Planning Commission Agenda 09-04-2001
.
-,
-, .
. 4.
5.
.
AGENDA
Rr~GlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - September 4, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Melnbers:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Ilerbst
Staff
Jeff (),Neill. Fred Patch and Steve Grittman
1 . Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held June 25, 2001 and the regular meeting
held August 7, 200 I.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request it)r amendment of Zoning code Chapter 13.
Section 13-4, fJl 5, reducing side yard setbacks to 10 feet. Applicant: City of Monticello.
6.
Public llearing - Consideration of a request flw a conditional use permit allowing a
planned unit development in a residential district. Applicant: Scott Dahlke.
7.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request fllr a conditional use permit for a concept
stage planned unit development allowing a lnixed residential development. Applicant:
Silver Creek Real Estate Development and Ocello, LLC. *" Applicant requests this itcm
be tabled and continued at the October 2, 2001 meeting.
8.
COlnprehensive Plan update and meeting notice.
9.
Adjournment.
-1-
.
.
)
.
Plann ing Conlin issioll Agenda - 09104/01
5.
Public "earinl! - Consideration of a reQuest for amendment of Zoning Code
Chapter 13. Section 13-4. I.J I 5, reducinl! side yard setbacks to 10 feet. Applicant:
City of Monticello. (I"P)
A. Rr(FERENCI;~ AND BACKG ROUND
In the B-3 district. pet hospitals are allowed by conditional use perInit subject to several
requirements (see below). One of these requirements applies a 20 foot sideyard sethack
rather than the 10 foot sidcyard setback typical in the B-3 district.
Staff has found that there is no substantial reason for the increased sideyard setback for
pet hospitals in the 8-3 district and is recommending that it be removed from the
ordinance as it excessively restricts and interferes with full use of the commercial lands
within the B-3 district.
B. ALTERNATIVES
1.
Motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the ordinance amendment
removing the special 20 foot sideyard setback for pet hospitals as considered by
conditional use permit in the B-3 Zone.
2. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance amendlnent be
denied.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends Alternate 1 above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
· Copy of proposed Ordinance with strike-out to show amendments.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 13, SECTION 13-4, ITEM [.1] OF Till,:
MONT/CEI ,LO ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 13-4, Item [.1 I of the City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
[.I I Pet hospitals with thc following condition:
I.
)
3.
4.
. 5.
6-:
No outside pens or kennels.
Annual inspection by City Health Of1icer at owner's expense.
All animals must be leashed.
Treatment would be limited to small domesticated aninlals.
Side yard ~ctbacb 'Jvould be 20 fect in:stead of 10 feet.
No outside storage of carcasses.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according
to law.
2001.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this _____ day of_.
ATTEST:
CITY OF MONTICELI ,0
By: __._
Roger Relsaas, Mayor
Ry:__ _....._....___
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 09/04/0 I
6.
Public Hearine - Consideration of a Concept Sta2;e Planned Unit Development for
an ei2ht unit townhouse proiect in an R-2 ZoniOl! District. Applicant: Scott Dahlke.
(NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Mr. Scott Dahlke is requesting approval of a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development
(PI! D) to allow the construction of eight town homes upon a 1.0 acre parcel of land
located south of West "rhird Street and west of Elm Street. The proposed dwelling units
would be dispersed within two, Jour unit structures upon the property. The subject parcel
is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential.
Adjacent Uses. The subject site is bounded on the north, south and cast by single family
residential uses and on the west by property owned by the School District (Pinewood
Elementary School).
Provided adequate screening is provided from adjacent single family residential uses, the
proposed use is considered compatible with existing uses in the area.
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is generally consistent with the provision of the
City's Comprehensive Plan policies in that it promotes a wider range of housing choices
in the City.
Zoning. The subject parcel is zoned R-2. Single and T'wo Family Residential.
