 0-.It f ~ j C "'J .- 0:\)" V' () V> . I "_ ';f-+ ~ ' -+ -0 k !!~~ 0 t) -. ~ ?..f---= I'\!) 5 0 0 ~...r..f:- Q'~ c::L \i. V) V) v'J ~ Vl II i I ; I .J g cP V) ... .::J .!J ~ - \... ;;:a gQi0S> o '6 :r 0- ::r- -0 ,*" t.. I~"" r ~ :. ~ C()"" 'V U) I I ~~ <i , ~v'7' , ,,!;) 'u ~ v'" J.d$ 9~'" f/J C QI-; 8 Q' "d c:. Cl ;;;:, ~ d:. ~'b + ~" ..D 5. ..l .i tf -+ v f ....j ~--' rv uV)u-<:I:U C"- oy 1 \.'9 / ':;r ~ ~ \: au Cf-- o ~ - .v -t- 1\ IJ ".\..1 - VJ \'\i\ ~ \1'1 Vl ~ ~ (J "- -~--I ,,1 <ii ..k I I I I \) (' ! j ! ~ 'l,. ;; VI< ~ S ... - - 0- . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/04 6. Public "earine: Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permits for five 4-unit townhouses buildines in an R-2 District. Applicant: Mike Schneider, Homestead Housine Corp. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Mike Schneider has revised plans for his proposed townhouse project along Prairie Road. The City had previously approved eight units north of Prairie Road, and the current proposal includes an addition 20 units south of Prairie Road. The new portion of the development is a replat of the original "Brothers" plat of 7 single family lots. The zoning designation is R-2, which permits single and two-family homes, and allows attached townhouses by Conditional Use Permit. It is the intention of this application (and a requirement of the original eight-unit approval) 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. [n addition, it is the understanding of staff that the developer is required to provide securities and/or a development agreement prior to beginning construction work on the original 8-unit project. As a result, the plat request is for 28 units on seven lots, however the Conditional Use Permits arc 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 of lot 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. Preliminmy Plat. The plat itself 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. StafThad raised a concern with Building 6 in the original design, due to its location at the end of the cui-de-sac, and the fact that the driveways would require turns in the middle of the driveway for backing vehicles. This condition has been corrected to result in straight driveways, with the exception of one unit. The developer's solution Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/04 . provides for a "turn-out" design that should be made to accommodate a hacking vehicle. Conditional Use 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 design. The following issues are noted with the project: a. The center two units of each structure originally shared a wide driveway. This design has been modified, although landscaping treatment has not been provided as requested in the original report. This addition should be made to the final landscaping plans. b. The project is designed with individual base-lots for each unit, with a common area lot owned by the association. The applicant should clcarly describe the proposal for the association and common area maintenance. It is presumed that this association will be similar to the Timber Ridge project. c. The landscaping plan has been significantly modified from the original proposal. The plans now show a landscaping screen and low berm along the freeway, supplemented by a pair of 6 foot high walls where the berm is lower and nearest the buildings. Foundation plantings are also included as required. Finally, as with Timber Ridge, a signifIcant landscape buffer is recommended along the boundary of the property adjacent to the single family neighborhoods. This buffer has been proposed to consist of a lilac hedge along the east boundary of the south part of the project, and the north boundary of the northerly eight units. This buffer should be carried along the east boundary of the north eight units as well. . d. The project should accommodate sidewalk on both sides of Prairie Road and a connection to the pathway in Timber Ridge. The City Engineer is formulating plans for the reconstruction of Prairie Road, and continuation of these sidewalks. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Preliminary Plat for Timber Ridge 3rd Addition I. Motion to recommend approval of the plat, based on findings that the plat meets the requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan and R-2 Zoning District. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the plat, based on findings that the existing plat layout for single family housing should be preserved. .... ....... 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/04 Decision 2: Conditional Use Permits for five 4-unit townhouse buildings. I. Motion to recommend approval of the CUPs, based on findings that the proposed plans are consistent with the R-2 zoning standards and the requirements of the area to ensure public safety and an attractive neighborhood. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUPs, based on findings that the location adjacent to the freeway and the access to Prairie Road requires lower densities and greater buffering. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the plans, with the condition that landscaping plans are modified to include landscape treatment in the driveway separation areas, and lilac hedge buffer is added to the east side of the northerly eight units. With these changes and those summarize in Exhibit Z, planning staff believes that the applicant has met the requirements of earlier recommendations. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Location B. Preliminary Plat C. Existing Conditions D. Preliminary Utility Plan E. Preliminary Grading Plan F. Preliminary Landscape Plan Z. Conditions of Approval 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 04106/04 Exhibit Z - Conditions for resubmission of Preliminary Plat 1. 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, induding the cul-de- sac island landscaping. 3. Landscape detail is provided for the separation of combined driveways. 4. Provide sidewalk along both sides of Prairie Road to connect to Timber Ridge in accordance with the City Engineer's plans for the Prairie Road reconstruction project. 5. Provide additional landscaped buffer along the east boundary of the north portion of the project consistent with the rest of the project and the recommendations of this report. 6. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations on grading, drainage, utilities, and street construction. 7. Compliance with City Public Works direction for mailbox locations, garbage collection locations, street lighting, and other requirements. 4 ~ .......;.-. .-/'. ~. .~ 'il:1 ~ .Jl ., -" .-- .... ,.. Ci fpA . . % o 0:: ~ U ~ ~ 4t- '- ~ 1-:: -P,j' ".. """" f' . "1 //1 / Ul I /. f / ! h~ / I N II, - h / U;! ~LIt""'!;l! ;; / Kg I_ .f-"" / iR~ II, ~S / 1m _/ 1/.-.. 1_.. _.. ~"I / ""(J.I N ,. ... / 1_ I rr I ....... / / - ',-- -~ - / I}"l..;...~, ~ . Yi I J' ~- I -, :/ \" 1'I~1l1~ ..::;:;;,u~ ~~ l~ r _..~. ,.~.. , ,. = ... . - II, l.- I N L- II, I ~~ II, . "" I ,- -, :0 "1 "&' -.. -. .. N / ..~.. (H / II! ~ .. .... L - - -~, I \ ~ _ / ... N (J.I.... I _ _ _ II jjiII' ".-... 11- r- jjiIr -'~ II! ---- . , .--- I - / I L-~ ~i: r-~~ ~i~ ~ ~ \ :;1 '\I!(, 1i! El \ i . ~i It /,~~ .~; ~~v~ ~I - · l..d?l ~ ~r.7J 00- "lIII- - -- r ~ -.t! -II,' I · ~ :,tr-:- - . I-~":'~'- II ",_.J rr -' ,. N! I 1\..' ~! ,- I ....! -k, I J. rw II 1,1 ~ ~I - " II ~ ~ ltJ2- I H-~ .1: II . t -,,- . . ,'. ,'. '., ......... a '" ~I lI- e .f- lU 111 h I~ .. 'I ~~ i!! J "Ipil .., II III ~ I 1111'11 ':1 . . /"'. ~ . --'" . . . ~~ - / / I ( i l... --- I l 1 B ;;, - . ~ , ii , Ln .' . 'v+-- ___ ___ ... ~ wtw .... ,f '\ "..~ '_I ~ ~- ~ \ .~~.__.........u. 1111 ;-11 !i.1 1=11 Ift_, 'lB. lill UIiI- ...- .~II III; III! .1 Ie III ii;;I~ III1 ,III 1!1lI1111 ~"II ~!"J ~Ib III .1 ~ III I, I. I [! I -" ~- Nxl"ft /., I .~ ~~ o' 'e~ ~ ,.).;g !~~ .3' I9g~ I ~ (~ !;b.... : ~~ ~ .............m.._. / ~~ ---.: . . ~ :.:..... I . ?o : I".. (,I<l N r..... -< .J -- 1_ \ - ~, 'ii=~ \~ ~ nOli )IlS'(1OtlOltl ~[i .-~"T IW 11 ~ , /'1<< ~~W,== ~ I' c... ..... N .... A ""~ ",,"" ("" ~ - . A~ _ -r ,~~ . =-r- \. #- '" f-f ".~ ~I l~ ~ ..'!!-j t=-4 ,!;a_ ,/ /" ~ ::c III ~." I' ~I ~ // "'~-;:'0-;:'~~='\"~ 'lJ~1 ~- ;;! . -:~;~<t. \ \ LJ! ."Wi :.===- ~i . '(.t:\. V~ -- 1~1'1 ~.f-. \1r .~1 I "-- ~~' ~~~ u n- ~.= ~ ~ ffl [-"-~ ~ '[ ,~/;.j L.J ..:r~ L oj ... l:::Lf m - .....1" --- N c-- CI =l1-l1 ..... I&" 0 (,JoI .(,,1 a b S N 5 -.....- - ..... (,I<l :. . ~ .... ..... I ill .... = L-- I-- ~--~---- ~ l-- -I. j; -~ ~m ~ N ~~;,;; ~. - -1 ~ (,I<l g<< " N ~.... n! .... I - :t = .... ~ ---1- ~'III~ In -ii=~1 "15l!1 !9 q ~ ;k i. m ! ~ ~ ~ (,I<l IL~' .""",. ,,_" _"- J' I y~_ ..-..-.,- ~i' . ;; u' i=::o I" " ! "1 ". ' ~ -?I iB I :1 I ~Sl !~ ~~ ~~ ,; ,,-- ~ '\ I'k . ~I IlE I 'II~' i~ . I.d \a I: d.l i ,...q I hi ~ I Ii, ~ !:I ' t; II i.:~ \ 1 i! I I i '" " B i ! " , I '. ~ ; ';.." / ; i .11111 M , "' . " ,I ~ '; I . II hlhh I Ii IIIII1111 ~ ~f ~" /.......... I I / f - / I ......1'--___ ,-./ I _/ - -- -llt8- - ./ ./ \ I /-- ...- '1 0: 'III~I .'11'''111 .. I I I ~i il~~II" ,Il~' I! II ~~I~ll:~ ~ it- t I ! blj'll bi III..I~ all II l'III!I-~llpIIli f L j II · '1111:011= 111..111 !' I Itdt~iil ~ I iU ~ d .. " \ / I I II 1 _ / B .... / /.1; __.." " / :r -- ..., 1/ ....~dil/ I I ., I ~U I / / ~ )II / t/ / ~ I I / ')' J 1/1 I / / /--;/1 . /11 II/I' I Y I II) ~ .1 / I //----, ~ I I I I I I (I / ~ ~r~/ lit il ~ iin/~I r ~ /~/ I i I/;C y/ ~ / ~ ..... 1/ / I I!! '1/_../ / ~ .7_ ~ \: , ' .. " ..'._: ,. .......'