The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 01-08-2002 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - .January S, 2002 . 7:00 P.M. Members: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Clint Herbst Staff: I. 2. -. J. 4. 5. . 6. . Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch and Steve Grittman Call to order. ^pproval of minutes of the regular meeting held December 4, 2001. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizens comments. Public llearing _ Consideration of a n:quest 1'01' a conditional use permit allO\ving expansion and alteration of existing church in the PZM district. Applicant: Trinity ] ,utheran Church. Public Hearing _ Consideration of adOplin[; amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to single family residential lot and development standards. Applicant: City or Monticello. 7. Consideration of accepting joint parking plan in the CeD district. ^pplicant: Barry Fluth/Masters )lh ^ venue. 8. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on amendments to the comprehensive plan. 9. Adjourn. - 1- . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - December 4, 2001 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Roy Popilck, Richard Carlson, Robbie Smith, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint lIerbst Staff: Jeff O'NeilL Fred Patch, and City Planner Bob Kirmis 1 . Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meetinl2: held November 7, 2001. Chair Frie advised that he would like included in the minutes that he would be absent at the January 2002 meeting. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 7, 2001, WITT! ADDITION 5T A TED ABOVE. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried with Robbie Smith abstaining. ,., .J. Consideration of adding items to the a!2:enda. Robbie Smith commented that the community center was packed on the previous Saturday with many activities and vvhat an asset to the community this center is. Smith added that he would like this comment forwarded to the City Council. Fred Patch provided an update regarding the broadcasting of the Planning Commission meetings and included a memo to the members for their information. Frie added that he would like this information in the next City newsletter. Frie also advised that the Planning Commission has been invited to attend the HRA meeting on Wednesday. 12/5/01. All members were planning to be in attendance. 4. Citizens comments. None 2.c Continued Public Hearin2 - Consideration of a Planned Unit Deyelo )ment conce)t Ian to convert the fonner 51. Henn-'s Church to a multiple familv residential l"acilitv. Applicant: TC Builders. . Jeff O'Neill advised that after the last Planning Commission meeting when this item was tabled, stall met with the developer regarding the parking and other issues raised in the - 1- Planning Commission Minutes - 12/04/01 . staff report. O'Neill noted that staff was trying to work with the developer to get the parking placed on site and the meeting did occur, but the developer stated that financially they could not make it work. Bob Kirmis, NAC, provided the staffreport adding that the applicants have supplemented their proposal with more detailed drawings of the garage complex that would be located to the south of the main residential site, across 4th Street on the existing church parking lot. Kirmis brief1y summarized the staff report. Kirmis added that staff does not recommend the PUD, stating that although the applicant has made some changes to the building design, the addition of several elements (including the dormer gables and use of new materials) compromises the architecture of the building and leaves it less compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, the parking solutions (including the design of the garages) is viewed as incompatible with the lower density residential area. Staff would recommend that if residential uses are proposed for the site, the units be accommodated with the building without the severe exterior changes, and that parking garages are designed to enhance the neighborhood, rather than impose on it. . Rod Dragsten questioned the number of garages, asking if it was typical of residential apartments. It was advised that they are required to have 2 spaces per unit, I covered. O'Neill added that under a PUD in this neighborhood they would ask for 1 per bedroom. Chair Frie asked about the continued public hearing and the request for re-zoning, stating this was not mentioned in any of the suggested motions in the staff report. O'Neill stated that it should be a motion and could either be separate or as part of the concept plan motion. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Don Doran, 515 Mapk Street, addressed the Planning Commission stating that he is not opposed to St. Henry's wishes to move ahead on a project. however having lived in this neighborhood for quite some time he is concerned \vith parking on the streets if this project were to be an apartment complex. He was also concerned with one parking stall per bedroom not being sufficient. His objection is to the re-zoning from R2 to R3 and feels that is not in favor with the neighborhood. Doran noted the areas available in the City zoned R-3 where apartments should be placed. Jeff Gardner, 500 W. 4th 51.. stated that he and his wile spent several years in an apartment with working toward a goal of moving into a single family dwelling neighborhood that was safe. He stated that is why they chose the neighborhood they are in and also noted that stability comes with ovvner/occupied housing and feels a transient situation occurs \vith apartments. He feels that apartments do not belong in single family neighborhoods. . Dennis Doran, 506 W. 4th S1.. stated he has lived in this area for 15 years and he also has lived in apartments previously and feels they are a stepping stone to single f~lmily -2- Planning Commission Minutes ~ 12/04/01 . housing. He also felt that the City seems to have an area for apartments already. He noted that he contacted the Wright County Sheriff s Dept. to see if it was a fact that they receive more crime calls at apartment units than single family dwellings and it was stated to him that this is correct. He stated his opposition to apartments in this neighborhood. Brad Fyle, 501 W. yd St., stated he also does not care for high residential area re-zoning and would like to see it remain a nice older part of the City. Does not foresee that a PUD would be a plus for this area. Objects to the R-3 zoning as well. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. The members concurred that they would like to see the church property sold and added their support and willingness to make it happen. The concerns of the members were that the design as proposed does not meet the standards for a PUD with the intent to be a superior design; lack of parking; parking safety with location being across the street; density too high for this neighborhood with the majority of the members stating their opposition to re-zoning to R-3. Chair Frie also questioned the fact that re-zoning to R-3 in this neighborhood would be "spot zoning" and Council Liaison Herbst added that the City Council has tried to stay away from "spot zoning" in the past. . The members were also concerned with placing an apartment unit in this residential neighborhood stating that there are designated areas in the City for apartment buildings. Chair Frie did compliment TC Builders on their accOlnplishment of some of the issues from the last meeting. l-le did state however, that he feels the Planning Commission may not have made it clear to them regarding the issue of their opposition to parking being placed across the street. and also stated that the garages as presented seem to impose on the neighborhood rather than enhance. Brian Tutt, TC Builders, addressed the commission regarding their request for a superior design of the garages and added that they are open to suggestions from the Planning Commission and staff. He also advised that the architect is the same as the one who designed the church. and that the roof line on the church is very straight and therefore they felt it matched with the garages. Regarding visitor parking, there will be additional spaces as the stalls do not take up the entire parking lot and would accommodate visitor parking. [t is their preference to have garages onsite as \vell but they do not have that option. . Wade Klick, applicant. commented that the Planning Commission seems to be focusing on the design. but his question to the Planning Commission and staff was would this concept for apartments be approved. He states he has been looking for direction for several months but is confused as to what staff is looking for. He also noted that the Planning Commission had previously approved a concept for townhomes but that this never moved forward. He noted that they are not opposed to "for sale" townhomes as .., -J- Planning Commission Minutes - 12/04/01 . previously approved by the Planning Commission. Brian Tutt asked if the previoLls proposals involved use of the existing church and Patch stated that the two previous proposals were for townhouse/arts center, mixed use. The west building was at one time considered for demolition. Richard Carlson noted that there is a vast difference from the previous proposals to this one. Chair Frie asked a representative from St. Henry's to address this and also give them direction. Tom St. Hillaire, representative from St. Henry's finance committee, stated that the north half was not considered previously, but staff and Planning Commission disagreed with the statement. St. Hillaire stated that staff had previously stated retail/office was not a good idea and were told to come back with residential. St. Hillaire also noted they don't have a problem with the City turning down this proposaL but would like direction. States it would not make a difference to the church regarding money, it will be sold either way. St. Hillaire also asked if the City would like to see the building preserved and also stated they could undo the purchase agreements if necessary. . O'Neill added that the City has been supportive in working with St. Henry's to get the project going. He advised of the Bluhm and Komerak proposals previously presented. Professional office space was introduced at that time but there was never a retail concept. Later, the residential idea was proposed and City Planner Steve Grittman was in favor if the architectural aspect could be maintained and there was sensitivity to the area. On-site parking was always considered. S t. Hillaire noted that the fine arts concept did not proceed due to a lack of money. The Choir Boys did not opt to go along with the church either, therefore the Komerak project did not go forward. Robbie Smith stated that the developer/church perhaps should have contacted the residents to see what their feelings were on what they would like to see in that area. Connie Flemming, Edina Realty, approached the Planning Commission and stated they did not have purchase agreements at tbe time the other applicants came to the Planning Commission with their concept plans. She noted that there have been several people that have approached them but with no purchase agreements or money. . Flemming's concern is that even if the garages could be on the same block as the building, density is still an issue. Herbst added that owner/occupy is the key. Kirmis stated that in the statT report they did not recommended approval. but they would like to otfer changes that they would suppor1. Kirmis advised that O'Neill stated density is not a problem, but Kirmis added that it causes a parking deticit and is not visually appealing the way it is proposed. Kirmis offered some changes such as lowering the number of units, the visual issue with the garages can be adjusted and are minor. units with large 'vvindo'vvs and high ceilings would also be appealing. States that it is somewhat dangerous for the City to make that stipulation that the units be owner/occupied, but the applicant can specify this. -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 12/04/0 I . T ult asked staff and the residents who were present if it was acceptable to them if the concept ,vas owner/occupied, and O'Neill added that they could not state that as a condition. Planning Commission again stated density to be an issue. Frie emphasized again that they want to work with the church to get this resolved. He asked Mr. St. Hillaire about his comment that this would be sold by February, and for the record he stated that they are willing to "bandage" sell it. Popilek asked that if the Planning Commission were to deny this plan, could the applicant resubmit immediately. It was stated that there is a time lapse of one year before the applicant could come back with the same concept. but that they could apply immediately with a ditferent concept. Tutt asked what direction the Planning Commission is suggesting and Frie stated they are looking more at condos/townhomes. Flemming states that they would not like to sell the parking separate from the church. Carlson added that he sees that the church has already started to divide up the property as they have a purchase agreement with another party on the north half. St. Hillaire states that this was a mistake by a previous statT member at St. Henry's and it is undoable. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DENY RE-ZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM R-2 TO R-3. WITH THE FINDINGS THAT TI-lIS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WOULD BE REGARDED AS SPOT ZONING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. It was stated the Planning Commission' s desire is to work with the church but they cannot go forward with a project that would not work in the area. There ,vas more discussion with Chair Frie questioning the developer if he was receptive to tabling the item and coming back with revised plans. Klick advised of the 3 buildings they have under contract with the church. Herbst added that the number of units they would allow would be dependant on architectural aspects. Tutt asked that if they did not change the building in any way and they could fit in 29 units, would that be acceptable. Tutt also asked about garage numbers and location. O'Neill added that this is really a new application and not what ,vas on the table for a motion. Flemming added that the applicant has spent a great deal of time and money on this proposal and questioned if they should put more time/money into it. Patch added that the developer needs to go back to staff with their questions and not to the Planning Commission. Herbst added that the developer needs to get a positive response back from the staff before proceeding. . ^ tvlCrrlON WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PUD CONCEPT PLAN. BASED ON A FINDING THAT "rllE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT. THE SUPPORT fACILITIES SUCII AS PARKING. AND THE -5- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 12/04/01 ARCHITECTURAL IMP ACTS OF THE PROPOSAL, ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE'S INTENT FOR THE USE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Consideration of calline for a public hearine to adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding single familv residential lot and development standards. Applicant: Citv of Monticello Bob Kirmis, NAC, provided the staff report stating staff is requesting that the Planning Commission call for a public hearing at its January meeting to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that would address new standards for single family residential development. The City is considering two sets of potential changes: one that would address the standards that relate to the existing R-l District, and a second set that would include the adoption of a new single family district, to be called the R-lA District. For the R-IA District. staff envisions suggesting larger lot dimensional requirements, or stricter building requirements. The latter requirements would likely include regulations relating to the percentage of front building line that can be comprised of garage door exposure, the location of the garage relative to the living space portion of the structure (e.g. no more than five feet closer to the street than the house), and requirements for variation in design for neighboring houses. Other standards may be included in the proposed amendment. and planning staff is checking with various communities as to the success others have had with ditTerent categories of standards. The existing R-I District will also be subject to amendment to address issues raised by current single family home areas. The Planning Commissioners were concerned with not having ample information prior to holding a public hearing and Chair Frie added that the Council has had much discussion regarding this item and that he feels this would establish regulations for upscale housing. Frie also stated that he has received positive feedback from residents on these proposed standards. Herbst stated that the Council and the MOAA are also concerned with thc current standards. O'Neill added that raising the building sizes alone may not be enough to raise the standards. They discussed raising building sizes in the R-I, with possibly a higher standard in the R-IA, stating they cannot raise it high enough in the RI-A alone. They also stated that a minimum size requirement may just be in the R-l district. Statl requests that the public hearing be scheduled. Although the Comprehensive Plan amendment is not yet ready for adoption, these types of changes have been contemplated for several years, and would be appropriate to consider at this time. Roy Popilek asked about having the amendment information prior to calling for a public hearing and O'Neill stated that it would be given to them in advance in their agenda packets. O'Neill added -6- . . . Planning COIl1Il1 ission Minutes - 12/04/01 that there are developments in the works where they would like to have these standards in place. Popilek stated he would prefer to have the information to review prior to a public hearing, stating he would like to have some knowledge prior to the public hearing. O'Neill noted that the City has already received a preliminary plat this week that will require this information and that is the reason for calling tor the public hearing in January. They also discussed larger lot sizes as a possibility. Rod Dragsten added that with the new application, staff can request certain requirements be done regarding topography. He feels statT could work with the developer when the application is filed and request certain specifics at that time. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE ACTION ON A PUBLIC HEARING, PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Consideration of a conceptual land use plan proposal as a part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Applicant: Citv of Monticello. .Jeff O'Neill presented the staflreport. tic added that this topic came from conversations with City Council and staff at a workshop held on September 6th. Pursuant to the workshop. staff had prepared a conceptual future land use plan tCH a large area surrounding the City of Monticello. Staff has informally dubbed this map the 2050 year plan in that it contemplates land development and growth for the near term and growth well beyond both the foreseeable future and beyond the design capabilities of the City's current utility services. The 2050 year designation is not meant to predict an actual time frame. merely to allude to a map that is outside of the City' s usual planning horizons of 20 or 40 years. The plan incorporates the previous orderly annexation area. and also includes large areas to the south that have not been part of any prior land use planning. The areas to the South and West that have always been in the MOAA as "Residential" have been analyzed in more detail accounting for wetland, power lines and other features resulting in the beginning of a master plan for the area. Staff has envisioned that this map would help the City plan for impacts of very long term growth. irrespective of the time table. The idea behind this map is that the City can develop a reasonable set of growth management assumptions together with a vision that may be several decades away, but within the foreseeable future, we can consider development patterns that will lead us toward that end. presumably with some adjustments along the way. In developing this preliminary plan. we anticipate and hope tor establishment of a framework tor decision making that will include township residents. This plan therefore -7- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 12/04/0 I once approved on a preliminary basis by the Planning Commission and City Council, will be a starting point for discussions with township residents and county officials. Our hope would be to develop a unified plan and development of a mechanism assuring its implementation. O'Neill provided the criteria that is used to define the plan with an explanation of the ideas. He also advised that the biggest change is the inclusion of the future growth area on the map. Will also be getting input from the Township prior to updating the comprehensive plan. Herbst added that there is a problem with sewer capacity and this needs to be addressed. O'Neill advised that it would be bypassed with more potential for moving East. O'Neill asked that members review the information, advising that this then would go to the City Council for f()rmal review and brought to the township, looking at a February/March time~line. He also added that the plats that are being submitted include the type of housing that the City is looking for. Richard Carlson asked if the County or City can dictate \vhether residents have to hook up to City Water/Sewer and it was advised that they could. The City Council would also have to dictate whether they want a reserve set aside for services in the future, as in the area of Mississippi Dr. O'Neill stated that the public hearing would occur after the City Council reviews it and it may have comments/changes to it from the Council. It was noted that no action was necessary. l-lerbst added that Chair Frie previously had issues with industrial land located by the residential areas and golf courses. Frie stated this is still an issue. 1L Planning Commission members Richard Carlson and Rov Popilek up for re- appointment. Considcration of recommendation to the City Council on re- appointment. O'Ncill advised that terms tilled by Carlson and PopiJek expire this year. If they are interested in continuing to serve in such tine fashion, they should let their interest be known and the Planning Commission should then forward a recommendation to the City Council. Chair Frie stated that he highly recommends both Carlson and Popilek for re-appointment and the mcmbers concurred. Both Carlson and Popilek were in favor of serving anothcr term. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE RECOMMENDING APPOINTMENT OF RICHARD CARLSON AND ROY POPILEK TO NEW FOUR YEAR TERMS -ro THE PLANNING COrvIMISSION. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. -8- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 12/04/01 9. Adjournment. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9: 15 PM. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. Recorder -9- Planning Commission Agenda - 01108/02 . Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow for ex ansion of Trini Lntheran Chnreh located at 449 West Broadwa Avenne. (NAC) 5. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Project Description. Trioity Lutheran Church is proposing an expansion of their existing building. The project involves expansion of the existing sanctuary, office space, kitchen space and classrooms. The subject site is guided for low density residential development hy the 1996 Comprehensive Plan at the edge of the downtown area. The subject site is zoned PM-Z. Performance Mixed Use Zoning District. Religious institutions are allowed hy conditional use permit in this District, subject to the standards outlined in Section 6-4[A]. The s ubj ect site is an "e I" shaped parcel bounded by Broad way, Map Ie, West River and Li nn Streets. The site is developed with the existing church and a parsonage. Two single family homes arc located at the corners of Broadway and Linn Strects adjacent to the site. Single family uses also exist acroSS the streets from the subject site. Lot Standards. Within the PM-Z District. the lot standards applied to the suhjeet site are to he the same as those that would be applied within a conventional Zoning District. ]n this case. those standard s are that app Ii cd wi thi n the R - 3 Di stri et and under the eond i ti ons app lied speclf1cally to Churches within that District. Lot Area Lot Setbacks Width Front Side Rear Parking Required 12,OOOsf. 80n. 30ft. 30ft. 30ft. 5/15i"t, Proposed 93,243sf. 232ft. 30n. 15ft. 17 5 1't. O115ft. . The huilding expansion is within required setbacks. The existing huilding encroaches into the sethack required off of Maple Street. However, this sethack is not being further encroached upon or extended by the building expansion. One other encroachment is the parking lot to the northwest corner of the adjacent residential lots. The curb io this area should be revised to provide an area that could be landscaped for additional screening. Access. The site is sUlTounded by Broadway Street, Maple Street, Linn Street, and West Ri ver Street with one access each to B roadway. Map Ie and Linn Streets and two accesses to West River Street. The site plan suggests that the easterly access to West River Street is to . Planning Commission Agenda - 01/08/02 . be removed. As part of closing this access, the curb along West River Street should be restored. Off-Street Parking. As part of the building expansion, on-site parking areas are to be expanded to 94 stalls. The number of off-street parking stalls required for Churches is one stall for each four seats within the main assembly hall. The plans indicate a capacity of359 seats within the sanctuary, which equates to 90 required parking stalls. As such, on-site parking should be adequate. Building Design. Building elevations submitted with the application indicate that the proposed addition is intended to blend well with the existing structure through the use of similar materials, scale. and detailing. The existing building has a stone exterior fll1ish, which is to be carried over to the new building. Areas of the neW building are also accented with EIFS materials. Structures within the PM-I. District are limited to a height of two stories. The proposed expansion is consistent with the 1-1/2 story height of the existing structure, except that it includes a 46'-4" steeple. Church spires are exempted from the height limitations as per Section 3-4IE I ofthe Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping. Plans for landscaping to be added at the foundation of the building and perimeter of the site have been pruvided. The materials are all generally appropriate and meet the size requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. A row of rrench ] jlac shrubs has been provided along the driveway extending to Linn Street. which provides screening fur the adjacent residential use. Consideration should be given to using a coniferous material to provide year-round screening and to providing additional landscaping along the north-south common property line, which also abuts a parking area. Lighting. The applicant has provided plans indicating the type and location of proposed site ligbting for the expanded parking lot at the nortb ofthe site. Tbe plans indicate tbat a double shoe-box fixture will be used and that illumination does not extend to public streets or to the residential uses at the southeast corner of the block. Signs. No plans for signs have been submitted. Any proposed signs must conform to the provisions of Section 3-9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Grading, Drainage and lJtilities. All grading, drainage and utility issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. . 2 . Planning Comm ission Agenda - 0 I /08/02 . ALlERNA liVE ACTIONS: Decision): Consideration of a Conditional lJse Permit Amendment to allow for expansion of Trinity Lutheran Church located at 449 West Broadway. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP amcndment suhject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. ! Motion to recommend denial orthe CUP amcndment based upon a finding that the proposcd use is inconsistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 3. Motion to table action on the CUP amendment subject to the submission of additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports alternative I. . SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit Z: Site Location Site Plan Building Elevations Building Floor plans Recommended conditions of approval . 3 Trinity Lutheran ........."... ......',...... .",............ ""........... ...........",. ....._, ..... ..".......... .... ) @i/ (~)-.-,,- ~_._._,~_._.~._._._.- ~--~. ~t>~ 1 - I =---.=t I I ..~- .----r--'--- i -- -+- '" ---- - '--T~ (0- -"" - ..,,--- -,-,,---,,--,,- --",,- ., n__._,,_.. ~___ _,,_...._ __'''___,.~___. I I I I ~ I I I I I I I ,I .(Q? I I I I <<t. -- - . .~._.",,~-:. --...-.. ., "~I I I / I I / I / I I / ;S ) ) :J J ) J j - ) I I I / .J i j 1 } ) / ! "', '" "'-.." ", . '"'" ~~. , ~" ". ", I I / , , I I / "".... ......--.,...'" .............. ,',."""",,,, ............,.. ',."""'..,,, ....... Zl {lId o W i i ~ ~N .. ffi - W 8 ~ m; !h~lv ~ ~ I ~ . nil ~ ~ j lidli~ ;,,111 ~ 1 ~a:I ~~ D- HII I I 81 UJU zO - ill' f -~a: CJ....I " n Z ::I _w I~ .. ~i fnijj !q :;:} a: I -- .. U)Z I-..JU 00 .-. r ~~'~-I /f'm----..'-mn-- /! !! -t.--<~ 1 !: ..... i ii \,L..________....J: -+- ~ i h !, e~ n .__m.........,.....,.......m.,,~. '.mm.. "mmm : ! .. mm"'m -- -j 1 I ji I :j I, :i I !: ~ I! ! a n n ~.ijf!:UI *,:lI'IN/._ --'''n ii if " !i ji .1 ii ii :1 I, .1 ii j' .1 q !I j! ,I !i ii il ii Ii ii ii i1 ii Ii mn i! .1 'I I: :1 " .1.. ....--.....ii ~~ ,I II. i " 5~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '; I I ~ I u I i ~ JlI :i I. :J U ........:1 ' 'I I' 'i .! ~I Ii t ~~.,,- t t Ii ,/ -TU---~I I ~:I +..< fBIIi ~: " . " i ! I u.__,____ , ,: I :! -. !i \' i! .j I: 'I ....f;--.])j .1 " I. .. .1 I; ~ :::.:J i i I I '1 i .."...,..,'".....,................... .."........,..................,...,.....,,, ."',0'" ....m.l.. !~ I I. ~J @ @@ i i ~ I & I @ i E & i ~!~ 0- --- I I I I I i I I I I I I i, ~-: I ij4\. ~v G" < ~= , ~I ..~~ ~II'I Ffil1 i II ~i I \ I ~! I I I i i I I I I I I I \ I I I \ \ I I \ i I I \ \ I i I I I . 3~<Y11 IID~ \1~[ffii~\ . <8> <3> ~) . t < ~q~ q I! ~ ~~ h I ~ ~i I ~ I ~! 'W I \ I I <3> <3> ."", z Z 1 hi o w Iii ~ ill IlfoJ ~;: E~~~~ Ii 11 unli IIIIIIII ~ ~ 1 Ii ,\ i~ Bur II 11!\\t\~ l 81, :;;1 Z >-~:t: tWO z2:!I: -5=> ~..JG u Q C?~ ~ <? C? C? 1 ...", I ""-01 I IJ>>I,"," I ....., I ""~, I \ ..... I ,,".<\ I \ \ \ \ \ !II ~,\ \ \ '\ \ \' \ 1111 ~[! ~ \ \ \ \' i f) \ \ VF:>L \! ,II I \ ~ ~mmf[~0~i<%~~,:r;,~~I: ~~:i-\~-0 ~ 1,\\\ 1'1 ! rr=-~ T !<]if" ..-..""" ;J 1 // v //1 I II I I !!/ I r.., t ~h Ii ~ , ::.: I is ! t it ._ , , I" I ' " ", ~, t-' . Il "c. 9 i ! ; _ _.-:rl '(~ f 'l'j l~r~ .. i/ j)""\ " ) . /1, 1, I I " I / I /tv~ / r. ~I I d Ii ~ ~ ~ B ~ -~~. [t.J<t> I {!, I. P (L~ t("-.\\ riJF / IV / III,' /,' , , tnh \ I,..J ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ L 100:. .':~': ,l~t\~ ~~'7 '--~-77;~nITnd~r~,tr-:'- ~"'~\\--\'--L---..--"G:\~ ~ i i ; d ~ . ~_;:~ ~.,~' ___' ,''- -1iF~ 11 LUVJU(/i,tJ 1!0 !i ~ - 'iil i! p I! I . '-"-"~l.G:i'rr ::.~: ,r-~~;:;';ij W \ n ilr\-l-\.'-~-~rr.'. ~ ill ,I I~-' i ~ .1 ii ! -0:: 1& . ' t. ... I " ~r.1 I J I I ~ II ~ ~ Ill< I! _ ".".0 6' it i @lp, ( li;~ t - J ~ I .. " .. .... " ~!'; ". J~_~-.,.: I~ 1i\'.'1I L~_: ~ V I I ~ \ @ ; ---- f ~r~ L I~l. . H "--., f ~ -7\11 1\. Ig' \,0 I L ~ If--ili>e!! i!). , i ~~ lilli,i, ~ I [ I,~\L P , \ \ \ \ o:T -r' 'Lll ~ ~ , ~--+---' ',:-',\ ,\ \ \ <,,\ \\S~'\\ \ j~ T ~~ R--- ~ :tr ~-'"'1l- --- ,,/\ \ \11\\\"1\\ \\ \ V\ y\ \ r L } ..-- - m -..----.-. ... .~ ii'~~' ""I'rll'~ \~/ ~t\-- ---~-.. -- - - - -~- \~\~~\\:\~\\~~~:~\\ \ {~\ ir~..{r ~~ $ ~r ~F ,i ~1~ \ Ii J! \~\\ \\\\\\\\ \~\ \.\\.\8i 'tl- 8l : : Iii! : '....- i \ '\\\\\\\\\\1 \ \-\\"'..!W_ r11'r ,-----' ~ ~ /.;-.... f-- : ,! i ~r I \ \'\~\_ \\ \I \\1 '\ \ ~\--\ J~\r: u' , N 5 '0' : I: Q I ~ \ j \.), \<;>, \"\~,,,\ \; \~ ~~ ., >-~ @! .. \ '~I \ 0 I <;~ I t.I~",;<,,~,'d:;.~I"'-. \ V Iu' ~ - ~~ b.... "'!..."...1..... \ j..-. .....1- ~-~ ")-__---- ,,~"': j~~~IC;- , -- --- -- -- _C~ =---1'- ~ i ~ ;-- -= - -" ,,-- :;,;;;:, '<>'.' .....If"'.. "...~:"..;f" 4>~. U I ~~ h I ~ 1'1 1 -.- +- f-- \ \ ':.. ~l. \ ~3!i Ii' .T- f-j- .,- ,I i \. ~~ it \' S~ h I I ~ I; 1 i \ \ b .......... ~ ~~ i i~ ~~ I I iii I T I \ n '''..:::.:ll /niliil~@I. ,-m T ~\ \ I I ~ ~ - , .\ ' I ~. II I II \ \ l u a ~~ ~ ~8 \ iful ~ \ In' \ \ I~ I~,' ~T ,tf'-"'.J~ . +",vM'/r : r-1 A I' ilir;;! --zJ ,: Ii:' 1 I I , - '>.1 I I &, .o~~...s- ,-. \m.! :\:rl' \ i I \ ~ I, <ri' 'Ul-Q m~.. l,l, .... \ \ \ \ ' \ \ v ,-' _, c '/l"~ r1 \ l\ill ....) r , I \ I! iii ...-.dr:n;....lIII') I . I I I I I l:I I' , . n . I ="'11 I IilI I I ! T I , If I I \ \ \ \l~ ~ i ' I \ \ \ 1-\."= ~ -"~~ \ \ I \ i \ \5 ttt1 \i\ttt~ \ \ I \ i I V1 i I I r--- ,..._u ~.__.m m..'_'_. n. ~ ~ .2 ~ ..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.- l~ - 'I~ ) > l~~ 4- Z Z i hi o W J Ii .:t ~l> (iroz - W 8 ~!:iS fh~ljj .. , , -- ........... ~ ~I" ~! !, ,III ~ , cr: W. w5 ~ ..~ f(11 z r un.... ~ V ~r j ~~ n~II" " - cnz! -I tl ~' ';, '-"'r- l.'l l', ,,~ od ,..;:..;J-- "~ ~ U ',' ' ~ ~~ .. . g~ ~~. , r ~ ~~ . . d n d -;( l L_~ .1 '- "i'll fl', . ;) I I II i~ i J l~1 [~ fl~ 2 I !,I' t ~nl~.. ~ >- ~UJ J:u 0 I t: Iwol~ a: . zJ:~ '" ; I ii:~J: ~...JU , ..........1 ..... ',.,. .. Z' (!)il Ui~ wfl ci a r--------n, I , I , I I I I , I I I I I [J: c: ~'i !n - .. -< t I , I , I,v.'.,~______ _~~,~ I ;; ~h\ ,I- i,\d \1 111\tI \ , ffi (f _ UJ 8 il a- ih!l1 ~~:;;, ~\\d z \ . t' .JI' ~~:x: ~ ,. r' \\ 0- n JI We.> ~~ I IU~ :1 Ki Ii I t\f t z~a: \ ., - ::> lflCLi .1 I=..JG ~ 00 -- I .....1 II .===~-=<E~--:--=--==-;==-:--"-=:--- ....1: ~- . "0" .~ "")l,,~rnJI3M N II f~--------~--~- I I -..-\ I I I I I I I I I I , 1 I q I I I I ~IL I I I I I I I I I ii I I I I I I I ~H~ I I I ~!; I I I :J - ~~ I I ~ I I h I I I f~ I I Ii' I aA I I~ I I I c~ I I , I I I I 'I I I h I I I ':l! I I I I H I I I I I ~~ I I I I I ~l I I I I - ~ I I \ I I I h I I I I I i I I I P' I ! I {" I I I I I \---~,---- r;:-- " 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, : : , ' : ----- : , ' I IIlll I \ , \ , ' : ' " : : i. . . . . ~ d iii i I ._ __ __" _._ --1--..-- I II 00' r~---. I I I I I I I I I I , . . . Planning Comm ission Agenda - 01/08/02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The curb at the northwest corner of the adjacent residential lots is revised to provide at least a five foot green area to be landscaped to screen the adjacent residential uses. 2. Coniferous plantings are planted along the common lot line with the adjacent residential use to screen the parking areas from view. 3. The easterly curb cut to West River Street is removed and replaced with concrete curb. 4. All grading, drainage and utility issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 5. Comments of other City Staff. EXHIBIT Z 4 . . . Planning Commission Agenda -- 01/08/02 6. Public Hearin_: Consideration of are uest to amend the Sin Ie Famil Zunin Districts bv ch-anging lot sizes, setbacks. and performance standards. Applicant: Citv of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City has been experiencing a significant amount of residential development over the past few years, including a record number of single family plats. One ofthe objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for an opportunity for current and new residents to find "step-up" housing within the City, as a part ofa full range of housing styles and prices. The bulk of the recent development has consisted of "entry-level" housing, although the price of "entry-level" has risen dramatically. The Comprehensive Plan envisioned that while the bulk of the housing demand in Monticello would initially be in the affordable market, higher amenity sites would lead to more expensive housing due to both development cost and market opportunity. This objective has gone largely unfulfilled, as even wooded properties and hillside "view" properties have seen some relatively uninspired housing construction. Some projects, promoted by their developers as step up housing on prime sites, have evolved hom step- up to entry level projects by permitting small houses and almost no amenities. The concern that this raises for the City is that as the market matures and more expensive housing becomes financially feasihle for larger developments, the prime sites for such housing will have already been consumed by earlier, lower cost projects. At staff level, this discussion has led to a set of sometimes competing objecti ves. The City's infrastructure bonding requires some level of growth. and the industrial development efforts suggest that restricting affordable housing growth would interfere with the ahility to attract a competitive labor supply to the community. However, doing nothing with the zoning allowances in the single hlmily district areas would appear to accommodate the uninterrupted consumption of prime residential land by atTordable housing options, to the detriment ofthe City's housing goals of providing for a full range of housing choice, including upper end neighborhoods. StaWs proposed solution to this issue is a tiered approach to single family zoning, ineluding the creation of two new single hunily districts and modifications to the current R-l District. Through a combination of standards relating to subdivision design, housing construction and design, and selective zoning district application, it is helieved that the City will he able to accomplish each of its housing goals. This task is accompanied by the concurrent update to the Comprehensive Plan and the future land use plan. As shown in the accompanying draft exhibits, the City will expect to apply each of its new districts in a man ner that wi II : 1. Preserve high-amenity sites for more valuable housing, at the time that the market decides that such housing is ripe for development (sooner or later). 2. Maintain the City's interest in accommodating affordable housing opportunities for new development. 3. Provide for redevelopment in the original plat areas and other older subdivisions. 