The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 05-04-2010 AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 4th, 2010 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman – NAC 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 3rd 2010 and April 6th, 2010 3. Citizen Comments. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of request to approve an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 14B – Central Community District as related to ground floor residential dwellings. Applicant: Fluth, Barry/Masters 5th Avenue 6. Consideration of an update related to density and neighborhood design standards for Places to Live. 7. Consideration of an update on the Monticello Housing Report. 8. Community Development Director’s Report. 9. Adjourn. SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE: The Steering Committee for the Monticello Zoning Ordinance revision will meet immediately following the regular Planning Commission meeting. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 6, 2010 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz Commissioners Absent: Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Alan Brixius - NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order noting the absence of Commissioner Voight. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of January 5th, February 3rd, and March 2nd, 2010. Chairman Dragsten noted that the February meeting minutes were unavailable at this time. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 5TH, 2010. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 2ND, 2010. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Citizen comments. None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None Planning Commission Minutes – 4/6/10 2 5. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request to approve a Preliminary Plat, Amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Conditional Use Permit for Joint Access for a Commercial Subdivision in a B-3 (Highway Business District). Applicant: Chrysler Financial. Alan Brixius from Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) described the preliminary plat under consideration. The application is seeking to replat 19 existing lots into 4 lots. The property is located north of Chelsea Road, south of 94, along Marvin Road and west of Hwy 25. The proposal would clean up the overall plat to allow for buildings which have been taken back by Chrysler to be resold and redeveloped in a matter fitting the zoning. Zoning applications at this location within the past 10 years have included: preliminary plat, planned unit development over the entire development, two conditional uses for outdoor sales, car wash, variances for signage, minimum building sizes for auto sales, directional signage in the right- of-way, PUD amendments to allow offsite auto sales and storage lot, larger electronic signage, expansion of the sales lot and an interim use permit and amendment to accommodate temporary automobile display and storage. Staff recommended that these applications, other than those that are currently active, be eliminated. Anything new would require a new permit. Easements which run through property will be vacated. One easement, which is an existing utility, would be retained because it is necessary for ongoing operations within the plat. Lot 1, Block 1 would be accessed by two ingress points. One is a shared access between two businesses. One is an active car lot. This is the old Monticello Ford. There would be a need for an access easement for shared access and maintenance of a shared driveway. Lot 1 is compliant in use, lot area, building size, lot width, set backs and off street parking. Brixius cited that there is excess signage based on current approved sign plans and permits. There are some 229 square feet of additional signage on site primarily in temporary sign form such as a banner and changeable message signs. Staff recommended that the signage be brought into compliance. Lot 2 is the old Monticello Ford site. It is the larger property being combined. The new lot would be more than 4 acres in size. It is compliant as far as past use, lot size, lot width, building height and setbacks. Off-street parking is not shown. The building is currently vacant. The conditional use permit (CUP) is near lapsing. Any new applications would require a new CUP. Signage is compliant and some additional will be coming down as the Ford dealership is no longer in existence. Lot 1, Block 2 is an active business. It is compliant in lot area, lot width, and setbacks. Parking configuration was not approved but rather grandfathered in. With approval of this site there was requirement for additional landscaping along daycare. This has not been done. It is recommended that this action be taken. Planning Commission Minutes – 4/6/10 3 Lot 2 combines a number of properties. There is shared access off of the frontage road and shared access off of Sandberg Road. It extends around the daycare. This is being combined into one larger parcel. A utility easement will have to be established. The property is not currently in use. The lot is compliant with the past B2 in that an outdoor storage CUP was issued. There is no principal building. The lot area and set backs are compliant. Brixius stated that 19 lots previously existed. Some were very small and barely usable. Bringing these together will provide an option for redevelopment or reuse. Brixius offered three alternatives for consideration: Option 1A: Approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD amendment to bring the signage into compliance as well as requiring previously required buffering adjacent to daycare. Option 1B: Approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD amendment incorporating all existing signage and current site conditions into a revised PUD approval. Option 1C: Approval of the Preliminary Plat and PUD amendment requiring compliance with signage and conditions enumerated by the Planning Commission following public hearing. This would provide an opportunity to list conditions for cleaning up and making the plat appropriate. Option 1A is recommended. This option ensures that signage is in compliance, and that there is a provision of the landscape buffer between Sandberg Road, the extension of Metro West and the daycare building. Conditions are outlined in Exhibit C. This Exhibit describes the development agreement, and specifies the current approved conditions related to site plan signage as well as other details and any conditions imposed by engineering staff as far as plat approval. Previous approvals of the PUD, CUP and other zoning approvals would require new applications for any future changes in the lot and plat. This would provide the opportunity to again review these lots and make a determination under current ordinances. Existing easements for utilities and drainage would be vacated by a separate document no later than the time of final plat approval when new easements will be described. A landscape plan will be submitted for City approval related to the buffer installation noted in the staff report. Cross easements between Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 and between 1 & 2 at the shared access points. Commissioner Spartz questioned signage in the freeway bonus district. Schumann was unsure how detailed that analysis was. She stated that the provision applies only to the pylon signage and allows up to 200 square feet within the bonus district. She suggested that they look at those items specifically. She clarified that signs that are non-compliant in Lot 1, Block 1 may be that way not only because they exceed the 15% but because they are temporary signs attached to signs that are permanent. Planning Commission Minutes – 4/6/10 4 Brixius stated that they didn’t really look at the permanent signage but think that it is compliant. One directional sign put in the right of way is questionable. Schumann suggested that they would consult page 2 signage subsection 1 to double check numbers and to ensure that all is taken into account. Commissioner Spartz wanted to make sure that any changes will come before the Commission if there is an interest in building in the vacant parcels. Schumann stated that if a site is unused for six months a previous conditional use permit will have lapsed and would have to be amended. Commissioner Gabler wanted to ensure that there would be a buffer in between the daycare. Brixius stated that they need to submit a landscape plan and that the Commission should add this as a condition of approval. Schumann stated that the City Engineer has not done stormwater analysis yet. Brixius stated that the two buildings on the old Ford site require a setback of 10 feet and that they are compliant. Brent Wold, of Cushman Wakefield, representing Chrysler Financial, stated that he didn’t have any concerns about the Exhibits presented. He expected the GMC dealer would stay at that location and agreed to talk to him about the signage. They are actively marketing the site. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE CARCONE ADDITION FOR LOTS 1 AND 2 OF BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 1 AND 2 OF BLOCK 2, ALONG WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR THE SUBJECT PARCELS, WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS. EACH OF THE APPROVAL OPTIONS WOULD INCLUDE THE INCORPORATION OF THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. a. Approve preliminary plat and PUD amendment, and bring all signage into compliance, as well as the previously required buffering adjacent to the Daycare building as noted above. b. Approve the preliminary plat and PUD amendment, incorporating all of the existing signage and current site conditions into the revised PUD approval. c. Approve the preliminary plat and PUD amendment, requiring compliance with signage and site conditions as enumerated by the Planning Commission following the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes – 4/6/10 5 MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Schumann stated she will keep the Commission posted on items that go straight to City Council. 6. Consideration to appoint Planning Commissioners to the Embracing Downtown Monticello Selection and Steering Committees. Schumann included the Embracing Downtown Monticello RFP in the agenda packet and asked the Commissioners to appoint two representatives to serve on these committees. She summarized the purpose of the project and the likely time commitment expected from committee members. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPOINT COMMISSIONERS GABLER AND SPARTZ TO THE EMBRACING DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SELECTION AND STEERING COMMITTEES. COMMISSIONER HILGART WILL ACT AS AN ALTERNATE APPOINTEE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 7. Consideration of an update on the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Revision. Schumann proposed a schedule of meetings to prepare to ensure varied and detailed input into the Zoning Ordinance Revision process. Schumann will be presenting to Chamber Government Affairs committee on April 16th to ensure that the business community feels like they’ve had ample input into the process. She suggested that the steering committee take a neighborhood tour on April 20th at 5 p.m. in place of their regular meeting to ensure that they have all of the information needed to a provide good level of input as the zoning ordinance is updated. Schumann stated that there were no formal development applications to be reviewed at this time but that there would be time to have a meeting if a new application were to be submitted. Schumann noted that the Building Department has planned a day of code review to work on furthering refine the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes – 4/6/10 6 There is a public workshop scheduled for June 1st to obtain citizen input for the final draft. The workshop may be taped for public record. There will be a joint planning/council workshop on June 14th to go through the zoning code and a final workshop planned to talk about the PUD application process. At that point, the zoning code review will be presented at a series of public hearings. The Planning Commission agreed that the meeting schedule seems acceptable. Schumann will confirm the schedule by Outlook. 8. Community Development Director’s Report. The first public review for the concept master plan for the Bertram Chain of Lakes (BCOL) Regional Park is scheduled for May 18th. Advisory Council has been meeting for over a year. Family Fun Day is scheduled at the BCOL Regional Park on June 12th from 10-5 p.m. Last year, over 1400 people attended the event. The Commission was invited to attend the event and to also become a Friend of Bertram Lake on their Facebook page. Council will be considering grant through the DNR. City was awarded $249,000 in 2009. A Washington County landowner backed out of the grant process so $250,000 in additional funding became available and was awarded to BCOL. The Council will be asked to fund an additional match. The 2010 acquisition would total 1 million dollars. County voted 3-2 in favor of matching the additional amount. 9. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Planning Commission Agenda –05/04/10 1 5. Public Hearing: Consideration of request to approve an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 14B – Central Community District as related to ground floor residential dwellings. Applicant: Masters Fifth Avenue. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking an amendment to the CCD language in the Zoning Ordinance that would have the effect of allowing residential development on the ground floor without restriction as to density or unit count. Currently, ground floor residential is allowed by Conditional Use Permit, under the following conditions: 14B-5[C]: Residential dwellings on the ground floor subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed site for residential is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. 2. The proposed site does not interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian traffic in the CCD district. 3. Density for ground floor residential units shall not exceed one unit per 9,000 square feet of lot area exclusive of land area utilized by or required for permitted uses on the property. Beyond the ground floor density restriction, the CCD also includes the following density requirements for all residential uses. 14B-6[C] Residential Density: One dwelling unit per 3000 square feet of lot area for permitted residential uses The number of dwelling units maybe increased by up to twenty five 25 percent over the permitted density for projects which provide at least half of the required parking underground or above ground such as ramps or decks including covered at-grade parking areas Under these clauses, a parcel of approximately 32,000 square feet (such as the applicant’s Landmark Square Phase II parcel) would be allowed to have no more than 3 units on the ground floor. Therefore, currently on a parcel of 32,000 square feet, the maximum number of units allowed cumulatively under the CCD is 17 units total, with a maximum of 3 units at ground level. Planning Commission Agenda –05/04/10 2 For reference, the City’s maximum permitted use density in the R-3 District for a 32,000 square foot lot would be 12 units. The R-3 District would be considered to be a more “suburban” style district, whereas the CCD is more likely to be developed in an urban arrangement with less green space per unit, and possibly, less off-street parking. For “elderly housing” in an R-3 District, the maximum density would be 32 units (based on Lot Area per Unit standards as detailed in Chapter 3-4[B]. The applicant has indicated a preference to achieve approximately 20 units on the site. This would equate to a unit to lot area ratio of 1 unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area. The table below summarizes the unit count and density information: R-3 District R-3 Senior- Restricted Current CCD Amended CCD (As proposed by applicant) Maximum Units on 32,000 sf parcel 12 units permitted 32 units 14 units base + 3 units if meeting parking requirements 21 units Density (units/acre) 17 du/acre 43 du/acre 19 du/acre 28 du/acre The CCD language was written to provide for a continuous commercial flow with only limited interruptions in the store-fronts. This direction from the City’s Downtown Revitalization Plan encouraged second story residential uses over ground floor commercial as a common theme – this was the concept applied in Landmark Square’s first phase. The policy at issue with this application would be whether the City believes the incorporation of more extensive housing opportunities in the downtown area would be appropriate, and if so, how such opportunities should be accommodated. As such, the Planning Commission has a number of options. The first four essentially entail a land use policy change that would form a cornerstone of the upcoming downtown revitalization study. Planning Commission Agenda –05/04/10 3 Option 1. Permit housing similar to that proposed as a permitted use in the downtown. Option 2. Allow housing similar to that proposed only in certain areas of the downtown. Option 3. Allow housing similar to that proposed as a conditional use permit which outlines specific conditionssuch as location elements (neighboring property and/or zoning or street frontage); performance elements such as site improvements, building height, building materials/architecture, or unit size. Option 4. Allow housing in the downtown area, but with greater density allowances, such as those in the current R-3 District. Option 5. Withhold changes until the City, through its EDA, completes its updated downtown revitalization study. With this option, the City would utilize the study to to direct the downtown land use policies that would then result in potential changes to the CCD language related to housing. ANALYSIS In analyzing these options, there are pros and cons to both the current treatment of housing, as well as to the provision for increased housing choice in the downtown area. In support of the current policy, a continuous commercial flow, coupled with the concentration of commercial enterprise, tends to support greater numbers of multiple- destination shopping trips. That is to say, by increasing the number of shops nearby to each other, the greater the likelihood results that a consumer will utilize downtown retail without driving between each store. Conversely, separating commercial locations quickly results in the likelihood that consumers will drive between store locations. This also has the added impact of diluting the commercial attraction of the overall area. As convenience declines, so does the viability of a commercial enterprise. There is also a side impact of this – the need for convenient parking increases as customers are made to drive between stops. This reduces the efficiency of the land use by reducing the concentration of building space in the downtown. In support of an amendment, housing directly increases the market for current and future business enterprise in the downtown area. Thus, by increasing the allowances for housing, the City would be supporting, at least demographically, the long-term viability of commercial locations in the downtown. Planning Commission Agenda –05/04/10 4 Presuming that the City intends to continue its support for commercial uses in the downtown for the long-term, the question becomes how best to do so. The current ordinance addresses these two potentially conflicting approaches by allowing housing primarily on upper floors, with a code that discourages (although does not prohibit) housing on the ground floor. As noted previously, the original Landmark Square phase is an example of this allowance, as are a number of other buildings in the downtown commercial core. Planning staff would suggest that expanding ground floor residential may be appropriate in some areas to increase land use redevelopment options and support commercial activity. It would be important to do so, however, only in a manner that does not compromise the viability of commercial uses. It is a fact that commercial uses are far more sensitive to location and direct support accessory operations than are multiple family residential uses. As such, finding appropriate sub-areas in the downtown district may be possible in a way that supports, rather than undermines, commercial concentration. To do this, the City may set a series of conditions within the CCD for proposed locations to meet. Under a CUP approach, an applicant would have to prove compliance with those conditions to justify exemption from the ground floor residential restriction. In the alternative, the City may establish a sub-category of the CCD that accommodates ground floor residential through the use of an overlay district. By creating and utilizing a “CCD-R” designation, the City has much greater discretion over whether to “re-zone” a parcel for ground floor residential use. Under the CUP approach above, the burden of proof for denial is on the City. Under the CCD-R overlay approach, the burden of proof for approval is on the applicant. This distinction can make a large difference for the City when an application is made for a property that the City believes to be inappropriate for ground floor residential uses. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Amendment of the CCD District to remove the restrictions relating to ground floor residential uses. 1. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment that deletes density restrictions to ground floor residential uses and increases allowable desntiy to 1 unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area 2. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment that establishes ground floor residential uses at a higher density by CUP, and creates a series of performance standards for such uses in the CCD. Planning Commission Agenda –05/04/10 5 3. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment that creates an overlay district in the CCD for ground floor residential uses, along with specific performance standards for such development. 4. Motion to table action on the amendment, pending additional information from staff and/or the applicant. 5. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, pending the outcome of the EDA downtown revitalization study. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the City believes that it is appropriate to proceed prior to completion of the downtown revitalization study, staff recommends Alternative 3,. Under the overlay district concept, the City has significantly increased discretion as to where ground floor residential may be allowed in the CCD, permitting the City to minimize any interference with business interaction that such housing might cause. Moreover, as a subset of the main CCD district language, there should be less concern over conflicting land uses that may result in “spot zoning” issues. Draft language for such a district has been prepared, although it is recognized that additional code information will need to be provided for inclusion. A final draft could be prepared for June’s Planning Commission meeting. If the Planning Commission elects alternative 2, final amendment language will be prepared and presented for hearing in June. If the Planning Commission elects alternative 1, final amendment language will be prepared and brought forward to the City Council in May. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Draft “CCD-R” Overlay District Exhibit B: CCD Regulations Exhibit C: Landmark II – Aerial Image Exhibit D: Downtown Area – Aerial Image CHAPTER 14C “CCD-R” CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT – RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY SECTION: 14C-1: Purpose 14C-2: Permitted Uses 14C-3: Accessory Uses 14C-4: Conditional Uses 14C-5: Interim Uses 14C-6: Lot and Building Requirements 14C-7: Design Review 14C-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the “CCD-R”, Central Community District – Residential Overlay is to provide for sites within the “CCD”, Central Community District that are appropriate for full use as multiple family attached housing, including residential uses on the ground floor. In establishing this district and rezoning property for the uses herein, the City finds that the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan are being fulfilled by ground floor residential uses, including those goals and policies expressly applying to uses in the downtown area as may be adopted as a part of any Downtown Revitalization Plan or similar component of the Comprehensive Plan. Parcels shall be zoned “CCD- R” only where the more intensive residential uses allowed by this overlay district can be found to enhance the commercial concentration in the surrounding “CCD” downtown area. 14C-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in the “CCD-R” Overlay District: [A] All those uses permitted in the “CCD”, Central Community District, Section 14B-2. 14C-3: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in the “CCD- R” Overlay District: [A] All those accessory uses as provided for in the “CCD”, Central Community District, Section 14B-3. 14C-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are allowed as conditional uses in the “CCD-R” Overlay District: [A] All those conditional uses as provided for in the “CCD”, Central Community District, Section 14B-4. [B] Buildings containing multiple family dwelling units on the ground floor in excess of density otherwise allowed in the “CCD”, Central Community District based on the procedures set forth in Chapter 22 of this ordinance, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The subject parcel is located in an area that does not abut directly on any of the following roadways: Trunk Highway 25 (Pine Street), County State Aid Highway 75 (Broadway Street), or Walnut Street. 2. The subject parcel does not interfere with the flow of pedestrian commercial traffic in the “CCD” area. 3. The exterior building materials for principal and accessory buildings at ground floor level shall be consistent with commercial buildings, including brick or concrete masonry, glass, and similar materials up to a height of no less than twelve (12) feet from grade. 4. Upper floor building materials (above the ground floor), may utilize residential materials such as lapped siding. 5. Parking shall be provided on-site at a rate of no less than one and one- half spaces per residential unit, unless the facility is expressly reserved for senior citizens. No less than fifty percent of the parking shall be covered. 14C-5: INTERIM USES: The following are allowed as interim uses in the “CCD-R”, Overlay District: [A] All those interim uses as provided for in the “CCD”, Central Community District, Section 14-B-4. 14C-6: LOT AND BUILDNG REQUIREMENTS: The following requirements shall apply to all properties in the “CCD-R” Overlay District, except where otherwise expressly stated in this Chapter: [A] All requirements as listed in Chapter 14B-6, “CCD”, Central Community District. 14C-7: DESIGN REVIEW: The Design Review process as found in Chapter 14B-7, “CCD”, Central Community District shall apply to all buildings in the “CCD-R” Overlay District. CHAPTER 14B "CCD" CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT SECTION: 1413-1: Purpose 1413-2: Permitted Uses 1413-3: Accessory Uses 14134: Interim Uses 14B-5: Conditional Uses 1413-6: Lot and Building Requirements 14B-7: Design Review 1413-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "CCD", Central Community District, is to implement the plans and policies of the Monticello Downtown Revitalization Plan, as that Plan is designed to provide for the establishment and continuation of a traditional downtown area in Monticello's primary commercial core. The district will contain a mix of land uses which can compatibly coexist, with requirements based upon enhancement of the district's natural features, and mitigation of land use conflicts between differing uses. All proposed uses in the "CCD" district will be evaluated against the goals and objectives of the Monticello Downtown Revitalization Plan as adopted and as may be amended by the City Council. 14B-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in the ""CCD" district. [A] All permitted uses as allowed in the "134" 4" district, except for motor fuel facilities and convenience stores, and hotels/motels. [B] Restaurants, but not fast-food or convenience type. [C] On- and off -sale liquor establishments. [D] Civic and governmental uses as a part of a public community center. [E] Residential dwellings which do not occupy the ground floor space of a building. 1413-3: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a "CCD" district: [A] Uses which are clearly and customarily incidental to the principal use in size, activity, and scope, and in accordance with the special provisions of this chapter. Except for parking, accessory uses shall be located in the same principal structure as that of the principal use and shall occupy no more than thirty (30) percent of the floor area of said structure. 1413-4: INTERIM USES: The following are allowed as Interim Uses in the "CCD" district: [A] None. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14B I 14B-5: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are allowed as conditional uses in the "CCD" district (requires a conditional use permit based upon the procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance): [A] Hotels, subject to the following conditions: 1. The principal building lot coverage is no less than fifty (50) percent of the property, exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use or other outdoor public spaces. 2. The building, site, and signage meet the standards for the "CCD" district and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission. (#491, 1/12/09) 3. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [B] Motor fuel station, auto repair -minor, and tire and battery stores and service, as allowed in the `B-4" district, and subject to the following additional conditions: The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along the property. 2. No more than two (2) curb cuts of twenty-four (24) feet in width or less shall be permitted. 3. Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the City for use in public areas of the "CCD" district. 4. The building, site, and signage meet the standards for the "CCD" district and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission. (#491, 1/12/09) 5. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [C] Residential dwellings on the ground floor, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed site for residential use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. 2. The proposed site does not interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian traffic in the "CCD" district. Density for ground floor residential units shall not exceed one unit per 9,000 square feet of lot area, exclusive of land area utilized by, or required for, permitted uses on the property. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14B 2 [D] Drive-in and convenience food establishments as allowed in the `13-3" district, and subject to the following additional conditions: 1. The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along the property. 2. No more than two (2) curb cuts of twenty-four (24) feet in width or less shall be permitted. 3. Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the City for use in public areas of the "CCD" district. 4. The building, site, and signage meet the standards for the "CCD" district and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission. (#491, 1/12/09) 5. Drive through facilities comply with the requirements of Subdivision 14B-5 [D] of this chapter. 6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [E] Drive through windows accessory to other principal uses in the "CCD" district, subject to the following conditions: Service through drive-through facilities is accessory to interior on-site, or sit-down, service within the same building. 2. Drive-through lanes are designed to avoid disruption of pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow, both on- and off-site. 3. Landscaping and other site improvements are included which screen automobile stacking space from the public street. 4. The principal building occupies no less than forty (40) percent of the property, exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use or other outdoor public spaces. 5. The building, site, and signage meet the standards for the "CCD" district, and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission. (#491, 1/12/09) 6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Revitalization Plan. [F] Animal pet clinics, as allowed in the `13-3" district. [G] Day-care centers, as allowed in the `13-3" district. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14B 3 [H] Shopping centers, provided that the proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [I] Buildings of a height greater than the maximum building height as allowed in Subdivision 14B-6 [D] of this chapter. [J] Planned unit development (PUD) subject to the provisions of Chapter 20 of this ordinance and provided that the proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [K] Car Wash, provided that: The car wash building and the principal building must meet the architectural requirements of the "CCD" district and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission. 2. The automobile stacking space area is screened from abutting property, both residential and commercial. Noise generated by the use, including vacuums, is mitigated by location or architectural features from adjoining or nearby residential uses and pedestrian or outdoor commercial activities. Doors of car wash must be closed during drying operation. Mechanical interlock between door and dryer must be employed to assure compliance. 4. Lighting on the site is consistent with the City's theme lighting style, whether freestanding or wall -mounted. 5. Signage meets the requirements of the CCD zoning district and is reviewed by the Planning Commission. (#491, 1/12/09) 6. Drive through traffic does not interfere with pedestrian routes around and/or through the property. 7. A minimum of five stacking spaces for car wash customers is provided that avoids interference with other traffic on the site. 8. Site landscaping is provided to mitigate the amount of concrete and/or asphalt surfacing. The use of alternative paving surfaces is encouraged. 9. Measures are taken to avoid freezing and icing from washed vehicles prior to exiting the site to the public street. 10. All other applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance are considered and met. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14B 4 1413-6: LOT AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS: The following requirements shall apply to all properties in the "CCD" district: [A] Minimum Lot Area: None. [B] Minimum Lot Width: None. [C] Residential Density: One dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area for permitted residential uses. The number of dwelling units may be increased by up to twenty-five (25) percent over the permitted density for projects which provide at least half of the required parking underground or in above -grade structures such as ramps or decks (including covered at -grade parking areas). [D] Building Height: The following height limitations shall apply to all buildings in the "CCD" district: 1. Minimum Height: Fifteen (15) feet. 2. Maximum Height: Thirty Five (35) feet, or three (3) stories, which ever is greater. [E] Setbacks: Building setback minimums and maximums shall reflect the recommendations for the use and location as listed in the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Where setbacks as discussed in the Downtown Revitalization Plan are not listed or appropriate, there shall be no building setbacks required. In such cases, there shall be no parking allowed in the areas between the front building line and the public street. [F] Site Improvements: All areas of a parcel within the "CCD" district shall be subject to the applicable recommendations of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Site improvements shall be reviewed for compliance by City staff and/or the Planning Commission together with other design elements, including architecture and signage. [G] Parking: Supply: Property owners shall comply with the parking supply requirements as listed in Subdivision 3-5[H] of this ordinance. However, property owners may be granted flexibility from a portion of their required parking supply under the following conditions: a. Where the City finds that there will be adequate opportunity to provide public parking in the vicinity of the subject property, and at the City's option, the owner shall pay into a "CCD" Parking Fund an amount as established by City Council Resolution. Said fund shall be used for the acquisition, construction, and/or maintenance of publicly -owned parking in the "CCD" district. (#355,10/9/00) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14B 5 b. The City may, in addition to, or as an alternative to, the option listed in Subdivision 14B -6[G] 1 a, and at the discretion of the City, offer the property owner the opportunity to choose to supply parking at a rate which is sixty (60) percent of the requirement listed in Subdivision 3-5[H], provided that the owner grants an easement to the public for automobile parking use over the subject area. The owner shall retain responsibility for maintenance of said parking area. (#355, 10/9/00) 2. Location: Parking shall not be located on a parcel between the front building line of the principal building and the public street, except where expressly provided for by the City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission. [H] Signs: The following requirements shall apply to all sign displays and construction in the "CCD" district: Signs shall comply with the Monticello Building Codes and Zoning Ordinances relating to signs, including special allowances which may be made for the "CCD" district. 2. All signs in the "CCD" district shall receive review and approval from City staff and/or the Planning Commission. (9491, 1/12/09) a. Signs in compliance with applicable ordinances: For signs which meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances and the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan, such review shall be given the weight of an administrative determination. Appeal of a determination by City staff and/or the Planning Commission shall be as provided for in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (9491, 1/12/09) b. Signs not in compliance with applicable ordinances: Signs which do not meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances shall require review by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, as provided for in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, following City staff and/or Planning Commission review and recommendation. (#491, 1/12/09) 1413-7: DESIGN REVIEW: All development and redevelopment projects in the "CCD" district shall be subject to design review for compliance with the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. This subdivision identifies the process and application of design review recommendations. [A] Projects within the "CCD" which propose new or altered buildings, site improvements, or signs shall be reviewed for compliance with the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Site improvements shall include parking lots, landscaping MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14B 6 projects (other than direct replacement of existing landscaping), walkways and open space plazas, or other outdoor projects affecting the visual impact of a site. (#491, 1/12/09) [B] City staff shall conduct the design review for permitted uses and the Planning Commission shall conduct design review for Conditional Uses, Interim Uses and Variances. Design review for Conditional Uses, Interim Uses and Variances shall follow the procedures and process outlined in Chapter 22 and 23 of this Ordinance. (#491, 1/12/09) 1. Submitted plans shall be sufficiently detailed to identify proposed materials, colors, locations, and any other factors relating to the visual impact of the proposal. Such plans may include: Site Plans, Floor Plans, Building Elevations, Rendered Drawings, Materials Samples and other appropriate submissions. (#491, 1/12/09) [C] Appeals: Appeals shall be governed by the process and requirements listed in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (#491, 1/12/09) [D] Status of CCD design review decisions: Design review decisions shall be treated as follows: 1. Permitted Uses which comply with all building code and zoning ordinance standards: Decisions shall be advisory to the Building Official. 2. Conditional and Interim Uses and Variances: Decisions shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and included in its recommendation to the City Council. (#491, 1/12/09) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14B 7 Downtown - Monticello ra Geo h i c Information S 1 inch = 322.909656 feetgpSource: City of Monticello GIS { • i „z , a Le end p. ah s - .• -.' -- r $�� oft v AL kx a a !' y , �9 p, • IJIJ I y ' ! FAS . u ' ,Iwo 4r&y • t W '! loop 4 w14 d..' 3 '01{ ,• R ♦ Ott Ilk ya K n' r •a Y=. a, • r . w 4 4-4 ,,,,, Baa,: ` , �+di r ►` WA>^ IIS,,: .►;wig,e . ,y� i if vok r� �. ft Ar T Aj' Ic41, If a . � R '1 • �s _. � : ,, n .. t .. ,. � h� ... , .. ,` is "h:... .r:' ,' °"� , '�. '+ '�, a, � • �# �. ,.. �.. ..-. a .. ... .:., .. ?,t. " .;: - :. > "X. Q ,i. 1' `r w-, 1 N. FF 1 Wit- - r •. i T tom.: +w ",� �" � •5` >�, _ �. e ® � ': • r g ! r 'off ;, al " �y ? e „ . ; `: ±Y r *. 1..; ' v - , # " , y wf s r t , ip �y �. CCIAAL �. � � �� :'. i- �► J r` / AQ tA t - ,i. `.�.4 3 ♦ ew �< :�,,,� � . � '�llir, �! ` �. . ,.. . rw1 41 y3 JW �.tt'_ ( ,',, , Y _. ,... " �i9�i .": • I • .rte, �Q,� 4 , .. f • ,: .. Cyt-. _... A-w. .V'6 4 IIS p . .y a ,.. • req Abo:.,, .,. c ;�' ! d - ., j •. � 'i , `: v� '�/, �'f,, '.'.6 ,a' � �1 _+♦ ,:i „'Xldi,, �, , Vy :., • •� � . ter' ■■ 'r c ,s• - aF��N� +�. . fi . �► °t , s n , s i IV , , t r . - ,j . R - � 1 \ 11 MO�7� CELLO Planning Commission Agenda – 05/04/2010 1 6. Consideration of an update related to density and neighborhood design standards for Places to Live. (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND During the Neighborhood Tour, the Commission and staff briefly discussed the “Places to Live” designation in the Comprehensive Plan. As the City considers future development proposals and tries to ensure the Comprehensive Plan goal of providing “step-up” housing, it is important to understand all of the tools available to achieve that goal. Staff noted to the Commission that unlike the previous land use guide plan, the Places to Live component of the plan did not pre-assign residential development densities. However, after reviewing the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail, and considering other available resources, staff has determined that the City does have a variety of options that can be used to ensure conformance to the Comprehensive Plan objectives beyond density requirements. These are noted below. Comprehensive Plan Statements 1. The Comprehensive Plan states that in the near term, the City does not anticipate increasing the stock of higher density housing. When and if the City does consider higher density housing, it must be in areas best suited for the use. 2. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that quality over quantity will be required. 3. Areas with significant natural resources will be preserved for “move-up” housing, particularly in the northwest quadrant of the City. 4. The South Central area does allow for continuation of entry-level single family homes, although revisions to base zoning performance standards will likely still result in a more favorable home product (see 1 under Zoning Code below.). 5. The East area also requires that natural amenity areas be reserved for higher amenity neighborhoods. Zoning Code 1. In the revised zoning code, it is expected that the finishing standards will be increased, requiring greater exterior amenities and design standards for all housing types. If quality is the goal, the City has learned that density does not necessarily ensure quality. There are many residential districts in Monticello that meet base density requirements, but do not exhibit the quality of housing desired for future. 2. The Planning Commission can specifically identify particular districts in the revised code as those meeting “move-up” Comprehensive Plan objectives, such as the R-A and TN Planning Commission Agenda – 05/04/2010 2 districts. 3. Under the revised code, the Planned Unit Development application and review standards will be tightened, making qualification for a PUD more difficult. 4. Also within the revised code, Performance Zoning will be allowed by right, potentially increasing densities, but will also require that applicants meet greater design standards. Annexation Agreement 1. The City’s orderly annexation agreement with Monticello Township does not obligate the City to annex property. Annexation only occurs at such time as the City approves the development design, plat and development agreement. Therefore, the City maintains quite a bit of leverage during the design and approval process to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan goal for move-up or high amenity housing is met. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS No action is required at this time. The above is provided as information only. STAFF RECOMMENDATION None. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Chapter 3 – Land Use, Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Agenda – 05/04/2010 1 7. Consideration of an update on the Monticello Housing Report. (AS) Verbal update to be provided at the meeting. Planning Commission Agenda – 5/4/10 1 8. Community Development Director’s Update. (AS) Development Status and Maintenance Each year, the Community Development department sends a notice to all residential and commercial developments in progress reminding them of City property maintenance requirements. This notice has been sent for 2010 and a copy of one of the notices is attached for reference. Community Development and Engineering staff are also completing a full audit/inventory of developments in progress in order to determine next steps for each of the following projects. Council will be kept up to date on results of the audit and what the resulting efforts will include. An inventory of the public improvement status of the following developments will be completed: Autumn Ridge Carlisle Village Featherstone Hillside Farms Hunter’s Crossing Nathan’s Court Parkside 2nd Pineview Spirit Hills Timber Ridge Otter Creek Union Crossings Inventories will include: Completion Of: o Streets o Utilities, including marker post installations o Ponds, including grading, lining and riprap o Conservation easement post installations o Sidewalks/Paths o Retaining walls o Streetlights (City staff will verify on all) o Mailboxes (City staff will verify on all) o Removal of erosion control measures as allowable (City staff will verify on all) o Turf establishment (City staff will verify on all) o Landscaping (City staff will verify on all) Warranty Status As-builts on file Planning Commission Agenda – 5/4/10 2 Rand Mansion – Adaptive Re-Use On April 21st, Jeff O’Neill and Angela Schumann had an opportunity to meet with Merrill Busch on site at the Rand Mansion. Mr. Busch and his wife currently have the 3.2 acre property listed for sale. During the visit, Mr. Busch and his representing real estate agent, Wayne Elam, discussed with staff the need to identify potential “highest and best uses” for the site. As this particular property, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, represents a significant cultural asset for the community, staff would like to assist the Busch’s in this process. Similar to efforts for the Simpson United Methodist Church (now Swan River Montessori), the next step would be to bring together potential stakeholders for a discussion on the best reuse alternatives for the site. The ultimate goal will be to assist the Busch’s in a sale that will preserve the value of the property and serve broader community development efforts. Staff will proceed with involvement in a round table discussion with the property owner, real estate agent and development community representatives over the next month to determine next steps and opportunities for this property. Zoning Ordinance Review The ordinance continues to near final draft form, with the Steering Committee set to review the Finishing Standards chapter of the code on May 4th, after their regular meeting. Over the next three weeks, staff will also be consolidating feedback and input from the following groups/entities. This feedback will be provided to the Steering Committee for review and potential inclusion in the draft. Chamber of Commerce – Business and industry feedback IEDC – Final comments WSB – Shoreland, Mississippi Wild & Scenic, Wetland & Floodplain overlay districts Campbell Knutson – Legal overview Building & Engineering Departments – Final comments MFRA and staff have also laid out a preliminary review schedule for the final draft of the code. The schedule does include an upcoming joint session between the Planning Commission and City Council. That tentative schedule is as follows: June 1st - 6:00 PM: Public Workshop Public review of the draft code (exact format of the meeting has yet to be determined). A regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will follow the workshop. Planning Commission Agenda – 5/4/10 3 June 14th - 5:00 PM: Joint Planning Commission/Council Workshop Planning Commission and Council will review the draft document in summary after public comments have been reviewed and incorporated. Final recommendations for changes are to be made at that time. Segments requiring additional work are to be removed. If possible, the Planning Commission may hold a separate PUD workshop at 7:00 that same evening. July 6th: Public Hearing 1 Public hearing held as part of regular Planning Commission meeting. Late July/Early Aug: Public Hearing 2 and Recommendation for Adoption A second public hearing at a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Embracing Downtown Monticello The RFP submission deadline is Friday, April 30, 2010 for the downtown planning project. Economic Development Director Megan Barnett will be finalizing the proposal review structure over the next two weeks. It is anticipated that Steering Committee review and interviews on the proposals will occur in May. Steering Committee members: Economic Development Authority (EDA): Bill Fair and Bill Demeules Planning Commission: Charlotte Gabler and Bill Spartz Parks Commission: Larry Nolan Industrial & Econ. Dev. Commission (IEDC): Chris Kruse Downtown Representative: Doug Schneider and TBD Business Expansion Incentive Program The City Council reviewed an approved a Monticello Business Expansion Incentive Pilot Program on April 26th. The program allows Monticello businesses seeking to expand in Monticello to apply for waiver or reduction of planning and building permit plan review costs. The Council allocated $30,000 to the pilot program and set a review date of December 31, 2011 (or until the funds are depleted). The cap per project application is $5,000. Council will review and approve each project application. Application and subsidy agreements are being developed by staff at this time. Planning Commission Agenda – 5/4/10 4 Utility Billing Capabilities The Finance staff has been working to implement on-line utility billing capabilities. We have to reconfigure some of the utility software and then we should be able to test the online system. If everything goes well the online capabilities should be available in mid- May but no later than June 1st. The system itself is password driven and will be linked to the City’s website. Once a resident, business owner, or property owner has registered their account information and created a password they will have access to their utility account 24/7 and be able to view account history, view billings, and make payments online. We are also moving ahead to outsourcing the printing and mailing of the utility bills. Currently we have received a quote from a company to print the bills along with any inserts and mail them using a reusable envelope for mailing back payments at a cost of $100 less per quarter (not including staff time) than it now costs the City. Savings is even greater when staff time is added and we will no longer need to store utility bill forms and envelopes at City Hall. By not needing a return envelope, the City will avert production of 576 pounds of carbon emissions and 1,929 gallons of wastewater each year based on our current utility billing mailing volume. Bond Rating The City was just informed that the City’s bond rating from Moody’s was upgraded two grades higher from an A2 up to Aa3. This rating upgrade was part of Moody’s changing their rating scales to a global rating for municipal and corporate bonds. The two step upgrade means lower interest rates for the City and for the taxpayers on future bond issues. Bertram Chain of Lakes A reminder that May 18th is the date for review and comment on the concept master plan for the park. That event will occur at 7:00 at MCC. June 12th is the Bertram Family Fund Day at the park. Similar to last year there will be swimming, hiking, fishing and a picnic lunch. MONTICELLO Mr. Horst Graser Gold Nugget Development 8857 Zealand Avenue Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 RE: Property Maintenance, Featherstone Dear Mr. Graser, April 7`', 2010 You may be aware that the City of Monticello's website offers a Help Desk for residents to ask questions and voice their concerns to City staff. This feature has proved to be an important communication tool between City officials, staff and the community. We would invite you to visit the website and try out the feature for yourself. It can be found at www.ci.monticello.mn.us, then click on "Help Desk". During the spring and summer months, the most common concern registered at the Help Desk is related to the length of grass and weeds in residential neighborhoods. An increase in these concerns has become especially noticeable as lots remain vacant for longer periods of time and maintenance issues on foreclosed properties impact entire neighborhoods. In that regard, your continued effort to maintain Featherstone in accordance with the City's ordinances is greatly appreciated, particularly as related to grass and weeds. Mowing of boulevards and vacant properties within 100' of buildings is required per code. This effort will help these neighborhoods retain their character and greatly reduce the number of safety and blight complaintsreceived from current residents in these areas. A copy of the City's Public Nuisance code is attached for your reference. Please be aware that City staff has received direction from City Council members that strict enforcement of the ordinance as related to vacant properties and boulevards is in place for 2010. The City's contracted service, Carefree Lawn Service, has offered to provide comparable contract pricing to Monticello's development community. If you are interested in this service, please contact Deb Ward in the Monticello Building Department at 763-295-2711. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Ange ann f Commu i D elopment Director c: Jeff O'Neill, City of Monticello Ron. Hackenmueller, City of Monticello Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 • (763) 295-2711 • Fax (763) 295-4404 Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 • (763) 295-3170v Fax (763) 271-3272