.'M. ~ ,./ _ n.d... I(rY f 't ,// ~IM~ t I / ' .r~\ , I , / ;' . ", Vii!J g ~ d I ,1/ A~H'/~ ~ k4 \\ 18 I{ ~~~;~Ii/~~~ " ,I ~ ~~~'i,)) ~v--- . I / Fit ,/,7l~~-:/ ~\V ~---- '! ; pd;cd'/trl f ,I ;A /~~y~ ~?( l (~ j, / /~/ _... \ I ! ! p~ r ,111_ -0- I, ;/1 J .~~_7 · fl:>;- " I ,I r1' i:- AI IJ'\~ i o E\} n ./ II'" <I '.. 'I ~ - - __/ /1 '~~/'Jj \ \Y'~ '- ~ = N ~ It / !,I~ . ~h J ~i<l .::- .. /;1 ~~~f/ .,_"l ~ ... \ 1>1 ,i~lL~ ~IA.''-~: :~~._~ It/r ~ ~ "N~\~ ..I!!J M- - ~( I / " l I ....... ~ lHIi ' N ill t I ' ^ 0 II i-IMt!lfti! I ,/ ,~t. OM"J ~~.; ~~_i1.~IlI: : <:J .. .; 1//!1Tu .'1 -- - ~Ij~~ I lit:j '0 ~ I t I I ~Cll I I I ~ ". ~ / I ceo. I I ...... - ,I! 1 I L ""' >-< l-' -It ri., A I /1 I ~ '~ "",'" '-' ~ ~I>. ,Vi , i : 11 ~7. /~ '":, : i 1 tl A flt~;>' ~ - '" ..-c..-:l I I IS 'I ", ~" ...~rl I il I ,_ ,,=---~" ~c.: '" I I !l II u2" T .. -I Ig ,I- l\~ e, " t, ~. ~--' k) - ,~ - ~ ';1 ] ~~ I - . ," n i '- .'" ',' . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/04 7. Public Hearine:: Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan establishine: policy requirements for the development of townhouses in Low Density Residential land use areas. Applicant: City of Monticello. (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-l 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.IA areas from "regular" low density areas and exclude R-l A areas from the use of density averaging and townhouse development. We have also added an additional open space clement for any use of R-2 or R-2A devclopment, 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 requirements for R-l 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 l~tmily homes to qualify f(H consideration. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1. Motion to recommend approval orthe amendment, based on a finding that it provides for appropriate levels of control in the use of townhouse 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 LIse plan and ordinances. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the amendment. It is becoming increasingly difficult to communicate to developers the importance of maintaining a low density land use Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/04 . pattern in the City. This amendment sets specific thresholds 1(H' 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. SUPI>ORTING DATA A. Proposed Amendment - Policy Statement B. Minutes of January, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting C. Minutes of February, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting . . 2 7A . Policy Statement Monticello Com prehensive Plan Townhouse Development in Areas Desienated for Low Densitv 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 devc10pable 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 20%, 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 ~ 1) 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-I A, in which case the applicable zoning district shall be R-I A, 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 lcverage 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 shaII 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 . . R-llots. 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 of R-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-IA 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 ability 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 traffic 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 areas is inappropriate. The inclusion ofR-2 or R-2A lots and units in any project in the Low Density Residential area shall not he 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. . 2 .... . , . If? MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - .lanuary 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 HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. "'I .J. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Open House/W orkshop ~ 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-l, 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 I family, meeting traditional R-l 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. , Grittman 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? . I-Iow 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 Frie opened the public hearing. Roger Fink of Woodside Communities ofMN, 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. I 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 - 01/06/04 - 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 oftownhomes. He 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. Frie 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 Holthaus, 12354 Aetna Avenue NE, spoke to the Commission, indicating that the more expensive home prices are, 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. Home 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 toni ght. 