4. Ensure that new housing (whether "aff(lfdablc" or more expensive) is designed to be architecturally attractive and a sizc that encourages long- term neighborhood stability and value. Planning Comm ission Agenda .....01 /OS/02 . R-l District. The components of the proposal include three zoning districts in place of the current R-I District. The R-l [)istrict would retain 12,000 square foot lots and gO foot lot widths. I nstead of a uniform ten foot side yard setback, the requirement would change to a "5 andIS" approach used by many communities - five feet on the attached garage side and 15 feet on the other, although the actual ordinance uses six feet as the minimum standard due to the City's requirement for six foot wide drainage and utility casements. This results in side building spacing between twelve and thirty feet, giving a developer more 1lexibility to maintain views or preserve side yard trees where possible. The R-I District would be located in most of the City's single family land use areas. To avoid a development pattern that is exclusively entry levcl, the R-l District would also incorporate new housing construction standards. Staff is encouraging a minimum roof pitch of 5/12, a minimum floor area of 1,200 square feet finished, 2,000 square feet total space at no lower than the "lookout" level (up to 800 square feet may be unfinished at the time of initial construction), and an attached garage of at least 450 square feet (increasing from the bare minimum of 400 square feet). . R-l A Single Familv District. This District would be located in areas specifically identified as high amenity sites. Tree cover, significant views, water front or views, or other valuable natural features may cause an area to qualify for R-I A designation. This new district would establish an avcraging approach to its increased lot requirements. Lot sizes would be required to average 16,000 square feet in area (no less than 12,000, and no fewer than 40(% of all lots must exceed the 16,000 square foot size). Average lot width would be 90 feet, with similar minimum standards (80 feet, and no fewer than 40% exceeding 90 feet). Side setbacks would mirror the new R-l standard (6 and IS), and front yard standards would also be averaged- 35 feet, with a minimum of 25 feet. and no fewer than 40% exceeding 35 feet). House sizes would be set at 2,000 square feet finished. The averaging approach for the lot size is intended to provide a built-in flexibility to permit the developer to design a subdivision that takes the natural features into account. Because the R-l A District will be applied in areas that by definition have natural features to preserve, the City will also make these standards a basis of the plat review - developers will be required to identify the valuable features of the site, then delnonstrate that their project meets the preservation objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance. As suggested previously, it is acknowledged that the market for higher end residential housing is limited in scope at the current time. Developers who intend to meet this market would have a designated supply ofland. If only a small number of these developments are proposed, the ordinance will serve to preserve those prime areas until the market can catch up. R-2A District. The current R-2 District provides for two-flul1ily homes amI townhouses at densities of around seven to eight units per acre. Stafr proposes the establishment of a new district to perlnit the opportunity to construct small-lot single family homes as well. There has been a recent market trend in single family development on small parcels. Permitting this type of subdivision would fllcilitate an affordable single family option at densities similar to townhouse projects. These subdivisions have taken the f'(mn of both townhouse associations and traditional neighborhoods. . 2 Planning Commission Agenda- 0 I /08/02 . ^n integral part of this zoning amendment would be the addition of design and architectural standards for housing developed in this district. While most townhouse projects would require Planned Unit Development review due to the base lot/common property arrangement, a small-lot single family subdivision could be developed without PUD on public streets. ^ part of this concept would permit traditional neighborhood design with some significant departures from the City's typical setback requirements. The R-2A District is intended to transfer development cost in the atIordable range from lot development to building construction, since stafThas f()lmd that "affordable" subdivisions of small houses on larger lots have not led to additions and upgrades in those areas. Examples of building and architectural standards would be minimum levels of brick and/or stone, size requirements that ensure larger homes on the small lots, limits on garage front exposure, and enhanced landscaping requirements for both individual lots and developments in general. General Standards. The fiJllowing table provides a comparative view of the zoning- related standards for each of the districts: . I.ot area I.ot width House size CJarage sIze Roof pitch Front setback Side setback Rear setback * Average standards will also incorporate minimum quantities and standards R-IA 16,000 s.f. avg.* 90 feet, avg. R-l 12,000 sf 80 feet R-2A 7,500 s.L avg. * 45 feet, min. 2.000 s.L finished 700 s.1'. 1.200 s.r. finished + 450 s.L 1,200 s.f. finished 450 s.f. 6/12 5/12 5/12 35 feet. avg. * 30 feet. avg. * 10 feet, min. (, ft. (garage) & 15 ft. 30 feet usable 6ft. (garage) & 15 ft. 30 feet usable 6 f't. both sides 10 feet, min. The R-l A District wi II also have additional requirements for specific architectural details, including the following: . Minimum fa<;:ade material coverage of at least 20% brick or stone, or 1011<) with all stucco (instead or lap siding). . No more than 4(YYo of the fa<;:ade or any structure may be comprised of garage door. . No garage portion of any structure may be more than five feet closer to the street than the principal residential portion. . Minimum foundation size for 1,400 square feet, in addition to the finished space requirement, to avoid small, totally finished houses that marginally meet the other requiren1ents. In addition to the zoning standards, there will be subdivision review standards that will . 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 01/08/02 apply to all new subdivisions. These include the following: . Internalized ponding with street frontage, designed and landscaped to work as an open space amenity for the development in addition to its stormwater control function. Subdivision design that identifies natural amenities of the site, and positively demonstrates preservation of those amenities. Additional depth to lots that back up to undesirable features, including major roadways or negative views, including significant landscaping and berming in those spaces. Creation of natural ized woodland spaces where appropriate, such as the edges of development areas, or as a part of the open space system created by ponding and pathway areas. Additional landscape treatment along designated pathway routes. . . . . . These requirements would be established as the minimum standards for any residential subdivision. Planned Unit Development projects would be required to demonstrate design that starts with these minimums, then adds amenities to justify PUD f1exibility. A part of this process is intended to reduce the reliance on PUD generally by adding some flexibility in building setbacks. The concept would build additional standards into all subdivision design, not just those that require PUD. . In summary, the proposed changes would add a significant level of subdivision design standards to all residential projects. The purpose is to raise the level of quality that is "built-in" to the community's residential development, and to insist on higher standards regardless of density. Because the highest level of the housing market may be present only in small amounts, an acknowledged result of these changes will be to preserve certain areas that arc identified as having higher natural amenities for future development. The R~2A District will accommodate smaller lots, but will require that the homes will be as large as those in the City's standard single family areas. If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission may wish to table this item pending additional study and/or input from developers and builders. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Dccision I: Amend the R-I Zoning District by adopting new setbacks for front and side yards, house and garage sizes, and building standards. I. Motion to recommend approval of the amendments to the R-1 District, based on a finding that the changes will ensure higher quality single family development, consistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendments to the R-l District based on a finding that the changes will have a negative effect on the pace and/or style of housing in the community. Dccision 2: Amend the Zoning Ordinance by establishing an "R-IA" Zoning District which requires large lot and house sizes, and incorporates new building standards for single family housing. . 4 Planning Commission Agenda - 0 1/08/02 . I. Motion to recommend approval of the establishment of the R ~ 1 A District, based on a finding that the district is needed to ensure step-up housing in the community, and to preserve high-amenity sites for such housing. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the establishment of the R-IA District, based on a finding that the district will interfere with the market for housing development. Decision 3: Amend the Zoning Ordinance by establishing an "R-2A" Zoning District which allows for small-lot single L1l11ily housing, and incorporates building standards that permit "detached townhouse" or "traditional neighborhood" design. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the establishment of the R-2A District, based on a finding that the district will complement the other zoning in the City to allow for high-quality, affordable housing in neighborhoods that will maintain value over ti me. 2. Motion to recol1lmend denial of the establishment of the R-2A District, based on a finding that the district will allow single family housing at a density that is too high. Decision 4: Amend the Subdivision Ordinance by adding new design standards for subdivision layout, natural amenity preservation, and other requirements. . I. Motion to recommend approval of the subdivision ordinance amendments, based on a finding that the amendments will help ensure that future subdivision design will increase quality of'neighborhoods both in the short and long term. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the subdivision ordinance amendments. based on a linding that the changes would be overly restrictive and inhibit Ilexibility in subdivision design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the amendments, as a part of the City's overall approach to housing development and growth. As noted in the analysis, one of the great concerns relating to the City's growth has been the value and quality of the new development, both at the time of the construction, and as the neighborhoods mature. Staff reviewed several building permits in various subdivisions, and spent time observing how earlier developments had matured. It was found that the size of the lots had only marginal inlluence over whether residents had maximized the value of the properties, and whether residents tended to add rooms and remodel, or move out to other housing. One of the strategies that the City had relied on in the recent past was anticipation that the combination of higher development costs and higher amenity sites would result in step-up housing opportunities, and several developers had indicated that they had planned such housing. After finding that the high amenity sites were being developed with housing that differed little from the lower amenity sites, staff believes that the changes proposed in these amendments will help to achieve the housing goals in a more "proactive" Elshion. It should be noted that staff does not bel ieve that the market for housing in Monticello . 5 Planning Commission Agenda - 01/08/02 . will suddenly change to a majority of $250,000 homes. The great pressure is expected to continue to be dominated by the "entry level" homes, now commonly priced in the $160,000 range. However, it is believed that the step-up market will grow as the housing market continues to mature. The changes proposed here arc intended to identify sites that will eventually be well suited to such housing. If a developer wishes to build in that market immediately, the land and zoning will be ready. In not, the most attractive land will be preserved until the market ripens. In the meantime, the amendments are structured to be sure that there are ample supplies of R -1 and R - 2A lands to fuel the afTordable market. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - R-1 Zoning District (Revised) - to be provided at the meeting. Exhibit B - R-I A Zoning District (New) Exhibit C - R-2A Zoning District (New) Exhibit [) - Subdivision Ordinance Amendments - to be provided at the meeting. . . 6 Chapter 6A . "R-1A" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SECTION 1: 6A-1: Purpose 6A-2: Permitted Uses 6A-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 6A-4: Conditional Uses 6A-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R-1A" single family district is to provide for low density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. The R-1A District is distinguished from the R-1 District in that it has more extensive development standards and is to be located in areas of higher natural residential amenities, including such conditions as woodlands, wetlands, and significant views. 6A-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an "R-1A" District: . [A] Those uses permitted in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 6A-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an "R-1A" district: [A] Those permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 6A-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "R-1A" District (requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance). [A] Those conditional uses as allowed in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 6A-5: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: The following standards shall be made of uses and new subdivisions in the R-1A District, in addition to those that may be applicable under other sections of the City's codes and ordinances. . [A] Lot area: 16,000 square feet, average*. For any subdivision in . an R-1A District, no lot may be less than 12,000 square feet in area, and no fewer than 40% of all individual lots in the subdivision shall be equal to or greater than 16,000 square feet in area. [B] Lot width: 90 feet, average*. For any subdivision in an R-1A District, no lot may be less than 80 feet in width, and no fewer than 40% of all individual lots in the subdivision shall be 90 feet or more in width, as measured according to this ordinance., [C] Setbacks: Front yard, 35 feet average*. For any subdivision in an R-1A District, no house may be placed closer than 25 feet to any street right of way, and no fewer than 40% of all individual houses shall have front setbacks of 35 feet or more. Side yards, interior: 6 feet minimum on the attached garage side, total setback widths for the two side yards of 20 feet. . Side yards, corner lots: 20 feet on the street side, and no less than 6 feet on the interior side. Rear yards, 30 feet minimum usable. The rear yard shall include a space of at least 30 feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands, ponds, or slopes greater than 12 percent. [0] Building Standards: 1. Building Materials. No less than 20% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1A District shall be covered with brick or stone. Any accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 10%. 2. Garage size. An attached garage of at least 700 square feet shall be constructed as a part of any single family home. 3. Garage frontage. From side building line to side building line of any single family structure, no more than 40% of such building width shall consist of garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded garages are not subject to this . . . regulation. An exception shall be made for garage doors that face the street, but are set back at least ten feet in back of the front building line of the principal use. 4. Garage location. No portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal single family use. 5. Roof pitch. No portion of any roof of any structure in the R- 1A district shall be less in pitch than 6/12, that is, 6 inches of vertical rise for each 12 inches of horizontal length. 6. Building size. No single family home constructed in the R- 1A District shall be built that does not consist of at least 2,000 square feet in interior finished floor area, exclusive of mechanical, garage, or unfinished storage space. All such finished space shall be at or above the finished exterior grade, or in the case of lower levels, no less than 42 inches below such grade. In addition to the finished square footage requirement, no building in the R-1 A District shall have a foundation size of less than 1,400 square feet, exclusive of garage space. Basements that are neither "walk-out" 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, flooring such as carpet, vinyl, tile, wood or other similar floor covering, and ceiling and walls covered with gypsum board, plaster, or wood, and be stained, painted or covered with other residential wall covering prior to occupancy. *Averaging of lot area, lot width, or setback dimensions shall be considered to be the arithmetic mean, not the median. For example, lot widths in a five lot subdivision could be 80 feet, 80 feet, 85 feet, 90 feet, and 115 feet: (80+80+85+90+115 = 450 feet, divided by 5 = 90 feet average lot width, with 40% of the lots (2 of 5) 90 feet or more in width). . Chapter 7 A . "R-2A" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SECTION 1: 7 A-1: Purpose 7 A-2: Permitted Uses 7 A-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 7 A-4: Conditional Uses 7 A-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R-2A" single family district is to provide for medium density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. The R-2A District is distinguished from the R-2 District in that it has more extensive development standards and is intended to accommodate small lot residential development in traditional neighborhood arrangements with high levels of amenities. 7 A-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an "R-2A" District: . [A] Those uses permitted in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 7 A-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an "R-2A" district: [A] Those permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 7 A-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "R-2A" District (requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance). [A] Those conditional uses as allowed in the "R-1" District, under the same conditions as listed in that district. 7A-5: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: The following standards shall be made of uses and new subdivisions in the R-2A District, in addition to those that may be applicable under other sections of the City's codes and ordinances. . [A] Lot area: 7,500 square feet. . [B] [C] Lot width: 45 feet. Setbacks: Front yard, 15 feet. Side yards, interior: 6 feet minimum. Side yards, corner lots: 20 feet on the street side, and no less than 6 feet on the interior side. Rear yards, 20 feet minimum usable. The rear yard shall include a space of at least 20 feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands, ponds, or slopes greater than 12 percent. [0] Building Standards: . . 1. Building Materials. No less than 20% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-2A District shall be covered with brick or stone. Any accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 10%. 2. Garage size. A garage of at least 450 square feet, attached or detached, shall be constructed as a part of any single family home. 3. Garage frontage. From side building line to side building line of any single family structure, no more than 50% of such building width shall consist of garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded garages, or detached garages in the rear yard, are not subject to this regulation. An exception shall be made for garage doors that face the street, but are set back at least ten feet in back of the front building line of the principal use. 4. Garage location. No portion of any garage space may be more than the front building line of the principal single family use. 5. Roof pitch. No portion of any roof of any structure in the R- 2A district shall be less in pitch than 5/12, that is, 5 inches of vertical rise for each 12 inches of horizontal length. 6. Building size. No single family home constructed in the R- . . . 2A District shall be built that does not consist of at least 1,200 square feet in finished floor area, exclusive of mechanical, garage, or unfinished storage space. All such finished space shall be at or above the finished exterior grade, or in the case of lower levels, no less than 42 inches below such grade. Basements that are neither "walk-out" or "look-out" levels may be finished, but shall not be included in this calculation. To qualify as "finished", such space must have heat, flooring such as carpet, vinyl, tile, wood or other similar floor covering, and ceiling and walls covered with gypsum board, plaster, or wood, and be stained, painted or covered with other residential wall covering prior to occupancy. 7. Landscaping. Lots in the R-2A district shall be required to provide significant landscaping. Within front yards, no less than 60% of the yard shall be landscaped garden area. No private driveway leading to a garage may be more than 18 feet in width. For the portion of the lot that is not covered by the structure, the property shall be landscaped with plant materials equal to one ornamental tree per each 1,500 square feet and one ornamental shrub per each 150 square feet. Lot area that is not covered by shrubs and trees may be covered with lawn, gardens, and patios or decks. A landscape security shall be provided to ensure the landscaping of each lot in accordance with this section. . . . 7. Request for approval of a parkine: lot in the CCD district that would provide less than the required 60% of joint parkine stalls. (JG) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Barry Fluth has proposed a redevelopment project on Block 36, (existing Amoco site), which includes a restaurant, some office space, and some residential units on the second floor. Meeting the parking requirements is often an issue when redeveloping the downtown district. Mr. Fluth, with support of city staff, has joined Mr. Hammond, Mr. Koppy, and Mr. Paulson, in making this a joint parking project. The ordinance gives the city the discretion of allowing property owners the opportunity to supply parking at a rate that is 60% of the requirement of the ordinance, provided that the owner grants an easement allowing the general public free use of the stalls. The number of parking stalls required under the ordinance (using the 60%) for all parcels together is 79. The proposed parking plan provides for 60 parking stalls, 19 stalls short of the required amount. It is proposed that the deficiency be offset via a contribution of $1,450 per stall which equals $27,550. The distribution of this expense will be determined by the city council. Staff supports this project, with the deficiency in parking, for the following reasons: · although as a whole the project doesn't meet the parking requirements, the proposed and existing uses (restaurant, office/retail, residential) should mix well as far as needing parking at different periods of the day. · a parking study done approximately 6 months ago by staff shows that there is an ample amount of on and off street municipal parking within a two block area. · Parking stall deficiency is off-set by $27,550 contribution to parking fund in the CCD district. B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to support a joint parking project with the 19 stall deficiency based on the reasons above under the following conditions: · Joint Parking agreement established and signed by all property owners. · The feasability of internalizing the trash enclosure be looked at by developer and city staff. · Project is consistent with the requirements of the CCO district. Motion to deny approval of the Amoco parking redevelopment plan at a deficiency of the 60% requirement. Motion to table action, subject to further study. 2. 3. . . . c. ST AFF RECOMMENDA nON: Staff recommends alternative 1. The parking situation, though tight, can be accommodated by on and off street parking. The parking project will benefit the office/retail in the area during the day as well as provide a sufficient amount of parking for the restaurant in the evening hours. The Parking Development Fund will be supplemented in the amount of $27,550, by the City or Developer or a combination as determined by the City Council. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A: Area Off-Site Parking Analysis . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 01/08/02 8. Consideration of Calling for A Publie Hcarin!! on Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. (.10) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Planning Commission is asked to review the latest information regarding the process of updating the comprehensive plan and consider calling for a public hearing on amending the plan. As you recall at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission a draft of the amended Land Use Guide plan was reviewed, accepted and forwarded to the City Council. Similarly, the City Council accepted the plan and directed statTto obtain input from Tom Salkowski (County Planner and MOAA Zoning Administrator). It was the view of staff that Salkowski was in the best position to provide input necessary to create a plan that would likely be supported by the Township and County officials. The meeting with Salkowski is being held on Friday, January 4th. so I am unable to provide the Planning Commission with direct feedback in this report. Information on Sal kowski' s response wi 11 be provided at the meeting. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to call for a public hearing on amenchnents to the comprehensive plan scheduled for February 5, 2002. 2. Motion to deny or table request to call for a public hearing on amendments to the comprehensive plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the public hearing be scheduled and direct staff to make presentations to various commissions and civic organizations as part of the process of obtaining input on the draft plan. This recommendation could change if Salkowski suggests major changes to the draft plan as a result of the meeting scheduled for Friday, January 4, 2002. SUPPORTING DATA None . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 1/8/02 Update -IDe and liRA Recommendations No action is required of the Planning Commission at their January 8, 2002 meeting. The IDC and HRA subnlit and request the Planning Commission and City Council consider and incorporate their respective recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan update and amendment process and to take the applicable action to accomplish the recommendations. Reference and Haek2round: On December 7, 200 I, the Marketing Subcommittee (HRA Commissioners Darrin Lahr and Brad Barger and IDC Members Dick Van Allen, Tom Ollig, and Don Smith) reviewed data including current local industrial land prices ($65,340 per acre), the decrease of tax increment revenues collected due to class rate reductions, and the Big L.ake Industrial Development Plan. The group recognized the availabi I ity of three local industrial buildings and the current recession; however, they also could not justify spending $20,000 for marketing non-competitive industrial land prices. They agreed Monticello is out-of-the ball game. Additionally, the group considered the $565,000 Industrial Development Fund set aside by the HRA and the Council ft)!' industrial land acquisition and/or inJi'astructure development and the additional pool or non-restrictive TI F funds pledged ft)r industrial land acquisition or infrastructure development. The Marketing Subcommittee made a motion "asking the lIRA and the I DC to approve the Marketing Subcommittee's recommendation to rezone City (Remmele) parcel from commercial to industrial and to develop an industrial park forwarding the recommendation to the Planning Commission." At the IDC meeting of December 20,2001, Jeff O'Neill gave an update to the IDC members on the status of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. He gave a detailed sumlnary of the preliminary land use plan and noted reasons why the City (Remmele) site has been identified as an important parcel for future commercial development and noted that the mediation session for the Gold Nugget parcel was scheduled for January 10, 2002. Additionally, he noted city acquisition of the industrial/commercial portion ofthe Gold Nugget site, either by purchase or via swap (City/Remmele), remains a possibility. IDC Chair Van Allen informed members of his recent conversation with UMC, an industrial prospect, relative to the relocation considerations and economic benefits to a community. After discussing the Marketing Subcommittee's recommendation and hearing O'Neill's report, thc IDC was ready to make a motion which included preparation of a time frame. IDe Recmumendation "IDC' Alemher Barh Schvl'ientck rnadc a motion recol1unending the control of'a site/iN" . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 1/8102 industrial developnwnt and to commit to cunstruction completion u.lutility and road irnprovements hy Fall u.l2002fhr either the (.'ity (Renunele) or Gold Nugget parcels, and to prepare a timef;'amefhr the City (Remmele) and Gold Nugget parcels, heginning with the infi'astructure improvement completion date and vvorking bacbvards identif.jJing the applicable steps and timef;'wne to accomplish control olsite and infrastructure completion. This recommendation to befhrwarded to the Planning (.'ommission and City ('ounci/. IDC Member Bill Tapper seconded the motion and with nofitrther discussion, the motion passed unanimously, " At the HRA meeting of January 2, 2002, O'Neill gave an update to the Commissioners on the status of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and stated he agreed that City ownership of industrial land is critical to getting industrial development going, but thought that use of the City (Remmelc) site should be considered after other viable options are exhausted. After discussing the Marketing Subcommittee's recommendation and hearing O'Neill's report, the following motion was made. liRA Recommendation "A /1/Otion vl'as rnade by Commissioner Brad Barger to recommend to the Planning ('onunis.....ion and the ('it)' ('ouncilto have a completed industrial park ovl'l1ed hy the HRA or City wilh lots rew"vto sell in April u.l2003. Commissioner DWTin loahr seconded the mot ion and with r/O fi.!rt her discussion, the motion carried unanimously." Again, the IDC and lIRA request the Planning Commission and City Council consider and incorporate their respective recommendations into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update and Amendment and to take the applicable action to accomplish the recommendations. Supporting Data - Copy of Big Lake Industrial Development Plan and copy of Van Allen's discussion with UMC. 2 . . . an" dF BigL&ke Jim Thares, Community Development Director Big Lake, Minnesota Presentation for EDAM Meeting November 15, 2001 1. Backcround of Industrial Park East A. City and Township leaders both felt there was a need for an Ind. Park (not much happening locally without public effort) )- City wanted cooperation on annexations and extending city limits. :> Township wanted to control its own destiny (not be added to the City) or some suitable trade-off (Le., city tax base throwing off tax revenue to Township). ,. 80th wanted more local jobs for area residents (80% of the residents drive to work ~n other communities). 8. City and Township create a Jointly owned Park :> 50 - 50 Venture. . . :> Share the development and operating costs equally, forever. :> Share the benefits (taxes) equally I forever. )- Agreements put in place stating these points. :> Expanded/Modified EDA to add Township Members. 1 G; v " . 2. Phased Develooment of the Industrial Park A. If you build it they-will come approach; no solid prospects in hand. B. City and Twp. bought the land on a contract for deed. C. Financing - TIF District created for entire Park. D. Phase I - Bonds sold; roads, sewer and water developed for 3 lots (13 acres). E. Phase II roads sewer and water for remainder of the park. 3. Marketing of the Industrial Park A. Used consultants and staff for early period. B. Heavy networking with developers and firms (Le. Landcor). C. Tout the benefits of owning property and equity from land for $1. D. Tout the cooperative partnership approach - share the vision. E. Package incentives, land for $1, site prep assistance, E.D. RLF. 4. Adiustments to the Park Development Process . A. Luke warm response led to new TIF District Configuration. 8.429 Assessments added to pay for all improvements in Phase II. C. Third TIF District in 2002 or 2003? 5. Results of the effort A. Six projects broke ground in the past 12 months. B. Two more projects ready to break ground (imminent). C. 105 new FTE jobs in Big Lake Ind. Park East. D. Added $8,084,570 in industrial tax base; 135 % increase versus 2000. E. Added 235,300 sq. ft. of industrial space to the community. 6. Talk of expandina the Industrial Park A. City and Twp. have begun discussions to add 25 to 30 acres to I.P. B. Same type of agreements will be used except, uforever" will be . stricken from all agreements and a defined number of years will be inserted (20 or 25 years or longer with less sharing of revenue??). 2 . . . BIG LAKE INDUSTRIAL PARK EAST November 15, 2001 The Big lake Industrial Park East is unique in that it is jointly owned and developed by 8ig ~ake City and Big lake Township. It is believed that this is the first such cooperative venture and may be the only joint Township and City Industrial Development Project in the State of Minnesota at this time. FACTS )- Size: 72 acres, less 4 acres +/- of roadway for U.S. Hwy 10 )- Developable Land: 50.20 acres )- Cost to Develop: Approximately $800,000 )- Number of lots: 13 )> Expected Number of Jobs in Park at full development: 300 FTE (Full- Time-Equivalents) .> Expected Private Sector Investment at full development: $11 to $13 million 3 (il- GOALS ESTABLISHED AT THE ONSET OF THE PARK ;;'~;>~~~~f,. , ~,~:~~.':";; :,:::'.~~:&., <'~...\r=-. ::::-.., '.:": :::'~.,.:~:~::.\~~j:: ::":-.:.o:,!.=-, ..! . 4 -:! .' . . . HISTORY OF PARK DEVELOPMENT AND BUILD OUT )- 1996: Land Purchased by Big Lake City and Big Lake Township. )- 1999: Infrastructure Phase 1 (roads, sewer and water): installed in 1999 (serviced about 3 lots or 15 acres). )- Early 10/2000: )- Late 10/2000: . ). Early 12/2000: )- Early 06/2001: )- Late 09/2001: Ground Breaking for Project #1 : Landcor Project Big Lake Commerce Center I; 48,000 sq. ft. multi- tenant office-warehouse building featuring 10 bays for rent. Installed Infrastructure Phase 2 (roads, sewer, water, drainage ditches and ponds): (serviced balance of 10 lots or 35.20 acres). Ground Breaking for Project #2: AT ABOY Manufacturing, Inc. - 20,000 sq. ft. metal stamping and product assembly firm. Grand Opening of Park and Ground Breakings for Projects #3 and #4: Thompson 'Woodworking, Inc. 11,280 sq. ft. residential cabinet manufacturer, and A.J. Machinery, Inc. - 16,000 sq. ft. machine tool supplier and repair firm. Ground Breaking for Project #5 - Whirl Air Flow - 48,500 sq. ft office and production facility (manufacturer of material conveyance systems). Ground Breaking for Project #6 - Injection Mold Technology - 13,500 sq. ft. office and production facility (mold manufacturing). ). Projected 12/2001: Ground Breakings for Projects #7 & #8 - Landcor Phase 11 - 48,000 sq. ft. mulh-tenant office warehouse facility. JW Investments - 30,000 sq. ft. office & production for MM Precision Machine. ). Late 1 0/2001 : . 5 ,/-\ /, .'." \...~",. c m l'tl " :tI ~ ~ ~ .C::;~::::;;;""n J! _ -t ..,~ .,..... ~ ..' .: :'/,-:-:il;! i . / " . M.' ',: _._/4W" /; ~II , I ~. .... 1 ~'l' ..... .. ! . ... t II .:1 ill ~ If! n.! I I ~'I!I, -r ,1Ui "I .-,[1 . WT _ 1ft ". SE ". ""ol.:..~04' o ::c 0 rJ :e -.J! z "' ~. ::J .. I I I' I' I \ ___::I J... I ..::.-: ~ I ""~ I ::~ I )II I r> '_ If o "' CI) - CO) ::: m c ar -< -. ~b q- ~ i:' 4' i !" . . .. ~ ~ - = - ""i ... I~ i"- $OO"J1"11'" Hjii r- ei~!i ~ ! ~~ ~ o 2- 8OS.11" iIH;SU I:~"h !!i .. I ~o, oil' I till r ,. .. . tIJ G) r )> :Au m::O m Zl o~ C - Cl:Jz --l"J:5 :0:0 >-< r . u -Or- >:> :D ^--i m > en -; . ,.--" ;.-r . Ll) . Big lake Industrial Park East Projects Business Name I Lot Size , Building Size ~.J. Machinery I 3.10 Acres I 16,000 square feet ~ T A80Y Manufacturing I 2.20 Acres I 20,000 square feet J & W Investments I 2.30 Acres I 30,000 square feet LandCor Construction Phase I ! 4.10 Acres I 48,000 square feet LandCor Construction Phase II j 4.00 Acres I 48,000 square feet Thompson Woodworking I 2.00 Acres I 11,300 square feet Whirl-Air-Flow I 5.50 Acres I 48,500 square feet Injection Mold Technologies I 2.03 Acres I 13,500 square feet Totals , 25.23 Acres I 235.300 square feet Performance Measure . Goals Established at the Onset of the Park Jobs per acre: (5 acres) Land to building ratio: (4:1 sq. ft.) Developed Land Assessed Value: ($250,000/acre) Open Storage: (Not allowed) Years to pay back incentives: (5 to 6) Percent of building coverage on lots: (50%) Transportation Projects?: (None) Return on investment (approximately 17%) Current Status of Goals 4.2 jobs/acre 4.6 sq. ft. $320,435/acre None Not determined 21 .40% None Not determined . . ,.. $;16; OOO;OOQ"i St4,OOlY,OOO ~' $"1.2,OOCTiOOO r $10,OOOiOOO , ".: ir $8,-000,000" ~" ~$6~DT4,10a;, ." 1 .., (]) Wednesday, December 19, 2001 To: Ollie Koropchak - City of Monticello, Mayor Roger Belsaas, City Council members, Bruce Theilen, Roger Carlson, Brian Stumpf and Kent Herbst and City Planning Commission From Dick Van Allen - IDC SUBJECT: UMC Informal interview with director / manager Randy Hatcher concerning plant expansion. DECISION - No final decision yet - current location is neaotiating with three different municioalities concerning provision of utilities and sewer access. DECISION LOGIC - WifI be based on the availability of utilities and the total package offered. DEVELOPMENT NEED - need 60,000 sq, ft, options EXPAND - at current site on 47 acres owned by the family of the owner of the company. BUILD - Land need not determined -. Dick VA Opinion is that some adjacent land wifl need to be available for expansion and may not need to be part of the package. OCCUPANCY - need 60,000 sq, ft Monticello existing locations - H-Windows deemed to expensive to renovate to their use. Fay-Mar has not seen specifications- later deemed too smal1 First Choice - Ollie K wil send information. WHY ARE COMPANIES LEA VING MONTICELLO? I discussed the buyout consolidation of H-Windows, Fay-Mar and Right Choice. I still saw a quizzical expression on Randys' face. NEGOTIA TlONS - Edina - has need services across the highway and is not willing to cross the highway. Two municipalities are interested and have not agreed to provide services. Best estimates are that the municipalities wifl not be able to deliver service for between two to five years. Persons at the meeting anticipated It wifl take take five years to deliver needed services to this site.. GEOGRAPHIC LOeA T10NS ~ Monticello - principal impressed with the presentation and pro-industrial development attitude exhibited during site visit. Rockford and Buffalo are preparing information for consideration. Big Lake - was suggested by a member of the committee. (Note that Big Lake has an impressive 7 year record for converting undeveloped land into tax base. Details can be made available.) WORKFORCE CONSIDERA TlONS 10 % OF Vietnamese descent drive from St. Paul and not expected to drive or move further outs tate Employees who currently commute from St. Cloud would wellcome plant movement further westward. Randy Hatcher, Manger- now drives 2 miles to current plant accepts the possibility of driving to Monticello Workforce commutes largely from Western Hennepin and Eastern Wright counties The drive west on 94 in the morning would be not be tough because the commuter traffic pattern (inbound to the city) Any thruway quickly becomes Q large parking lot if there is an accident. ~ ..:Et.~ 00 jobs @ f20-/hour = $4,000,000. annually , . ~aL~p.-