Townhouses are allowed in this district as a Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit
Development. Section 22-1 (0) requires the Planning Commission to consider the
possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The judgment of the Planning
Commission must be based upon. but not limited to, the following factors:
1. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The geographical area involved.
3. Whether such use wi II tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
PUD Processing. To accommodate the basc lot/unit lot configuration of the townhomc
development, the processing of a PUD/CUP is required. The proccssing of PUD
applications occurs in three stages: Concept Plan, Dcvelopment Plan and Final Plan. At
this point, the applicant is sceking approval of the Concept Plan which involves a general
determination of plan acceptability.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 09/04/01
Performance Standards. The following table illustrates lot performance requirements
of the Loning Ordinance and the proposed development's compliance with the applicable
req uirements.
Lot Area
Lot Width
Lot Area Per Unit
Setbacks *
Front 30 ft. 30 ft.
Side 30 ft. 30 ft.
Rear 30 ft. 25 ft.
"Setbacks apply along the perimeter or the development for PUD.
Required
12,000 sq. ft.
100 ft.
5.000 sq. ft.
Proposed
44.403 sq. ft.
191 ft.
5.550 sq. ft.
Access. The proposed development is to be accessed from the south via a private
driveway constructed within the West Fourth Street right-of-way. To allow such
condition. a specific license must be issued.
Because utilities will be located in this area. the residents of the project should be notified
that utility work ,viii result in the residents need to repair the private driveway.
.
'fhe acceptability of the temporary private driveway and issues associated with the
referenced licensing requirement should be subject to comment and reconunendation by
the City Engineer.
Landscaping. As shown on the submitted site plan, the perimeter orthe site is lined with
coniferous tree plantings. In addition to retaining the existing trees, the applicant is
proposing to plan a mixture of ornamental an deciduous trees throughout the site. While
the proposed landscaping is considered positive, it is recommended that additional
plantings be provided within the interior "garage court" area of the development and that
foundation planing (i.e. shrubs) be provided along the perimeter of the proposed
structures.
As part of the forthcoming Development Plan Stage submission, a detailed landscape
plan should be submitted which identifies the location, size and variety of all site
plantings.
Building Elevations. As part of the Development Plan Stage submission. preliminary
building elevations should be submitted. [t should be noted that buildings within the R-2
zoning district are limited to 2 Y2 stories in height.
.
2
.
Planning Conunission Agenda - 09/04/0 I
Garbage and Mail Service. Ciarbage pick-up and mail service felr the proposed
development is to be provided along Elrn Street. In recognition of such service locations,
the fiJllowing are recommended:
I. Sidewalk connections he provided on the north and south sides of the eastern
town home building, connecting the interior "garage court" with Elm Street.
2. A mailhox structure (for the eight townhome units) be erected along Elm Street
adjacent to one of the recommended sidewalks. Design details for the mailbox
structures should be submitted prior to Final Stage PUD approval.
Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans. As part of this application, a preliminary utility
plan has been submitted. The plan should be subject to review and comment by the City
Engineer. As part of the Development Plan Stage submission. the applicant will need to
submit a grading and drainage plan. Such plan will likewise be subject to review and
comment by the City Engineer.
Park Dedication. The applicant will be required to provide appropriate cash
contribution for park and trail dedication. All park dedication contributions shall be
consistent with City policy.
.
Subdivision. To allow the sale orthe individual townhome units, the subject property
will need to be subdivided in a base lot/unit lot arrangement. As part of the felrthcoming
Developnlent Plan Stage submission, a preliminary plat depicting the proposed
subdivision of the property should be submitted.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage pun subject to the
following conditions:
a. Prior to Development Plan Stage approval, the following plans are
submitted:
Landscape Plan
Grading and Drainage Plan
Building Elevations
· Preliminary Plat
b.
In addition to the trees shown on the site plan, additional plantings be
provided within the interior "garage court" area of the site and along the
.
3
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 09/04/01
perimeter of the proposed townhome buildings.
c.