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 20% townhomes to 80% single family would be appropriate. He 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 - 01/06/04 I more townhome buyers. He suggested the Planning Commission consider consider the alternative of providing more direction in tenus of a demographic mix. For example, a larger or more expensive townhome 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 iftownhomes satisfy both first time home buyers and retirees? Goeman believes so, indicating that young people are 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 available. , 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: 1 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 flexibility with that mixture. He 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. He stated that Monticello has been passed by for many middle- to higher-end single family housing developments due to lack of land supply. He 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. Von Bishe stated that Monticello should expand boundaries to make more land available to lower land costs. Von 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 - 01106/04 . 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-IA areas, which require a minimum of 2000 finished square feet. Sprit Hills, Carlisle Village, Hillside Farms arc all developments currently in progress which contain R-l A 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 of those who addressed the Commission and to state other related comments. Commissioner Reitveld concurred with the school board's analysis of the housing situation. Rcitveld 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 S1. Michael's student enrollment is growing at close to 10% versuS 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 St. Michael, which has no similar regulation. Dragsten said that he thinks f1exibility 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 RI-A. Hilgart also asked for a review ofthe 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 townhomes versus singly-family dwellings, particularly in configuration. Fink views R-IA 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- I , I Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/04 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 of townhomes 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 of the Planning Commission 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 noted that a recent article in the Star Tribune has a majority of the metropolitan area 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. The majority of the proposed annexation area will be 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 ad.journment. Please see additional comments below. 6. Consideration ofre-appointment for expired term of planning commission member 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 a t',AV\ D A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RE-APPOINT COMMISSIONER 1=Z.E'l\.IEL.PROD DRACJ3'fEN TO A SUCCESSIVE THREE-YEAR TERM. CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ,.,. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Park Dedication/Commercial Property: Report bv 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 Item 5. O'Neill asked the Planning Commission members if the 2:1 ratio, allowing flexibility 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 -1 designated areas, there are instead located only in areas designated low-density in the Guide Plan. Low density arcas may contain both townhome and R-1 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. I Grittman noted that it is common in other communities who have gone to more flexible 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 Monticello 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 tend 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 often 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 area dedication is based on units. He stressed that a change in one area of the development affects the whole development. 8. Adlourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8 P.M. REITVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Recorder -8- I I I Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 /6 13. The applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN 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 MEETING AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH 2, 8 AND 12 AS ITEMS TO BE RESOLVED. MOTION SECONDED BY REITVELD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Consideration of are uest for a conditional use ermit for the ex ansion of a reli Tious institution in the P-S/Public-Semi-Public District. Applicant: Resurrection Lutheran Church Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Fde closed the public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE REQUEST TO THE MARCH 2ND MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF A COMPLETE APPLICATION. HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on comprehensive plan andlor ordinance amendments regulating attached housing development in areas guided for low density development. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. o 'Neill provided the staff report, stating that staff is seeking direction in terms of how low-density areas are treated in relationship to the guide plan. Thus far, staff has used a guideline of allowing I townhomc for every 2 single family homes in low density areas. O'Neill referred to the testimony on this subject provided at the last meeting Planning Commission meeting. O'Neill inquired whether the commission would consider requiring larger townhomes to encourage family units. O'Neill also stated -13- ,e 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. I-Iilgart 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-l 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 inefliciencies, 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 are in the 1300-1400 square foot range, which suits the buyer. Frie indicated that he strongly supports a 3: 1 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: 1 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 inelude 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 arcas 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. Grittman 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. Rcitveld indicated that he sees no problem with current townhome size and sees adjusting the ratio to 3:1 as a better solution, in conjunction with creating more R~IA areas. Chairman Frie asked for Council member Posusta's comments. posusta indicated he is opposed to a moratorium. MOTION HILGART 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 AN ATTACHED TO DETACHED HOUSING 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 UNANIMOUSLY. 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 - 04/06/04 8. Consideration of a re uest to call for a Public Hearin District design standards. (O'Neill) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND A representative from Keyland Homes will be present to discuss concerns regarding building standards in the Rl A district. Keyland is currently building homes at the Hillside Farms subdivision. The concern does not relate to the minimum square footage for homes, which is sct at 2,000 finished square feet. The problem, according to Keyland, is the minimum foundation size of 1,400 square feet and the impact on the size of two story homes. This minimum foundations size, when applied to two story homes results in a home that is 2,800 square feet. The concern is that the cost of a home built to 2,800 square feet exceeds the market. It was noted that the code as written results in two story homes at a cost that exceeds the markct. This could force morc of the market to build modificd two story structures. Such structures would meet the 1,400 footprint minimum and also hit the market price point. Planning Commission nceds to determine ifthe ordinance should be adjusted to allow for construction of two story structures containing square footage at less than 2,800 square feet. [s it the Planning Commission's wish to stick to the larger dimension in order to accomplish the goals of the R 1 A district or relax the standards as they apply to two story homes? lfthc Planning Commission is interested in amending the ordinance in response to the developer's concerns, then the Planning Commission should call for a public hearing on the matter. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion calling for a public hearing on amendments to the Rl A homc dimension standards. Undcr this option, the itcm would be presented to the Planning Commission for formal review and associated public input would be provided via hearing. 2. Motion to deny calling for a public hearing on the mattcr. '"' .J. Take no action. Since this item was placed on the agenda by City Staff and no formal application is in placc, Planning Commission can simply discuss, and take no action which would require that Keyland apply for an ordinance amendment before the item could be moved forward. 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 04106104 ~ ~ ST AFF RECOMMENllA TION If it was the intent of the Planning Commission to establish a higher standard for housing development and if dcvelopment 01'2,800 square foot two story homes was intended to be part of thc RIA neighborhoods then the code should stay the same. If Planning Commission believes that the cost of construction combined with the available market will push people to build homes that just meet the RIA minimum (2,000 square fect) then it is possible that modified two story buildings and ramblers will predominate. Perhaps a wait and sec approach might make sense. SUPPORTING DATA A. Copy ofR-lA District Standards B. Letter from Developer. - ~ . 2 eft. -- R-IA District: No single family home constructed in the R- I A District shall be built that does not consist of a least 2.000 square lcet in interior finished floor area. e\elusi\e mechanical. garage. or unfinished storage space. All such finished space shall be at or above the finished exterior grade. or in the case of 100ver levels. no less than 42 inches belov.' such grade. . - .. .... In addition to the finished square tootage requirements. no building in the R-l A District shall have a foundation size of less than I ADO square feet exclusive of garage space. Basements that are neither "walk-ouf' or "look-out" levels may' be finished. but shall not be included in the finished square footage calculation. To qualify as"finished," space must have heat, tlooring such as carpet. vinyl. tile. \vood or other similar floor covering. and ceiling and walls cO\'Cred \-\lith gypsum board. plaster. or \vood. and be stained. painted or covered \vith other residential wall covering prior to occupancy. ..... .. . P.02 Mar-03-04 02:~~P . . . BB ROBERT M. PEARSON LAW OFFICE 13005 MAIN STREET, SUITE 101 ROGERS, MINNESOTA 55374.9401 Tf;:LEPHONE: (763) 428.2297 FACSIMILE: (763) 428-2298 ATTORNEY AT LAW ROBERT M. PEARSON March 3, 2004 Mr. Jeff O'Neal Deputy Administratorl Community Oevelopment Director City llf Monticello 505 Wa,lnm StrecL. Suite 1 Monticello. Minnesota 55]62-8831 Re: IlillsidlJ Farm Dear Mr. 0' Neal: Endosed please lind a copy of detinitiolls of One Story~ Split Level, BI-I,eve\. Modified Two Story and Two Srol')' Single Fwnily homc!oi. 1 wuuld ask thut you look at the current code reqUIrement a-.; it pertains to lhundation size. We would like to build more two stllries above grade finished 2.000 plus finished square feeL To accomplish this I would suggest that the toundation size requirement nul apply if the linished area is above grade and meets or exceeds 2.000 square fccl. I can prove some sampl~ plans to show slat'/" or the Planning Commission, Under the current requirclllcnls, lhe single family homes would be l()rced be forced to huild Splits l.~vel or Ui- Level homes. lluok forward to talking wirh you further. V cry truly yuurs. ROBERT M. IJl.::ARSON TAW OFFICE ~~~ Robert M. Pearson RMP:klh Enclosure . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/04 9. Public Hearinl!: Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City has been considering various changes to its Subdivision Ordinance. The attached ordinance combines the items into a single ordinance that would make each ofthc changes contemplated by staff~ the Planning Commission and the Parks Commission. The changes include the following: I. Language establishing a deadline for the fInal of a final plat after the approval of the preliminary plat. 2. Language amending the method for calculating the required park dedication for a new subdivision. This section proposes a new ftmnula for the amount of land required. In addition, an alternative method is olTered that is based on the estimated population of the subdivision rather than the acreage. In this way, subdivisions with townhouses (and thus, higher densities) would be required to dedicate additional land. 3. Codifies the method for determining the value ofland when a fee is required in lieu of land dedication. 4. Established specific limitations on acceptance of marginal lands for park use. 5. Codifies the pathway surcharge per unit for all subdivisions, whether land or cash is required. 6. CodifIes the timing ofland dedication, and establishes the requirement fiJr rough grading of park land by the developer. 7. Establishes a requirement that entrance monuments, if approved, are allowed only under specific conditions, and not within the street right-oE-way. 8. Establishes a requirement for tree surveys as a part of the required information itlr new plats. 9. Establishes a requirement for topographic information outside of the boundaries for new plats, to ensure that drainage around a subdivision is being accounted for by new development. . Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/04 AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Amendment to the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that need subdivisions need to be able to demonstrate compliance with the City's zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan, and that the proposed amendments support this objective. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the existing Subdivision Ordinance language is adequate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendment. The ordinance is the summary of a number of comments and observations that have been made over the past several months, based on experience with recent development proposals. . SUPPORTING DATA A. Proposed Ordinance Amendment. . 2 . City of Monticello, Minnesota Wright County Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR CHANGES TO STANDARDS AND PROCESSING RELATED TO PARK DEDICATION, FINAL PLAT FILING, AND SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 11-3-3 lS hereby amended by adding the following subsections: 11-3-3: . (C) RECORDING FINAL PLAT: If the finalQ1at is approved ~he city Council, the subdivide~shall record it with the County Recorder within one hundred (100)_--.2-~~ after said approval; If the subdivider fails to so record the final plat, the approval shall be considered void, ~,~ request for, time extension is submitted in writiQ9~nd ~oved-.PL the City 5=ouncil~io~to the ~iration oLtheone hundred (100) day period. The S\l-bdivide~~al~l_immediat~ upon recording, furnish the Ci!;y Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the fi~~a~showin3 evidence of rec?rding. No buildin~~ermits~hall-'pe let for construction of agy structure on any lot in said~t until the City has ~ived evidence of the plat beinq recorded by the County. . (D) RECORDING OF MULTIPLE-PHASED PLATS: If a prelimina~ 2lat is final J2l-atted in stages, unless otherwise I2.!..ovided for in th~,Jlevelopment contract.2-~ll_~tage~ ~us~be~ina~atted into ~, and blocks (not outlots), within three (3) years after the prelimina!:y plaLha~been~roved J2Lth~,Ciy_council._~----.!-he- final I2lats are not ,approved and~orded in accord~ with~his time fram~_~_J~he-.Ere~iminarL121:at ?J2Eroval shall be considere9.- void---L- unless a requesJ::. for time extension,is submitted i_~~iti~ and . approved by the City Council ~rior to the expiration of the three (3) year periOd: Section 2. Section 11-6-1 (A) is hereby amended to read as follows: 11-6-1 . (A) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subdivision 2, the City Council of Monticello shall require all developers requesting platting or replatting of land in the City of Monticello to contribute ?n amount of lan~ 1~lic park and trail purposes. The location of saiQ land shall be ~e disc~ion oLthe-0tY_Council._~e .9mOU~-2Lsaid_Iand_shall be reasonably commensura~ wit:.b th~ demand that the Plattin.9:~_replattin.s:LEaces on_the City park system, as described in the Comprehensive Plan. For purposes of this Section, an amount of land equal to ten percent (lO%)of the total gross .~ area of the plat sha1l:~J?resumptive1X defined~reas!?~X commensurate". In the~vent_that the subdivider objects to the ten per~ (10%) sta~~L th~-.Sity sha11~_~~h~ deve1oper's_reqUes~and expense, conduct ~ecifi~ dedi~ation study of the park ~stem and the demand placed on the system Ez the pro12osed plat. fAit: For~urpose~ of this~ection, an am~t of land equal to one (1) acre f~ each 75 Eersons in the subdivision sha1~ presu~tively defined~ "reasonably _commens~te" .__T~ estimate--..!hep~u1ation of the subdivision~_a househ~lc:!. ~ of 3.~erson~r unit for sing1e_fami1Z homes, and 2.5 Eersons per unit for attached housin~ shall be used.] Prior to_conduct~the study, the Ci~shall obtain a waiver of statutor1 time lines for plat approval during the~o~duc.t_~ the study. NO~roval of final~lats, nor construction of any iml2rov.i'ments, shall.. oCC~ntil_ the-ICark dedication ~s completed. In lieu Of_land pedica ~~--.!h~Ci t~uncil_ may requir~~_casb: contribJ:ltion in accordance with Minnesota~tutes~o~ combin~io~-.9f _both. -1:h~i~~~unci!.:~ dec~sion~ land ?nd/o~sash ~hall be made follow~ recommendations from _th~CitJ:'~~--Rark Commission and staff, in accordan~with t he_ Co~ r e he n sjy~~ I an -~1'-C---8-Rt----{....l.-G-%--f--8-f.--.--.t;.Be----t-iH-a--l ~l at g r () C C ---a-lo:e a t 0 -Be--Ge.G- i C:::t t e d ----f.e.F-----tl-B-e----a-.s--e-i-t-Be-;J:;-~k-s-r F'~~~J-iB .. op cn-8pa-E:~-J,.:i-H-ea-F----p.a..Fk---a-HG---t-r---ai~ .... ..... . &yctemc or to contribute.~n equivalent amount of cash ~ed on the conditione QBtlined belo~. Tho form of G0ntribution (c~ch or land, or any-combination thereof) ~nd the spe~ific area in caced of l~nd contribution shal~ be deG4dcd by the City Council baced upon need ~nd conformance with ~pproved City plans. Section 3. Section 11-6-1 (B) is hereby amended to read as follows: ..... (B) In accordance with Minnesota ~~atutes, where the City Council determines that the park dedic~tion requirement shall be paid in.a cash c?ntribution, the amount of sai~ contribution shall be based on the market value of the ., - land no l.