The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to the
acceptability of the temporary private driveway and issues associated with
the required licensing requirement f()r such condition.
d.
Sidewalk connections be providcd on the north and south sides of the
eastern townhome building. connecting the interior "garage court" with
Elm Street.
e.
A mailbox structure (for the eight town home units) be erected along Elm
Street adjacent to one of the recommended sidewalks. Design detailsl for
the mailbox structure shall be submitted prior to Final Stage pun
approval.
f.
The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to
drainage and utility issues.
g.
^ pathway connection shall be provided south of the subject property
(along West Fourth Street) with a design to be determined.
Potential findings supporting this decision will be:
· The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
· The proposal is compatible with existing land uses in the area.
· The proposal satisfies the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposal is consistent with the City's use of Planned Unit
Development with appropriate landscaping and architectural design.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the concept Stage PUD.
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
· The proposed land use is not compatible with the existing single hlmily
residential land uses existing to the north, south and east of the subject
property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed project is generally consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive
Plan and zoning Ordinance. Thcrefore. staff reconunends approval of the Concept Stage
pu~ with the conditions cited in alternative # 1.
.
4
.
Plann ing C0Il1I11 ission Agenda - 09/04/0 I
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibits A and A-I - Area Location Map
Exhibit H - Site Plan
Fxhibit C - Utility Plan
.
.
5
] I
i I
I
I
I
I I
. I
I
! I
I I
I i
; I
.1 _ _ .
.,', ,
- - .. ~ ..-
1/4
o MilE
~ - - - - -
......
...., h.
. ~ . .
,
612 595 983: P.0~"",,~
1 /2 :
MILE ..,:..........n
.------.--.. :
.... .
~ - .. . .. . . . -,
RUG-29-2001
5:43
NRC
,
'"."I'f' _.
- .. -" - .: . . -
....-
-_..-
.... .-.
- - . .. . . - . . I ~ _ _:
-..,
.
--... -
, ,
- ""
,
\f
. .. . - - " . -~.
'"
. -- "" ..:""
..
, '9 'MllIIl."t' .
'-r.IEU.ISJIO 1)
.. . - . -- - - - -- -:"" tiOI€ PNIK IllES
~ . : EA LOCATION MAP:
~HIBIT A ~ ~
~- ,
AUG-29-21211211
5:44
.
'" """''''''~''''",~.:.",~ < if
NAC
612 595 9837
P.12I6
i
~' ~
.. .
. ~
1 ~ ~
ili PI ·
1 ,~ ~ i
e.i-tt
l'~ ~ ~ i
~it"
~ ~
I ~ i
8 ~ ..
iil ~
i ! ~
~~~ .
- ~l
! ~,
'ii'
~H
~ cSCQ
Hi
~
~
~;~
Ih~
-~~~
l::l!:~
el .. ...:i
J ~~~i!i
I Uf~
~;:
"';
ti.1i$"''l..,;
Q" .."QifI\i
Jlli:J
~~~~ii
ottJ!t.L
or-CIilI_O
".1; Ei II!
..s-~l!'''!
","'~ -~
I. otl!~l"~
~.. _ i
- :5
:crf~~~
....tl..,ll!I~
l!!l' ",,"
.!:l .....,
3~' :.::....'i
i
!
li
1 ~
... 10
~ s
i""" ~ ~ t .. $.
C:i ~ t
~ ~. f~ !
~ m ~
~J ~,~
, :
B
~ I
i
II
~ ~
~
~ a
..
(
I
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'I L
" l~
'II
"
"
17 C:i
"
"~
Ii
"
,:' s-
'I ~
"
"
I? ..\,..
" ~
"
"
"
"
/1
I
l
"'''''~'''~'''>,..."..
"'<:,
-\
....... '\
'''; \~
I,
I,
/ If' l'i~;:' = :~........
I J' If';....... ~"'.~..""-<:......
/ J~I ........ ~""'~"
/ II A... ,:" / .... . __ .....;:..
,;,. ~ II
I "i(;,? I ~-
I;' II! II .......
/' '? ,;' I ....,
II /1
':' Q I~I
'I g:: 'I I
II ,J$ J,
II "" I{
,;' 1;/ I
I;' ~. ,? I
II II
I IJ
I,
'I
'I
I,
'I
"
"
"
I,
,?
" I
"
'I
'I
"
"
,
I.
/I
"
/I
/I
/I
I'
,1
"
/I
"
1/
1/
II
"
"
"
II,
"
"
"
II
/I
"
II
" I
"
"
1/
/I
/I
"
/I
"
"
1/
"
1/
:: L...
II
\\
"
"'~~..t.-:-..
....~.....
6'e L~"'''''''''''''
.... 'T L... ...",
-''.'"'''''''''''' v s;] "'"
, ~",""-<-"''''''''''~.'''''
...... .....~-=..1oI
',-
I
.
I
I
I
/
/
(
I
/
/
'....,
,
'........
I
I
I
"
,
, -.
I
/
,
"
'....,
"
......
".
'"1
I
I
I
I
....
.....
.....
" /
"
/
I
'.,
.....
Cb
'S
,
~, ,
"-
/ .
I
I ~
/ ~
b '::.:....
~ ~
'. 8.~
12'1::
...: ~ Q,,~
.~ !8
C -a
0 '12 ~ o~
0 J!:!
..c:(\j~ ~
~CDCl) I ~s:
Q)Q. OIl
. ~~e ~t ~I ,. ~
_ a..: CIl
;n~ t:IJ~
,
,
.I
".- EXHIBIT 8 . SITe PLAN
.--...-.-......-.""'.---........-
,;:
....
F$
AUG-29-2001
I';;; 81 '"
; ~~ !
.:. 6!5 ri
~ ~~ ~
W '" .....
-'" ~
~ a Q,
5:44
NRC
612 595 9837
P.07
V10GhNM 'OTQ:>1!NOW
~""u." .UJ
........&.1-
.".-~
_......-,....IIIIIM
-~ilIl;..~...
::ITl 'NDlna iI.l.llil.ulTtn~
:u a1W..-w
....fnr-.,.."
nr.>s _....
-;"-~4""
JJW":IS'.....~
/IS A..",.R;
AHl3dOtld 313S/3
I:IOd
lnoA Yl Alnun
e NYld ld30NOO
-:~"'d -JllaM
--'.'11"'-''''-
($ .a~
~
8
t\J~
.,--.. r WJq: 1IIIf". .... "'lit'
..IIIIfIia""""'~""""""'''#'''rr//
". .:r:--,::: ~=~ :"~~
-_JOI
1(1/011. .....
~
~
~
~t'4
~..
-
ex ,.I."~
..l'~
~~
~i5..:"'~
illl~ It
l ,s.l!i
51 ~~.s~I~
......;~ ...
~ .;;:S~.._..
" -to>
e "'- " ~
" "'{":bi'
~ I .,; ~"'!r
III I "1~t.>::ll II
-- ~
.' ~:&i' ~
"ijji_fO.
.. ,,~"'i~~
::iS~l5:!...
.3~:s 'l'i
/
/
it-
~
~
o
tQ
,~
f
Q...
'-,
,J
Ii:
"I
/J.,'
tl/
l,. il
II' U
..;'/ t' I~~
Il;/ ~~:/6 ,:;'
1/' .R" {;j "
1'1 .~:.J:j: ,I
}I." I.~JI
I~I/ I,~' c., I~I
'"'-( I.~/::,... " .1
/// 6j: ~ //
1// /If';' /
I ;J i'.' " 0- I~'
If(z 1/,1 .,.. ~ I~' /
'/ ,"1/.",3,.. ,:'
"'I I, J ..iJi:" ,II
/ OI?"I/,:' .,' J~I
f:i "/ . 1/
I /J 1~/f .j.":. ,r
/1/" I'
Jt,.t:"l II
a"l If
If' J:~ 1/
;,. JI
"
"
"
(t ~,(,
~.. ........
~":..,..~,'.:..:.'~:'''$~~'' -', '-
<'-~'-" <~:"',~,,, "'" ~'~~<I'
'~:<~~:.~~?~
/
Ii
"
I,
Ii
"
I,
'I
"::'::'~'':"-:-',:... . {:, (.
..:-,~~~.. . '\:<1 "-
" 't , ~.... . :"~<>'",:,-~~~,~ ':... -~, '-
'; ,,'''I " . _-,' - ,,,-' '":,S,.. '. "'_
/ ,/,:J l : ,,' .", 'v ':". .q!:~,.
. ;I%~~ /): ""'f:'~/' ~ ';~ . "'.~ -~." "" <." ~~..',::.o,.."".~ ~,,- ~:~~',',,' ,,',: ~. ~.~ ~.~~." -.
j 'P" ~ " ~- ,"'h__ "~""".;:~~.~:~(J..,~. '-..
f'./ :jr,,~~/ ... "~6!: . , : -::"",.,::'<.1>.1:;> '-. "
/ /; :i~ /: ,if / ..... "" .,
j {t ,;'lJ ,;r /
..7,:/'lf I::'
Oft It I
',;'Q. I~:J
-",~'1" 'I I
:,.;' ~ / . ,:'
., .... ' "
I~. ,~.,:: I:;
.: .:!'.~. ,;:1 I
..~ / .~
I,
'I
"
'I
"
. "
"
I,
"
'I
'I
,~,~ -, f
~ ~~~~ -..b ,/
.<:) -.. ;':,~:~t".._,.:,.",~/I
/
f
/
I
/
/
I
f
'.
".
'-
I
....
f
,',
";r.
I
/
f
/
~-
/
......
'-
f
...:~}~:$'*iJ'~5.:~"f
I
.s
i
~ ,n._'
G);
~ ~
la
;;u ..'
(
1.6',"11
.'
...;
,~
o
-
o
Q
..r::~~
~m<1>
0.
"tidE
.s~Cl..
offi
;t.rt
loCI)
'0)0-
Q,lIX:
[S~
l~
9::
Q
il
alt!
~~
o~
~.$
EXHIBIT C . UTILITY PLAN
TOTRL P,07
.
.
.
Plann ing COllllll issioll Agenda -9/04/0 I
7.
Public Hearim! - Consideration of a Concept Plan for a Residential Phmned Unit
Development in a PZM Zoninl! District. Applicant: Silver Creek Development. (NAC)
* Applicant requests that the item be tabled. The developer would like to make a few
modifications to the plan prior to formal review bv the Planning Commission.
The Chair should open the public hearing and then a motion should he made to continue the
public hearing to the meeting in Octoher.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to continue the puhlic hearing for consideration of a concept plan fi)f a
residential planned unit development in a PZM Zoning District.
2. Motion to deny request to table the public hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StaffrecOlnmends alternative #1.
SUPPORTING DATA
Letter from Silver Creek Real Estate requesting to table the puhlie hearing.
t:
y.';, '.
. !II ' ,
AUG-31-2001 FRI 09:14 AM VEIT ENVIROMENTAL
FAX NO. 763 428 3574
P. 01
.
PIIONE: (763) 428-6700 · "AX: (763) 42B-3574 . www.silvcrcreekdevelopment.com
. .
l~eo.' Estate Deve.lopmeVlt Lt'd. LLC
I\IJi]llSt 3 l, 2no I
Cily of' J\rlonlicdJo
J~:[t O'Neill
505 Walnlll SL moo
MOJ1liccllo MN 55362
J.k:u' Mr. O'NciIJ,
Silver Crl.'ck D.,:vdopll1Cllt is requesting lht; concept application that was submitted for a
/{csid0nlinl Planlled Ullit Developlllent in a PZM Zone La be continued to the next Planning
CC)[)lluisr;ioJl Jl1cC'lillg. Thank you l'Or your consideration ofth..is delay. If you have any questions
YOll Call fI..'nch me at (763) 428-6700.
. Sinc~rdy,
Sih:ct en't.'li. IJeI1i.?lopmelll
.!.~/..L)--'-'l' r;19:k.~.
,1(J:.1t!- -'f!:?it~:(ZtlV ~
I KC'l)~ Ibnh61
('(;: Sh,tWll W('inaod
.
.
.
.
MEMO
To:
Planning Commission Members
From:
Jeff (YNeiIL Deputy City Administrator
Re:
Comprehensive Plan Update - Meeting Notice
Date:
August 30, 2001
Get ready for an interesting meeting full of great discussion! This is ajust a reminder that a
special meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council has been scheduled for Tuesday,
September 18 at 7:00 pm flJr the primary purpose of reviewing the Gold Nugget land use
designation. It is hoped that other important land use related topics will be discussed. Following
is a preliminary list of subjects that will be reviewed at the meeting. Please review this list and
provide comments at the meeting on Tuesday. If you have time, take a look at your
Comprehensive Plan document for any objectives, goals, etc., that need updating or need to
change. Your comments at the meeting this Tuesday will help frame the agenda liJr the special
meeting.
· The scope ofa potential comprehensive plan update will be identit~ed along with a
projected process and time line.
The City is following state statutes with regards to annexation. We will be reviewing the
City authority to plan lor growth under this Ji-amework. Examples of annexation
agreements currently in use in other communities will be presented and discussed. A
process for providing for Township and County input into the planning process will be
discussed.
Gold Nugget/Industrial land uses. Should additional industrial land be designated for this
area and if so, should there be a shifting or reduction in industrial land areas at other
locations?
Review developlllent trends along the southeast border of the City and discuss
developlllent goals f()r the area. The characteristic of this area makes it well suited to
support step-up housing. Should development be strictly limited and halted when the
existing sewer capacity is used up or should sanitary sewer capacity be added but require
that housing developments k)llow a more restrictive development standards?
.
.
.
Review the trend toward attached and detached townhome development. Please note that
there has been an increase in townhome units being built but there has been no additional
land zoned I<Jr townhome development. Do we want to slow the rate oftownhome
development and/or reduce the land inventory supporting town home development?
Statistics on townhome development will be provided.
The City has done a good job of developing roads and utilities supporting commercial
development and has identified appropriate land areas for commercial development.
Beyond this support the City has let markct f()fces shape commercial development. The
group will have a discussion on whether or not to take a more active role in attracting
commercial development. Should the City authorizc completion of a marketing study
identifying specific businesses that are ripe tlw location in Monticello given current
demographics? Now that infrastructure is in place to serve a large cOl11lnercial area and
given the need f(Jr redevelopment of downtown, should we be spending more statT
resources facilitating commercial development'? Are there land use designations that
need to change? For instance, is a portion of the Chadwick parcel suitable f(n
commercial development with the location on the freeway? What are the jobs and tax
base implications'?, etc.
.
Transportation network - Freeway Interchange. The comprehensive plan calls t()[
development of an interchange at Orchard Road intended to serve industrial areas along
the li'eeway between West Co. Rd. 39 and the Osowski area. Should the land use
designations in this area be shifted? Should the City push toward development of an
interchange at West Co. Rd. 39 supporting industrial and commercial development at the
Chadwick Parcel?
As noted earlier. I am seeking topics of concern or interest to be on the 9/18/0 I agenda.
Please note also that staff will be providing supporting information pertaining to the
subjects above with the fClnnalmeeting notice.
2