~ter than at the tim.~ of final plat. The City may requ~re that the subdivi~~r provide an appraisal to determi,ne the market value .,_ In the ~,lternat~_,!e, the City may" by Ordinance, establ~_sh a fee per residential unit .!:.tJ-at will me~t the cas~. dedicati~:m requi:rement. _ItJ-e determina!:..ion of the appropri~!=-e fee c?lculation shall be made by ~he City Co~ncil. ..... Section 4. Section 11-6-1 (C) is hereby amended to read as follows: (C) The City CS2.~ncil shall not accE:;pt for credit against a .5lybdivider's., park dedication requirement any of the fol_l,owing: . 1. Delineated wetlands. _.__.,~,.'- ~~'~ 2. Land wi.~hin a des_~gnated fl,podplain._ 3. Lan<:l..encumbered. by a ut~_J:-i ty easef!lent such as a E~troleum or___electric._power tra0-smissi~n line (~:x:cept ~l1ere such e~sement _~.s a stand?-rd platting requirement o(,the City o~ MonticE;.1lo pursu_ant to :?ection ~}-5-4 of thiE3.., Chapter, .,and wher_~ the City deterl1lines that_ the land within the e~sement wil) be uS_9ble for_park, trail"._ or open space purposes) . 4. Land w_~thin a dr,?inage ea,@ement, or_ other _}and :required for stormw~ter treatment. . The City may, ~ts discretion, acc~t lands in the above categories for park dedication~rposes if it deems the dedication to be of public benefit. No credit shall ~~ven against the subdivider's park dedication requirement, however, .unless the City determines that the land will be used for a specific~blic park, trail, or 2Pen space purpose~ Section 5. Section 11-6-1 lS hereby amended to add the following subsection: (F) In addition to the park dedication requirements listed above, each newly s~bdivided.lot shall pay, a surcharge fOY--.12.ark and trail development purJ2..Q.ses. The surcharge will be at a prevailiJ2g rate as determined by th~City Council. . Section 6. Section 11-6-1 (E) is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Land dedicated for park purposes shall be transferred to the City of Monticello by warranty deed. Jhe~ransfe~of .?la~Ji,~and shall OCcur at the time of recording of the, ~ina~~.Fo~mult.:U2le-phased developments, all of the, !2E.rk ~dication---.land shown on the approved Preliminar"'y Plat ~hali, be transferred to the CilY upon the recordin....9: of~he first final plat, in the form of Outlot(s) and shall not be shown as "Park" on the Eat. The pevel212.ment Agreement ~ermit theJ2l?:asing of said-.land transfer. I~addition, the Development Agreement shall gran~ the subdivider a license to enter the park gedication land for the purposes of required grading, .?leediE9, or other work approved by the City Council. Section 7. Section 11-5-3 is hereby amended to add the following: .-.. (M) SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE MONUMENTS: Subdivision Entrance ~.~.-.~'~-._~"- -~.- Monument~ shalLonlLbe ~llowe~in~nf()rmance with Title - . . . 10, Section 10-3 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, and shall be required to meet the following standards: 1. !'Jo such Entrance Monument may be located, wi thi~he public ri~. of way of any street. 2. Entrance Monuments shall be permitted only where an association of homeowners has been established with the legal and financial responsibility for maintenance of the monument. 3. In the event that t~~ m~num_ent bec~~" nuisance,. either through lack o.f main.ten~mce or other event ,~ pecomes a. hazard_~. traffic, the CitLJ!1~~ove~id monument at the e:xpense ~the---.12.!:..?per~owner on whose property the monument is located, or at the expense of the association if appropriate, or both. Section 8. Section 11-4-1 (B) lS hereby amended to add the following: 12 . B>-~rve~G~~tree_~n t~roperty, includi~ l,ocation, size, and _~cie~. Dec;iduous trees tha~re .less than six.Jil inche~~~ameter at a poin0iv~. J~feet abov~0-e natural~ade, or _tre~that~~of undesirable~ecies, including Poplar, Boxe~de~~or EI~may be.exempt~d from this survey. Section 9. Section 11-4-1 (B) 11. lS hereby amended to read as follows: 11. A proposed grading plan showing the present and existing contours at a two (2) foot contour interval~ toqether with off-site ex~sti~con~our.s with~~two hUIldr~(20q) feet .~the..l2.!:...oposed subdivi.sio~ If s.!~termiIled~be necessa~~the ,.City EIlgineer~_~me U:l. foot ,cont.ours m~e required fo~~oposed~adi~ plans in order to e~~roper drainage. . Th'=. I2.!:oposec1---.9.EadiIl~lan.. sh~1..L demonstrat~~. des.ign----.Lo!.: th~ubdi vision---.!J1at .respects the natural topograp~ . . and preserves existing trees, wetlands, and other natural features. Section 10. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Bruce Thielen, Mayor ATTEST: Dawn Grossinger, City Clerk AYES: NAYS: