Planning Commission Agenda 03-12-2002
.
3.
4.
5.
. 6.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday -March 12,2002
7:00 P.M.
Menlbers:
Dick Frie, Rohbie Snlith, Roy Popilck, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Ilerbst
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch and Steve Grittman
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held February 5. 2002, and minutes of the
specialtneeting held March 11. 2002.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citi7ens comments.
Puhlic Hearing - Consideration or a request fl.)r a 2X' variance to the sign ordinance height
requirement. Applicant: Joel Pettit/Amoco
Public Hearing - Consideration of approving concept stage. development stage planned
unit development: and consideration of approval of a conditional use permit allowing an
auto body facility and associated storage. Applicant: Progressive Development & Const.
Co. Inc./Shmvn Weinand
7. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request i(Jr a conditional use permit and concept stage
planned unit development fl.)r a multiple huilding business parle Applicant: Otter Creek.
LLC/John Chadwick and Jim Bowers
8. Public Hearing: Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow senior
housing as a conditional use in a PS. Public - Semi Public, 70ning district. Applicant:
City Staff
9. Continued Public Hearing: Consideration of adopting amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance relating to single f~1mily residt:ntial iot and development standards. Applicanr:
City of Monticello
10. Consideration of adoption of a resolution stating that the Hans I Iagen/Front Street project
is consistent with the cOlnprehensive plan of the City of Montieello.
.
- 1-
.
.
.
]1.
Consideration to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the TIF Plan j()[" TIF
District No. ] -29 conform to the general plans Jiw the development and redevelopment of
the city.
12. Consideration of a request for a 5' variance to the 10' side yard setback requirement Ii)!" a
retaining wall that exceeds 8' in height. Applicant: Gould Bros. Chevrolet/John
Michaelis
13. Consideration of changing the November 5,2002 meeting date to November 12,2002,
due to elections.
14. Adjourn
-2-
.
.
.
MIN UTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - February 5, 2002
7:00 P.M.
Mem bers Present:
Staff:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
and Council Liaison Clint Herbst
JetfO'Neill, Fred Patch and Steve Grittman
I . Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 8, 2002.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING IIELD JANUARY 8, 2002. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED
TilE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH CHAIR rRIE ABSTA[NING.
3. Consideration of adding items to the aQenda. None
4.
Citizens comments. None
5. Consideration of a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for two industrial
buildinl2:s totaling 187,500 square feet in an [-1 A Zoning District. Applicant: Allied
Properties and Manal2:elllent, LLC.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the statT report advising that Allied Properties and
Management, LLC is requesting approval of a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to allow the construction of two industrial buildings upon a 12.9 acre parcel of
land located west of Oakwood Drive between Interstate 94 and 7th Street. The proposed
industrial buildings measure 135,500 and 52,000 square feet in size respectively. The
subject parcel is zoned ]-1 A, Light Industrial. Grittman advised several types of retail
uses he thought would be conducive such as a showroonl and added that he anticipate that
with the layout of the facility as a warehouse type, it is compatible.
Grittman listed the adjacent uses and that the proposed use is compatible with existing
uses in the area, and that the proposed use is generally consistent with the provisions of
the City's Comprehensive Plan and the parcel is zoned fen light industrial. Also stated
was that the applicant was in compliance with the performance standards of the I -I A
zoning district as well.
-1-
Planning COlllmission Minutes - 2/5/02
.
The proposed development is to be accessed fronl the north via two points along 71h
Street, and to provide more efficient (and safe) ingress and egress from the site, (iritllnan
suggested that the two access points be relocated to align with Wright Street and Rarnsey
Street to the north. To be noted is that such realignment may prompt the reeonfiguration
or relocation of the proposed buildings. This issue should be subject to furthcr commcnt
by the City I~ngineer.
Off-street parking supply requirements relate directly to the proposed use of property.
The specific use of the proposed buildings has not been indicated. As a result a specific
off-street parking supply requirement cannot be determined. If the buildings arc to be
used for warehousing or the handling of bulk goods, a total of 346 off- street parking
spaces would be required. Grittman added that with a total of 494 spaces being provided,
the ofT-street parking requirement for a warehouse-type use would be satisfied.
For service/retail type uses with 50 percent or Inore of the floor area being devoted to
storage, a dinerent off-street parking standard applies. In order to calculate the supply
requirement f()r such use. a breakdown of service/warehouse areas would need to be
provided.
.
As a condition ofa PUD the mix of uses, including level orretail use, will need to be
established. Also, as a condition of PUD approval. the proposed use will be required to
comply with the applicable off-street parking supply requirement. All off-street parking
stalls and drive aisles have been Cound to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of
the Ordinance.
Griltlnan advised that the proposed site circulation system was well conceived, noting
service and loading activities are confined to an interior truck court while
customer/employee parking is provided along the perimeter of the site.
Regarding landscaping, Grittman stated that while the proposed landscaping is considered
positive, it is suggested that additional landscaping be provided along the outside
perimeter of the two buildings. As part of the f(Jrthcoming Development Plan Stage
submission, a detailed landscape plan should be submitted which identifies the location,
size and variety of all site plantings, as well as preliminary elevations which specify
building heights, exterior design and finish Inaterials.
Grittman added that grading, drainage and u plans wi II need to be submitted as well and
that such plans will be subject to review and eonllncnt by the City Engineer. The City
Enginecr will provide specific comment in regard to the need for on-sitc ponding.
.
lhere has been no specific trash handling locations identilied on the site plan, and
Grittman advised that the City prefers that trash receptacles be stored indoors. Thcrefore,
a condition of PUD approval shall be that all trash handling equipment be stored within
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/5/02
.
the principal buildings.
In regards to lighting, the submitted site plan does not indicate exterior lighting locations.
As part of the forthcoming development stage PUD submission, specific lighting
locations should be indicated. Site lighting will be subject to review and approval by the
Building Ollicial who will certify that lights have been installed and per/l:)rJll according to
the lighting plan. Such certification shall occur prior to a certificate of occupancy being
issued.
Cirittman stated that the sign plan submitted shows tour freestanding signs proposed upon
the subject property (two along 1-94 and two along 7tl1 Street). According to the
Ordinance, two signage options exist for buildings within 1-] A zoning districts.
While sign details have not been provided, concern exists in regard to the location of two
of the freestanding signs. The sign near the 7tl1 Street access point is shown to lie within
public right-of-way while the sign in the southeast corner of the property is shown to lie
within a drainage casement. While the PUD could potentially allow for some l1exibility
f(xm the sign ordinance provisions, signs in these locations are not acceptable under any
circumstances. As a condition of PU D approval, all site signage will be required to
comply with the applicable requirements of the sign ordinance.
.
Chair Fric opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was then
closed.
There was discussion regarding aligmncnt of the building with the street and it appears
that the applicant would have to rcconfigure the building somewhat to accommodate,
although staIr stated they had not yet discussed this with the appl icant. It was again
stated that the parking appears to meet city standards and there were no concerns from
adjoining residents. Grittman stated there is no anticipation for any problerns, and stated
that actually there would be fewer considering that there might otherwise be something
with a higher volume of trucks allowed in this area. Staff does ask that the applicant
address some screening on the east and north sides.
Chair Frie asked what would be some possible issues with this plan and Grittman stated
traffic would possibly be an issue, although it would be more automobile traffic versus
truck, stating that Seventh Street will definitely becOlne a busier street. O'Neill advised
that a pathway has just been completed along Scventh Street, as well as resurfacing the
Street, which will also help.
.
Richard Carlson asked about the two areas shown for loading docks and would that be
sufficient to service the entire structure. Grittman felt that what they are anticipating is
not so much large truck loading but lllore at-grade loading.
.,
- _,-
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/5/02
.
Frie again stated the concern with the proposed signage in the public right-of-way and
asked ifthc applicant had been contacted to resolve that issue, advising that it is not
acceptable. Grittman statcd he is not sure how the applicant will respond as they have not
yet been in contact.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITI I TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
TIlE CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. BASED ON THE
FINDINGS THAT 'THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING LAND USES IN
TI-IE ARI':A, SATISFIES THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S USE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WITH APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING AND ARCIIlTECTURAL DESIGN, AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. A discussion of level of retail activity needs to bc identified and determined to
be within the intent of the I I-A regulations.
b. Prior to Development Plan stage approval, the following plans are submitted:
I. Landscape Plan
2. Grading and Drainage Plan
3. Building Elevations
.
c.
The two access points along 7'11 Strect be relocated to align with Wright
Street and Ramsey Street to the nOI1h.
d. ^dditional plantings be provided along the perinleter of the proposed
buildings.
e. ^" oft~street parking supply requirements of the Ordinance are satisfied.
f. Trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal buildings.
g. Site lighting be subject to review and approval by the Auilding Official who will
certify that lights have been installed and perform according to the lighting plan.
Such cel1ification shall occur prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued.
h. Applicable signage requirements of the Ordinance are satisfied.
I. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to access,
grading, drainage and utility issucs.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED TI IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
.
-4-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/05/02
6.
Puhlic Hearing,: Considcration ofa rcquest to alnend the Sinl2,1e Family Zoning Districts hy
chanl2,ing: lot sizes. sethacks. and performance standards. Applicant: City of Monticello.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the starr report. noting staff had previously
suhmitted material related to a ncw zoning district known as the R-l A District as well as
changes to he discusscd relating to the existing R- I District and another ncw district
known as the R~2A District. Since the time that thosc ordinances wcre first discussed, the
City Council declared a moratorium on the construction of certain homes that would he
affected hy the proposed zoning changes, and an open house was held to receive
comments from huilders and dcvelopers in thc community.
The open house was wcll attended, particularly in regard to the rnoratorium. The
conllnents receivcd at the open house broke into those addressing the moratorium
application, and those addressing the ordinance changes. Grittman and O'Neill provided
a summary of those comments and supplied copies of the Council report and comments.
Essentially, concern was expressed that the housc size requircments were ovcrly
restrictive, and that thc City would be compromising its housing market and affordability
by adopting the changes. In general, stair's response has been that the objective of the
changes that have been discussed was to increase val ue, and raisc the level of housing
construction that has occurred in the cOlnmunity over the past ten years.
One of the consistent issues raised by the housing being built is that due to design and
small size. families move into housing that does not accommodate growing families.
StalThas observed that few, ifany, or the recently built neighborhoods have seen building
additions to expand livable space. Instead, bmilies choose to buy other housing as they
move up in space needs. 'I'he concern is that the move up market is locating outside of
thc area, affccting both the City's housing stock and the School District's cnrollment.
Grittnlan summarized what the three proposed districts were initially designed to
accomplish as well as providing some concepts that werc developed after meeting with
staff and from the open house, and provided the criteria for these concepts. Ilc stated that
thc minimum squarc footage and total finishable square footage 01'2,000 raised the most
concerns/comments. Staff tried to accommodate the city's housing needs for entry-level
by creating a R-2A I':oning district, adding some standards, while also being f1exiblc in
regard to set hacks, which would still enable people to build aff()l'dable housing and have
the housing be of a higher quality. In essence this would be trading lot size for
development cOsts. Another concept was to require that all new subdivisions be reviewed
and considered hy the city to increase the level of design amenities rathcr than just
cnginecring bctors as they wanted aesthctic amenitics as well such as natural arca
prcservation , enhanccd ponding. and paying more attention to the edges of these
suhdivisions.
Grittman provided inf()l'mation on the existing R 1 district standards as well as the
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/05/02
.
proposed standards. He advised that a lot of the standards used an averaging concept,
trying to lit in sonle flexibility allowing developers to deal with existing topography, save
more trees, ete. Facade requirements would have brick and stone minimum requirements
for R-I and R-I A. Chair Frie asked if the City Council had asked for a minimum of ] YYo
briek LlCades and O'Neill stated that this was proposed by the Council but was not
initially proposed by stafl and this was also discussed with builders at the open house.
O'Neill added that the Planning Commission could add this into the ordinance
amendment if they wished to, but that it was not originally put in. There would also be
additional landscaping requirements in the R-2A district due to smaller lot sizes.
.
O'Neill advised that the Planning Commission was provided with eopies of all the
comments received at the open house as well as prior to this meeting. He added that
projects which were already in progress that had at least 15% brick fronts, 3 stall garages,
and at least 960 sq. ft., could proceed. He also stated there were conllnents regarding the
required building sizes where some felt that they may not accomplish the city's goal of
higher value homes just because they arc larger. Some also felt that the new standards
would cost more than what people can aHemi. O'Neill stated another question was where
would the R-2A districts be placed, and he stated this really is a future question but that it
would eventually become an issue. O'Neill felt that most agreed that higher amenity
areas should be preserved. Also, there were no objections to R-2A district with smaller
lot sizes. It was also suggested that an average square l()()t minimunl be caleulated in the
R-l district, but from a staff standpoint it would be too difficult to regulate.
Chair Frie stated he it was necessary to define al1emiable housing, entry level housing,
high density, and upscale housing. I Ie felt that afTordable housing should be called work
force housing. Grittman stated there really was no definition for upscale housing. He
stated what they have tried to use was a working definition 1()r what he and staff all entry
level housing and this is defined as housing in the $150,000 price range. Grittlnan stated
this was what it would take to get into a house in Monticello. O'Neill added that these
definitions were not based only on dollar amounts or locations.
.
Herbst questioned the number of developers coming in with a home that would cost
under $150,000, stating that is the reason for the entry level housing term. O'Neill
advised that staff is concerned with having a balance of housing stock and the need few
preserving higher amenity areas f()r upper end homes, while at the same time having the
R-2A standards in place to maintain al1()l"dable housing/entry level housing. I Ie also
advised that f()r work force housing there are projects already in the place to provide that
level of housing therefore maintaining a supply of work force/affordable housing.
Dragsten asked if a development's housing would be split up to ref1ect these different
districts and Grittman advised that this would be done prior to developers coming in with
proposed projects. lie also added that our ordinance docs not set up a set of criteria fe)r
PUJ)'s and there is not much objective material, therefore the reasoning for the R-2A
district.
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/05/02
.
Richard Carlson asked if currently the majority of the homes being built rneet the
standards of 1200 sq. ft. and O'Neill stated that there are sonle that are having difficulty
in meeting that size such as in the Groveland area. These standards may slow down the
building there, also there aren't many amenities in that area, therefore the City Couneil
stipulated that the homcs with 960 sq. ft. minimums, along with the other standards
requested. could proceed. O'Neill added that they eould gather additional in1<.mnation
regarding size requirements from other communities. He stated that staff felt having the
larger size homes may keep people in their homes longer. r lerbst stated that he felt from
a City Council standpoint in regard to increasing sizes of homes, which he stated has
been a goal f(lr sometime. he feels that what they have been secing is smaller type hOlnes
this year in areas where they did not expect them. lIe also felt there should be flexibility
1'01' lots that do not have as many amenities and could have a smaller sq. n. home on it.
[7rie added that he would like to not f()cus on the Groveland development as there are
others in the city who have not met standards as well.
.
Robbie Srnith stated that some of the comments from the open house were to increase
curb appeal versus house sizes. Smith asked if the concern was that families were
outgrowing there homes and there was no step up housing for them to move into so they
leave the community to find that type of home. Frie stated that he felt that the school
district was using this as an excuse and it is not correct as there arc not developments in
the City sitting empty. O'Neill added that at the school board meeting they stated that the
kindergarten class size was smaller for next year and class sizes overall are less. But.
O'Neill added that on the census data it statesjust the opposite. Grittman summarized
that basically the 960 to 1100 sq. ft. hOlne is really a two bedroom home, and once the
second child is born, they are moving out to a largcr honle and if Monticello docs not
have i 1, they rnove out of the communi ty. Roy Popi lek asked Stall if an average house
built today, without a finished basement, is 1200 sq. ft.. and stated that perhaps the 960
sq. ft. minimum is still the right size as they still have the lower level to finish if they
cannot afford to buy a larger one. Frie agreed with Herbst in that the criteria of these
areas, whatever the City Council adopts, should be l1exible and that over the course of a
few years could be adjusted. O'Neill also added that about 35% of our housing stock is
rental and apartments, stating this is really the first attcmpt at adding upscale housing.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Ray Anderson, resident of the Monticello Village
Apartments. stated they sold their house in anticipation of buying a smaller home. He
asked if a basement was required on a 1200 sq. n. house and Fred Patch stated no. He
also asked if the 3 stall garage is the minimum standard and Patch statcd that it was.
Anderson then asked if there was a maximum size for a garage and Patch stated up to
1,000 sq. ft., and that there were other provisions in the ordinance as well. Anderson did
add that the house hc wanted to build would be approximatcly 1200 sq. f1, with no
basement, and he would be comfortable with these standards, however he felt the City
was driving younger people out as they could not aff'ord to build herc. Patch advised that
application of the new R I standards in the old town or original plat, deserves some
-7-
Planning C::ollllnission Minutes - 02/05/02
.
review. Renewal of our downtown area is what stail would like to see as well, with some
tine tuning of the standards as well as grandfather clauses.
Robbie Smith questioned the number of people looking for step-up housing, what is the
percentage of people already living here in entry level housing and then moving up, and
do we have an over population of starter homes. lie also felt there are more new people
moving in to these new developments versus people moving around within the city.
Smith stated he felt we have enough affordable housing such as in Cardinalllills and
Klein Farms. As a general rule, new people are moving into these entry level homes
being vacated by people Illoving into step-up housing, or into new developments with
larger homes.
Chair Frie asked Mike Cyr, MLC Building and Remodeling, about building a 960 sq. ft.
house requiring a 3 car garage, and Cyr stated he felt people would not build that slllall of
a house and have a 3 stall garage. Cyr added that he is not opposed to the proposed
standards. Smith asked if we were to leave the R 1 district asit is, would we still need the
R-2A district. Cyr added that his new development would fit an R-2A and feels there is a
legitimate need f()r this district, and that it helps to provide work force housing.
.
Richard Carlson advised that according to the current R 1 standards someone could build
a 600 sq. ft. home and only iinish a certain amount of it, and it would meet the
requirements.
Roger Paulson of 6499 Fallon Ave NE, asked about the proposed locations r()r the R-l ^
district being in the township and not the City, and how docs this work in regard to the
annexation process. who determines what is to be annexed into the City. O'Neill stated
that the process for annexation if driven by a developer and/or property owner and that
they look at the comp plan first and then decide from there. The city does not determine
when or where annexation occurs, but in the planning process, stall identifies in advance
what these areas would be zoned. Larson asked if annexation happens in pockets or is it a
continuum, and O'Neill stated in the past they have annexed in pockets, but in recent
years it has been more of a progression. It would have to be contiguous to the City due to
the cost of extending utilities which would make it almost impossible to annex those
areas further out, and traditionally it has gone from inside the city, out. O'Neill also
added that in the Monticello Times there was an article stating Pelican Lake as an area for
R-] ^ and that it is not staff's intent to go out that fllr. Frie stated it is not the intent of the
City to jump out that Lu f())' an R-] ^ district, but that the City needs to plan for this in the
future. C,rittman also advised that this could havc stemmed from a map that starr had
been using which may have shown these areas further out, but this would be 20+ years
from now.
.
Dave Klein, D. Klein Construction, stated he thought the plan was a good idea regarding
R-2A, but he does feel the R-I A standards may be a little too hard to build at this time.
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/05/02
.
lie leels it will take time to build to those standards. lIe states the battle for him to get
customers to Monticello is that thcy have to spend a little more, building permit costs are
a l~lctoL although he has not looked into neighboring communities to see what their costs
are. lIe also agreed that ralllblers are an issue, as he could not get someone to build a
2000 sq. ft. rambler not including a basement. He stated the R-I standards works fiJr
hin), he does agree that we need an area for R-1 A in Monticello, but he gets very few
customers in that price range. He also stated taxes have an impact.
Chair Frie asked about the roof pitches and both Cyr and Klein stated that is all they
build. Popilek asked if the 1200 sq. ft. standard would scare some buyers away and Klein
stated that it would work with using the R-2A standards, stating he mixes his housing and
makes them fit and that brick frontages is always part of his building. Patch asked Klein
if the 1200 sq. n. minimum requirement with 2000 sq. ft. finished is a problem, and Klein
stated he would like to see the minimum be 1100 sq. n.
.
Kevin Lee, Princeton resident, added that he agrees that the rambler situation needs to be
looked at. He felt 1200 is a big jump, especially someone coming in to town or staying at
entry level. the 2000 sq n would be too much. He also questioned the setbacks in the R-I
district. (/rittman added that the 10 n rear set back is in the R-2A district but there is
flexibility in that standard. Herhst added that mayhe a standard to look at is the potential
of 1000 sq. n. finished with potential for up to 2000 sq n.
Denny Nelson, Progressive Builders, stated the square footage is a concern as most of
their homes are in the] 000 sq. ft. range and are selling for $150,000, and that they have J
stall garages, brick fronts, and are seeing the average homeowner staying f()I" 5+ yrs and
finishing their basements. He feels it is too much of a jump in the R-1 district and that
actually the 960 sq. ft. is su1licient.
Robbie Smith states that the real issue is that in the R-I there is no f()Undation size
minimum stated in the ordinance. Patch also added that possihly tradingl200 sq. ft.
finishes with 960 sq. n., and 15(/,0 or more brick on the fi'ont. would be an option. Smith
stated he felt that 960 sq. ft. finished, 2000 sq. n. total would seem acceptable and Nelson
stated he felt that would work for them.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There was further discussion among the
melllbers and statT with Popilek adding that while he is pleased with the work hy staff
and Grittman, he still felt that the 1200 sq. n. mininmm was too much and he felt more
comfortable with possibly 1100 sq. ft. Also the need to address the rambler issue.
.
Dragsten felt 1200 sq. n. finished would not achieve the objective of having larger
homes, and possibly 960 sq. ft. in addition to garage, people could build on frorn there.
He also felt the requirement for a percentage of brick/stone should be worded differently
to stated other types of materials that would be acceptable such as decks or porches, and
-9-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/05/02
that SOI11C types of homes would not look right with brick or stone on the li'ont. Ilerbst
stated that staff probably would not want every home in the city to have brick or all
developlnents would look the same. Some possible wording was blending of Inaterials,
stating no one material can take up t070o;() of the house in the R-l district, garage size
should remain at 450 sq. ft., noting that in the R-l district the garage size up to 700 sq ft.
would be Llirly large. Garage location was also an issue with Dragsten.
Carlson also had a concern with the rambler situation, also adding that there should be
flexibility regarding the 1 Y% brick standard such as front porches. There may have to be
an architectural review process for those that deviate from the required standards.
O'Neill stated that possibly the Planning Commission could give staff better direction
and then Ineel again, but Chair Frie stated he would like to make a decision now. Herbst
advised that the moratorium did not stop building and the intent was to stop more small
homes being built in the areas where there are larger homes already.
There was further discussion on the standards fiJr ramblers, possibly a rarnbler that was
slab on grade would have a minimum requirement of 1200 sq. n., but 2000 sq. n.
finishable on ramblers with a full basement. and a garage size of 480 sq. ft. minimum.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO TABLE A DECISION ON THE
SINGLE rAMILY ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS, PENDING STAFF REVIEW,
UNTIL THE MARC'H 5.2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD
DRAe,STEN SECONDED TIlE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
7.
Consideration of calling for a public hearinl2. on an amendment to the Zonin!! Ordinance
allowing senior housing as a conditional use in a Public/Semi-Public District (PS).
Applicant: City Staff
Jeff 0 'Nei I L Deputy City Administrator, provided the stafT report stati ng that it had come
to staff's attention that the PS Zoning regulations do not provide f(n development of
senior housing which was intended to be possible in conjunction with church
develoPlnent. St. Henry's Church and associate St. Benedicts, was developed sometime
ago in the PS District. and amending the code by allowing senior housing in the PS
District will result in an ordinance that matches what the city has allowed, as well as
enable other church campuses such as Resurrection Church to develop senior housing on
their property.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO TllE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING
SI':NIOR I lOUSING AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN 'n II.: PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
DISTRICr. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED TI IE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimously.
-10-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/5/02
8.
Consideration or calling for a public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Map re-
zoning the John Lundsten property. as identified on the attached map. from 1-2 to B-3, I-
I, 1-1 A. or a combination thereof
JctT(),Neill, Deputy City Administrator. stated that this property, known as the
"Lundsten" property, is currently located in the 1-2 district. It consists of about 15 acres
bounded on the north and west by B-3, and bounded on the south by 1-1 A properties. If
one reviews the type of uses allowed in the 1~2 district, it appears that 1-2 zoning district
at this location is out of place. The types of uses in the 1-2 district arc not compatible
with B-3 uses, theref()re in the event an 1-2 was developed in this district it could result
in a devaluation orthe adjoining B-3 parcels.
City Staff requests that the Planning Commission revicw the zoning designation of the
Lundsten parcel and consider calling for a public hearing on a potential zoning map
amendment.
The Planning Commission asked if this was a request by the property owner and O'Neill
advised that it was not. and that this was being done as part of preparing for future
developn1ent.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
ON REZONING or THE LUNDSTEN PROPERTY, AS 1))I~NTIFIE)) IN THE
REPORT. rROM 1-2 TO B-3, I-I, 1~IA OR A COMBINATION THEREOr. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED TilE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
Consideration of calling tl.)r a public hearinl! for an ordinance amendment clarifying rules
governing temporarv signs displayed in residential districts. Applicant: Citv Staff
Jeff O'Neill advised thc Planning Commission that the current ordinance governing
tell1pOrary signs (40 day permit) is written in a manner that does not expressly prohibit
such signs in residential districts. Theretl.)re businesses such as Servicemaster and West
Side Market. which are in residential districts. are not expressly prohibited from
displaying temporary signs. Lawful noncontl.1rming businesses in residential districts
sign systems are currently only limited by thc code provision that says such uses can not
expand.
O'Nei II stated that staff has cnforced no temporary signs at Servicemaster under this
limitation. StatTbelieves that the ordinance should be amended to more directly prohibit
temporary signs in residential arcas. He also stated that staff had been in contact with
Servicemaster and asked them to remove banners. West Side Market is not in
compliance. Frie asked Patch how they would deal with non-compliance and Patch stated
there is a process fix this. Some of the members didn't havc a problen1 with temporary
signs for these businesscs on a main street. Popilek asked what would happen if the
-11-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 02/05/02
Planning Commission did not call f(Jr a public hearing and O'Neill stated that they would
have to deal with it on a starr level. Frie stated that without the public hearing, he felt the
Planning Commission would vote it down.
Carlson asked about permanent signs in residential neighborhoods and it was stated that
daycares were allowed a certain size, 2 x 2 andllerbst added that it is actually a State law
that allows daycares to have signage.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO DENY CALLING FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE CLARIFYING
RULES CiOVERNING TEMPORARY SIGNS DISPLAYED IN RI,:SIDL.:NTIAL
DISTRICTS. ROY POPILEK SI.:CONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimously.
10.
Scott Dahlke PlJD, Morning Glory Development.
.Jeff O'Neill stated there was a problem with the Morning Glory Development in that
when the Planning COlllmission approved the plat they missed that the driveways were
too close together. They have asked the applicant to change this, but there is a small
encroachment when pushed back 5 feet. Staff is asking the Planning COlllll1ission to
accept this modification as it is a PUD. O'Neill also stated it does not create a problem
with the school.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION
OF THE DRIVEWA YS IN THE MORNIN(J GLORY DEVELOPMENT. RICIIARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MCrrION. Motion carried unaninlously.
10. Richard Carlson then asked for an update regarding Danner Trucking and Herbst stated
that Rick Wolfsteller had sent a letter. stating there is a problem with the applicant, but
that they are making progress. It is a legal matter at this time.
] 1. Adjourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTL.:N TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT
] 0:50 PM. ROBBIE SMITI I SECONDED TI-IE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimously.
Recorder
-12-
.
.
.
Planning COllHnission Agenda - 03/12/02
5.
Consideration of a request f(lr a 28' variance to the si~n ordinance requirement.
Applicant: Joe Pettit, Buy Right Fuels Amoeo/BP (JG)
A. REI,'ERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Pettit is requesting a 28" variance to the 32' height limit designated fix a
pylon sign in the B-3 district adjacent to a Freeway or Expressway. The request
for the variance is in essence a request to continue the existing lawful
nonconformity in height standard allotted for the Amoco sign, currcntly at 60'.
The pylon signs height would rernain at 60' while the image on the sign face
would change from the ""Amoco" logo to the "BP" tradernark.
A property owner seeking a variance mustjustify that thc variance is necessary in
order to allow reasonable use of the property, and that there is a physical
hardship in meeting the basic zoning regulations. In this case, the applicant
argues that the use relics heavily on its visibility to interstate traffic, theref(lre
limiting its sign height to 32' will be detrimental to its business. The applicant
also thinks that limiting the sign height will hinder its ability to compete with
other competitors (Super America, Burger King) in the area, which have 60'
sIgns.
One of the main reasons Monticello set a height lirnit for rylon signs in its
zoning ordinance was to bring to an end the 60' high signs that have gone
up adjacent to the freeway. Monticello values its arpearance from
interstate 94 and in coordination with the comprehensive r1an, would like
to keep its small town look rather than the appearance ofa freeway, auto-
oriented community.
In limiting the maximum pylon height to 32'. the city made a conscious
decision to create nonconforming signs, which would ultimately be
brought into compliance. These signs include Super America,
McDonalds, Best Western, and Amoco. The intent of this decision to
limit signs to 32' was to accomplish two important things:
].) put an end to future massive pylons lining the interstate.
2.) give the city the ability to eventually bring the
nonconforming sings into conformity when presented with
circumstances such as this.
Staff understands the importance of interstate traffic to businesses, which
is why land with interstate exposure is so highly sought after. Staff
doesn't feel, however that land or businesses set back from the freeway
should accomplish its exposure through the heightening of its signs. A
variance is supposed to alleviate a hardship inherent in a piece of land but
not alleviate economic hardshir due to the fact that the use can't
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/12/02
accomplish its advertising the way it would like because its sign isn't high
enough.
Last of all. the motoring public is very Jlul1iliar with the Business
identification signs placed in the Right of way by MnDOl, which lists the
various businesses at the next freeway interchange. It is the view of City
staff that these signs do a sufficient job at telling the motoring public what
is available at the next exit ramp. Freeway oriented businesses such as
this should rely on this signage rather than huge pylons to note their
presence.
A. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Motion to approve the variance based on a finding that a hardship has been
shown wh ich justifies the granting or the variance.
2. Motion to deny the variance based on the finding that the applicant has
reasonable use of his/her property, that no hardship has been shown to
j ustity the granting of the variance, and that granti ng the variance would go
against the intent or the code.
3. Motion to table the action on the variance subject to rurther study.
B.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request f()r a 28' variance to the sign ordinance
requirement. Staff feels that it is the intent or the code to eventually bring all
nonconforming signs into conformity and that this is a chance to set a precedent
fl.)!" future handling of such decisions.
C. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Sign Photo
Exhibit [3 - Aerial Photo
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/12/02
.
6.
~pnsideratiol]of approving Conc~pt Stag_e and Development StC!ili!
Planned Unit D~veloPrnent for a mlJlti-tenal1t commercial bLJildingtotalil19
32,73_0~~re feet and 1J,330 ~quare feet comITIercialpuilding in a 1:3:-3
Z.ol]l!!RQistrict Applicant: progre_~_sive D~velopmEmt and GonstrLJction
Comp~!!y'-' (NAC)
~_REFE;BENCE ANDBACKGROUND
Progressive Development and Construction Company is requesting approval of a
Concept Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the
construction of a 32,730 square foot multi-tenant commercial building and 11,330
square foot mixed use building upon a 8.9 acre site located south of Interstate 94
between Chelsea Road West and Marvin Road. The processing of a planned unit
development is necessary to accommodate the encroachment of the use within the
abutting Marvin Road right-of-way and auto-repair uses within the multi-tenant building.
The subject parcel is zoned B-3, Highway Business.
Adjacent Uses. The subject site is bounded on the north by an existing light industrial
use, on the south and west by vacant properties zoned and guided for commercial use
and on the east by scattered commercial uses and vacant property.
. The proposed use is considered compatible with existing uses in the area.
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is generally consistent with the provisions of
the City's Comprehensive Plan that suggests commercial use of the subject property.
Zoning. The subject parcel is zoned B-3, Highway Commercial. To accommodate the
placement of a portion of the development within the Marvin Road right-of-way and
auto-related uses upon the property, the processing of a PUD/Conditional Use Permit is
necessary. Section 22-1 (D) requires the Planning Commission to consider the possible
adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The judgment of the Planning
Commission must be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors:
1. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan
2. The geographical area involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
.
.
.
PUD Processing. The processing of a planned unit development has been prompted
by a request for flexibility from a number of provisions of the Ordinance. Specifically,
the applicant has requested planned unit development to allow the following:
· The location of an off-street parking area within a public right-of-way (Marvin
Road).
· A 10 foot principal building setback from a public street right-of-way (30 foot
setback required).
· The allowance of auto repair facilities within a B-3 zoning district (typically
processed by conditional use permit).
The processing of PUD applications occurs in three stages; Concept Plan, Development
Plan and Final Plan. At this point, the applicant is seeking approval of the Concept and
Development Stage Plan which involves a general determination of plan acceptability.
Performance Standards. The development proposal includes three lots. Lot 1, Block
1, upon which a 33,730 square foot commercial building would be located measures 3.7
acres in size; Outlot A which overlays an existing wetland measures 4.7 acres in size;
and Outlot B which is reserved for future development of a 11,330 square foot "mixed
use" structure measures 0.5 acres in size.
The following table illustrates lot performance requirements of the B-3 zoning district
and the proposed development's compliance with the applicable requirements.
Required
NA
1 00 ft.
Lot 1, Block 1
3.7 acres.
730 ft.
Outlot B
0.5 acres
250 ft.
Lot Area
Lot Width
Setbacks*
Front 30 ft. 10ft. *
Side 10ft. 60 ft.
Rear 30 ft. NA
Nc)fes: Setbacks apply along tli-e perimeter at the development tor PUD
'Applicable to Marvin Road right-at-way
-.1.....
3 ft.*
3
NA
As shown above, the proposed buildings fail to meet the required 30 foot setback from
Marvin Road. Additionally, portions of the Lot 1 off-street parking area lie within the
Marvin Road right-of-way.
Outlot B is to be reserved for future development of an 11,330 square foot "mixed use"
building. While the premise of establishing the parcel as an outlot until such time as a
specific development for the property is ready to move forward is considered
acceptable, it should be noted that development of the outlot will require some
deviations from the Ordinance. Based on the submitted site plan, allowances will need
to be made for off-site parking and a zero lot line building setback.
2
.
Access. The proposed development is to be accessed from three points along Chelsea
Road West.
It should be noted that access to several properties north of the subject site is to be
provided within a driveway to be constructed within the Marvin Road right-of-way.
Access related issues should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer
Off-street Parking. Off-street parking supply requirements relate directly to the
proposed use of property. Based on the indicated use allocations, a total of 128 off-
street parking spaces would be required of the proposed commercial buildings as
calculated below.
"--."-..',,,.--...,..--...
Use
...-""..,.-...---
Retail/Service (Lot 1 Bldg) 1 space for ea
9,099 nsf feet of floor ar
~1_10 gsf x .~)________
Auto Repair (Lot 1 Bldg.) 8 spaces plus
20,358 nsf space for eac
(22,620 gsf x .9) feet of floor ar
_ _____ squCl~e feet
.-"".--'---
Requ
"., ,...,.. spac
ch 200 square
ea
---- .-
1 additional
h 800 square
ea over 1 ,000
...---".'... .,-..-
ch 200 square 5
ea
-.. .__n ..-..
S
.--
1
ired
es
-....-
45
Ratio
32
.
Subtotal - L. at 1 b.._ldg. .
" "',.
Retail/Service (Outlot B)
1 0, 197 nsf
(~1 ,330 gsf x_~____
Subtotal - Ou.tlct B bldg~
.. '" "'".
Total
1 space for ea
feet of floor ar
77
-.-
1
.-'."'--.---.'-"."'--.".
1
--.,.
28
With a total of 170 spaces being provided, the off-street parking requirements for the
proposed uses would be satisfied.
Recognizing that all off-street parking spaces are provided upon Lot 1, it is
recommended that cross parking and access easements be created and recorded with
proposed Lot 1, Block 1 to serve the off-street parking demands of the "mixed use"
building proposed upon Outlot B.
All off-street parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet the minimum
dimensional requirements of the Ordinance.
.
In terms of parking area circulation, a concern exists as follows: As shown on the
submitted site plan, a one-way circulation route has been proposed on the north and
west sides of the Lot 1 building. While the one-way route within the service area is
considered acceptable, the one-way route within the westerly parking area is likely to
present an inconvenience. To avoid such inconvenience, it is recommended that a two-
way circulation route be provided.
3
.
Also to be noted is that the two building area summaries for Lot 1 provided on the site
plan are not consistent. Whereas a total "mixed use" allocation of 10,120 square feet is
identified on the building illustration, a total of 10,110 square feet is listed in the
summary table. This should be corrected.
Building Orientation. As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed Lot 1
commercial building is to be located along the northern boundary of the lot 1, directly
south of the existing pond.
As presently sited, the building's loading area would border the wetland and be highly
visible to passersby on Chelsea Road West. To provide a more aesthetically pleasing
appearance from the roadway (and better exploit the wetland as an area amenity),
consideration should be given to relocating the building to the east side of the property
along Marvin Road. Existing Marvin Road would then serve as an "alley" of sorts for
commercial development to the east and west.
In response to the cited building orientation concern, a design alternative has been
prepared. The design alternative attempts exploit the nearby pond as a site amenity
and screen service activities by locating the building on the eastern half of the property.
It is hoped that such alternative can be used as a reference in the preparation of an
improved design concept.
.
Auto Repair Activities. According to the applicant, 22,620 square feet or 69 percent of
the multi-tenant building is to be devoted to auto-related uses. While the B-3 zoning
district lists auto repair and outside storage as a conditional use, such activity can be
accommodated by the processing of the planned unit development and need to be
handled individually via a conditional use permit.
Loading. As noted previously, the Lot 1 building loading area is located on the north
side of the structure, south of the existing pond. While there appears to be ample area
for the maneuvering of service vehicles, the loading area is visible from Chelsea Road
to the north. As a condition of PUD approval, the loading area should be screened from
view of the adjacent Chelsea Road right-of-way.
A loading area for the future mixed use building on the southern portion of the site has
not been depicted at this time.
Landscaping. As shown on the submitted site plan, a variety of plantings have been
proposed on site. Generally speaking, the proposed landscape plan is considered well
conceived. To add visual interest to the proposed buildings however, it is suggested
that some plantings be added at the perimeter of the proposed Lot 1 building.
.
Marvin Road. Considering the long-term function of Marvin Road (to provide
secondary access to minimal properties), the encroachment of a private driveway is
acceptable provided a specific license to allow such encroachment is issued.
4
.
.
.
As a condition of PUD approval, the applicant should receive permission from nearby
property owners regarding the proposed use of Marvin Road.
Building Materials. According, to the submitted building elevations, the proposed Lot 1
building is to be finished in a combination of materials including rockface block, single
score block, EFIS and glass. Building colors have not been specified. All proposed
building materials have been found to comply with ordinance requirements.
Building materials associated with the multi-use building will be addressed at a future
point.
Building Height. The proposed Lot 1 building measures 25' 4" in height and satisfies
the maximum 2-story height requirement of the B-3 District.
Grading, Drainage and Utilities. The submitted grading and drainage plan and utility
plan should be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer.
Trash. Trash handling/recycling locations are proposed on the north side of the Lot 1
building.
The City prefers that trash receptacles be attached to the principal building or stored
indoors. Therefore, a condition of PUD approval shall be that all trash handling and
recycling equipment be attached to or stored within the principal buildings.
Lighting. In accordance with PUD submission requirements, a lighting plan has been
submitted.
The Ordinance states that any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public
street may not exceed one footcandle from the center of the street.
Site lighting will be subject to review and approval by the Building Official who will certify
that lights have been installed and perform according to the lighting plan. Such
certification shall occur prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued.
Signage. According to the submitted site plan, a 448 square foot pylon sign measuring
32 feet in height has been proposed along Chelsea Road West.
Additionally, wall signs have been proposed on the south side of the Lot 1 building.
The height and area of the pylon sign along Chelsea Road West is dependent upon the
speed limit upon such roadway.
According to the Ordinance, the maximum allowable sign area for anyone wall shall not
exceed 10 percent of the eligible wall area (a wall having street frontage) or 100 square
feet whichever is less.
5
.
.
.
As a condition of PUD approval, all site signage will be required to comply with the
applicable requirements of the sign ordinance.
Outside Storage. The outside storage area associated with the auto body operation is
located behind the auto body shop and some distance from Chelsea Road. It
represents a small percentage of the property and makes useable space out of the odd
shaped/remnant portion of the buildable portion of the lot. It will be surrounded by an
opaque fence as required by ordinance. The landscape plan also shows tree plantings
adjacent to the outside storage area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION~
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept and Development Stage PUD
subject to the following conditions:
a. A two-way circulation route be provided in the parking area west of the Lot
1 building.
b. Plantings be added at the perimeter of the proposed Lot 1 building.
c. Cross parking and access easements are established and recorded with
Lot 1, Block 1 to serve future Outlot B development.
d.
All off-street parking supply requirements of the Ordinance are satisfied
including parking associated with future development upon Outlot B.
e. Trash handling and recycling equipment shall be stored within or attached
to the principal buildings.
f. Site lighting shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Official
who will certify that lights have been installed and perform according to the
lighting plan. Such certification shall occur prior to a certificate of
occupancy being issued.
g. No outside storage on the site shall be allowed.
h. Applicable signage requirements of the Ordinance are satisfied.
I. A license is issued to allow the encroachment of an off street parking area
within the Marvin Road right-of-way.
J. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to
access, grading, drainage and utility issues.
6
.
k. Building area summaries for Lot 1 provided on the site plan are revised to
be consistent
I.
The applicant receive permission from nearby property owners regarding
the proposed use of Marvin Road.
m. Consideration is given to relocating the proposed building and parking
areas in a manner similar to that illustrated on attached Exhibit J.
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
· The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
· The proposal is compatible with existing land uses in the area.
· The proposal satisfies the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
· The proposal is consistent with the City's use of Planned Unit
Development.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept and Development Stage PUD.
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
· The proposed building and parking areas do not meet perimeter setback
requirements of the underlying B-3 zoning district.
. L STAfF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed project is generally consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Concept and
Development Stage PUD with the conditions cited in alternative action #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
-""'--'."-
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Vicinity
Exhibit C - Site Plan
Exhibit D - Landscape Plan
Exhibit E - Grading and Drainage Plan
Exhibit F - Utility Plan
Exhibit G - Building Elevations
Exhibit H - Floor Plan
Exhibit I - Lighting Plan/Sign Details
Exhibit J - Design Alternative
.
7
Outlot F, Grove/and
". ................... .. l '-"-" --.. . \
--.-----.--
-...---.....---..-
.......................................
"--.---. -------....
.'---"
.........
.....-
l
l .........
.'
----.
- ~-----.. -. .--.- ............ ..\
-------.
-~-
-'-"'-
--.'--
.....j..-....-.....-...---.
.~
-'---'-..
................-..-.-.-
.......
....."..,
-""
\
- / \
(l~1) \
< // \ ..........
.r'\,'/ .////\
L\\\~~:::::/// \
\/ .\ .... \
.....
\.
\........... ..,// ""
-."..--.........-.....
~................
."
..'
-.-----................
-.............
---....
l.....!.. .......-..........-. ...././/-'.>....'. '..'.. .......
." /,/./'.' . . / /)
.. .
.
..-...~...
...........
-)
J
-"-'-...1
--.
- -..------.. I
-- I
-.-.- I
-..-'-
......
- "1~:~~/""
--.....
- -~~=! /
- II
. 1,1
.
Pn>foseo\
lOC,.A.-hM
.
.
-
<
"""
~
NE
6 HAWTHO
7 MEAOO RNE PL N
WLA
~
~
...
~ 55362~
M~~TICELLO
ty,'.":;::
'.' '-.' .,,/
" '. ".:;;f
c
STNE
7500
/
o
8
C'\l
U
:E
:I:
@,
(-- . /\
I
I
I. Pelican
/, UJU
, '.,
\ .-
\ .
....,_.'<".. .~;
. -.. ..:
-. .. :--~j
,. J
.- .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC I-1EARINCJS
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City ofl'vlonticello
Planning Commission on March 12.2002 at 7 PM, in the Monticello City Hall to
consider the followi ng matter:
PUBL.IC f-IEARING: Consideration of approving concept stage,
development stage planned unit
development; and consideration of approval
of a conditional use permit allowing an auto
body facility and associated outside storage-
Location: Outlot F, Groveland Addition
Applicant: Progressive Development <.-~ Const. Co.
Ine/Shawn Weinand
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all persons
desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting.
Note: Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval or
denial of the City Council and will be heard on Monday, l'vlarch 25, 2002 at
7 p.m., at the Monticello City HaiL
I
I
F,'cd pa'cl;.-z/nit~ ~
.
.
.
II' HI )
:! ! P. :'j ~ r
III "I .,1 1'1 -
i' I ~fJ ~
~I' ~ .lil
8~~
.
~
.
~
~ ~~
11
~ ~
0
Q
~
~
~
~
....
~
=
Q
. ~
~
Q
~
~
.... &=
U
b
.
I ~
J
y
o
~
III
<lJ
~ "
>,:':
~ ~ c:
" :z E ~
"" c: "
:... tIJ ~ r=.. ~
" c:.- ~
:>{f.l(LJ~~>.::
2l:::::: 50:: dl :;:: ~
;:; () E '" '" III
t'Ll..-!.-t ............... c Q.) 0... Q) Q.}
"'0 0 ~ <1l ,...... '.... (J).... U 0
=: <lJ " ... S E c:l ~ ';e q =:
~:E~::E~~~~
c ~ ..... ........,:l "C..2 0
~:s~.: ~~;;~:......
's~8~ww~~~~~
>, .~
7,,~~:;:;
......_ IV ~
~ ~ :x:: ~
iii
"-'
=:
"
E
""
-S ~
<lJ
:> "-'
" =:
CI~~
.., 'in ~
=: <lJ III
~ ~ ;:E ~
=:
(J
--'
=:
<lJ
1j
....,
()
.;:
...,
III
is
o
1j
" " <lJ
q =: c:
=: 0 0
" N N
~
g iii '"' '"' c:
6 .;: ~ ..:
E ~ ~ ~ (l)
o ;:l ;:l " [IJ
u '" ~ ..5
'"
[I.l rn CI:j ........
::1 V1 f/) tI)
0:; {f.l Q.l IV
"0 ~ .~ ~
o rn ;::1 rt.I
,g~(n~
;; '0
~ <lJ
.r::....,
OJ) .~
.- q
Q.} ..::
Z....l
"'-
t'C co -;
'" q ...
..c:: .S ."l,.J
OJ) OJ) q
<lJ "
:J::oo:u
o
::l<:l!k Q<
O-(>.IMVC:-NN_(>.IMVU' (>.IV')
<<:l!<:l!<:l!<:l!<:l!~~~~~~u==_~
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
o
<(
o
a:::
~ 0 TLOT
""Ii> ROV ' AN 0
\ADDITI N
\
\
'-----.
-""
--- ----
EXHIBIT B - SITE VICINITY
..............
.
@ "' e. ""-- ..0" e
i m~~~~i~12~1;; ~
i gg~g<~!~~.~~.J~
~ ~~'S~~~~h.~.l~
~ .~s~i~/!jjjs~~~~~~
i h~ igtk~~~~i
~ .~ ~2~~ ~f,:h
~ !;I-:U 2J11'3i III )o.1"'T"il
~ @g ~~-i I ~li
. ~iI 8 ~ c.
! -; ~ 1
~ ~ g
~ ~
j
~ij~j:il~i!il; i
S~~~"~.~.h
~~:.~,,~. oRO
So~~ii=Eiic~il~
~~~~ \I~~~ . i
o."~~~~~~~ ~ !;
;!;I~iloig~S 1"1
~ ~o~ Q ~
ii~ ~H";~ ~
~~~ '~IS~~~ 1'\
~ ~ Ii ~~~c ~
~ ., ~ ~~~~ ~
~ ~ ~ !~i~ !
!; ~ ; "! f, I<l
~ " ~
f'l
ii:
~T
5l
"
Oc:;.
1:
0--"
..".
../"
" ,'- tltl\
. ~es"""
'"<~oo. "
o ^" .
3~\1l -.~., ." /
\ \\
\ \.<:;0..
\ \,?-
.,,-,,
[E] .~.~
~ \\~
'. ':~
: i~~mf~~~~~:XNmD~;
i ~~~~~;fg~~t~.~~~~
f, ~..n ~i~. "~~I~~
"~!~.- ~i.t.l~ ~~
~ 'E-~a~.g 2~2~... ~
i l'jjj~~~~~:I~~iJ.<ii ~
~ ~~~..~~22;~~'~6~~ ~
! .!2eg(: '~E~Ii~1i1i ~
: ,.~~~ s ~~d.~. ,
. ..~ '~ 0 ~!iO' "
N j~ I~ !. f,~~l .
~ ~~, ~~~ ~o'
i ~. H~ . ~
~ " ~ ~
j~~ ~! ~!m~~~: I ~ I
~; ~ i ~~~d~ !
II! iii A' ... ~~~
~ ~ ~ s
~~ ~ ~ ~
"~"I . "~O ~
o ~ " . 0 "li-
, j "0 . c~ I
.=~'o'Il' ~"~.~
~: . ~ m~~;~ ~
'~ I..
~.j ~
~
~
a
n n n Iz ::;:
c..o N _ ? ~
~
~
E1~;g!!:i' ~
::;: e: <:>;!! :.;:
'" = I ="
:g "" n ~
g; i>:" 3: ;::'! "'"
<:> - :: E5
;I E!! (D
;" ~
..
~ :g
..
'"" =
..
=
I \ 'I
~ I 'I
. , I
I , '
\' I I
!' I
[~ '
~
?
J>
L
o
~
'-"
f! ~
~'"
",<
'--. .,\..,
.".~.
"-'<'".,,
",
~......
........ '-,
"'..., "".,~.
~.'>.~
. ... '-
..:-.,.....'\,."
~~"..
~..,
'....... ..:""'~"'"'~'.
'~......., ''\.....
HW~
~~~~ 5
i'~~. ~
tO~~ 1"1
J'*;~ 0
~iii ~ ~
"
m ~
'l~ef
ill'
f~~; .
f:i~l
r~ h
. ~.
~f
j
.
........-
---
-\
\
\
\
~ ! m ~f r'- ." i .. lD I
;ii - ,.. f--if f ~ .J'
- o.a c I a
i! f I ~ !!ii '"
; i!I . g'... I! 3'
~ t!l~~ .., I: Ifi ~
~ ~ I i! ~.
'" l i r! Oil I f~
I f .~~fH ~. " ~
ii ~ ~~ I' T~f 1';-
:s ~ flu ~ ~i h~ l:r
~f~ .. ~ i~f II EXHIBIT C . SITE PLAN
~ ;, ~;l ;f~
~ ""
,
.
~
;
~ ~
~ .
. . g~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~
~
~
o
'"
z
"
~ z
:3
! ~~
"'.
"'"
m~
,
.
-, ,
+:~~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
(
!
~
/)
~~
; Ilif.
~(w~
elosaUUIW 'OIl,D!IUOW
~31N3:J ONV13^O~9
s2ulPIlnS pasodOJd
, ! Ii .
. . ); ~
j~. ~S~
i:ll~ ~:~
.~" ~B~
~.~ -"
j~~ J~H
.
i
n~
.0
" ~.
I ;~
~ ~ 'f.~
i Ii c~
~Hi
HM
." H
:~
. ~
OJ ,~~~
"' i_.~
~i ~.~:
~. :~~.
~~. :~~t
~~ ~~~~
~2 :JS~
- )
N~
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"-
"v/~
.
.
g ~
~ j
~ 8
~ ;
,
~
c'
z
i=
z
'5~
"-~
WO
w"
g=~
-
~
~
"
;; ill IR ...S~
i'i" ~ ~ ~ ~
'" I'l;., ... l'l........
~ . HI!
;~ n
~~ p
~H i nH
~ . i ; Ii r
z~ n
!d! p i ~
d i $
G ~ Wi l!l Ii " ~ ~
g ~ .. ~ N ~ ~ ~
"'~
-,
Ii
~ ~
f ~
: i .! ~ ~
j n ~ 8
z
<
~
..
.,
U
~
T--
-1
; " M~
H \-~-\ ~
__t~~\_=-__~Q~~ j
-7--1;;fi- - ~
J (-----j 3
a <)
iEu
;i~
w,
I_
H ~~ J ~
, ~ ~ L ~~-
~-\ ~--
~_ __" \____ __ ___u
1 ~- ~-:
~ i-"~
e 'r~i:
:ii ,~.il
<~
"
'"
'"
z
Z
~
co
::
i!
~
"
@
z
~~
t~
Lj~
"'~
L
EXHIBIT D - LANDSCAPE PLAN
!!~Jl~
l.~K I
.;i.
.'!I
~dii,
~ij.~
~:~91
~~ia.
;1f~1
h,i=
1!!j!I!!!il~f: Ii
I.~ddjht!!~i ~
'H~".,.!pi.
P~~~2'1! ~~,~
p~~!a'i~~;'~a
~p~~.q~'=i~
. ~!I.mi':!ii
1~Jhl~15..~
i~~~ ~1'!iH~
~ "j ~; '~i'i
.
~~ i~ ~~ no
q gi .' !~~.
~ t~ ,~ .'a~
I Ii h i!~i
i i i i I> I.
~ i!1 1m
! ; ~QH
" : im
~ p. a ~ ~
I l I ~
\
\ I
! r>-'
,
\ ---
\
%
~
0.
~
;=i
:>
z-
- CO
- "v, ,
nueilgilill~
~U~~~~ ~~ ~
i!~IHI!l6
= h~l!~~
. :i~~
"a"
~~ ~
II' ""'.
I if
....-: I-..'~ 1'< -: ;
108 ':; I
(0;: .~ i
I ! i
Ill.~ ;
I"~ :
rIll,:,
, c
~~J~Jlll I.! ~:J!li! !I~
i!.', I, jg!.s' ~ I i
~qi~i!1 i~l~;i !~ j!'
plii !l! ii! h ~!:,)!
~i!l!i~~ a.:..!jil Ii
~I'i~~ii 1~!~iI8:1 Ii
HhH!' ;t!j~'!' I,
;~!I"i~ j~~.!~~i ~~
3~IIJ~ l~ . i
i"i~: ~Ii I~'ai i
~ii'ii II! III:! i
,:;,!~ ia :iJH
'!~! ~ '!~ i !,.
B~gli'i' ':1 !~j9'
'r' I,. 'h~
ig i .~ a~.
~I'II~ 8; JSf~1
~ j!' ji
>. g
I i~ ~~~i:~I~'~:llt.fl'~ j Iii!' Ij!IU:
ii 1.~;5i.!!~:. .R~.~, I ,; ~!.. a~
I ~! ~ii,"'.iil'~j~E'~~ i ~ ~l i,"".
i II !ii!:i:i~!if!!!jiii j ii:i ;f!!if
! ~. :a l'a',. l'IBi.11i .~. ~J~I'
i .! I!~:fil'i~!!!f!i!~!i~ lii II:i:I;'
~ ~. ~j.., .11 ! /~.~. l,g ..ai
. !h. 8 .., "I' ...3,
,,~;\ ' . ~; , ~ "~
~~ ~~iJ' ~."lli !llfili:
tl i~ji! I!il~'i ~lj,.!I&
;. ~!'ii ii;;~!i i"~I~~J
!i !~;! I,!II~!; lii;!J'
I ~~I~ ji~l~ ill~'ij
~I :;~i ~!I"lj ~;i~!~!
!~ :;~~ .,!lll !;,I~il
il I,ll II I BI .h
! m Ii> i J Ii> i igo~ . I.'
i iiI ~ no I I~ '. I
f 5!1 , . CI ""
::J .. !Ii ::J Cil ~I !tEl ~-
... lr ~.
go I i.
f Cl n g,<li ~ ~, ~
Ii i!. .. CI Q ~o iti .... ~,
i r ~! ~ ::J ~ '!!!
~ .!
..
::i EXHIBIT E ~ GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
..
n ~ ::J
~ '.
n'Ujijnil~
UHildili 6
~~~~i ~U~~
~ m; .~!"~~
~ ~i!~-~
"Ii
~~
~
"
~!!im
~.!i"'!R
illl~ Q
~Mi
dliij
"'~~
~iil~~
1l~li!
;Wi
ihi-
Os
'0
i\\
rJ
".
:;':
'"
-y
~>;.-
'"~
'<>. .
'\0:-....
~\
",
~.
I 'I, ;"1
JrJ[ i >
'" ". ~~0.,
...... ~~.., ~
'~"""
f", ~:
..... -~:,
:>. ~>..}f
.....~':....,-=. . !..,....'::..'....~,
-..., ..~~.~~.~4- .
'-;:---
~T
:<l
..,
;:z::
mi~
!"~.
;ihi
~~&~J
e"I~
II!;I
>~i~
-!~.
I~~i
~~~!
;nl
" ~s~ii;; II ~~ .~; .;~; 'Iii 'Bi ;~i !i;; ,.i U! I;
~, !"i · a i~'I"~ ~ u 111 9~ d""; fa !l
ilf!~ := ~J i; d: p' I! ~;~i :ii 'ii i'l; f!:.! :
!~~&: ~!:: . ,;~ J'; ~i~ !ai 'i ';ii ;~ ~l ~
I~g; i 'I ~ no i ~ di ;'"1. i~. "Jl!! ~ i
~, i l ! .;, ~ ' ~t ~, K. Il"". " ~
~Ii ; -& 5' ~ f.~ . ~ l ~. .
i: j ~ l~ a f'~ i ~ 'I~ eli l~ :.I!I f I
d~ .!~ ~ '~l I ~ ! ~ C~" xl ~. i. I
~~'j - g: l .j~ , ; · ~ ~! II 0': Hi · .
~!:~ g '" ~ ISi ~ " il. n i. '! g
~~~J i ~ ; ~: .~ ~ '"
~.g ~ r
!~~~i ; u~ !~i ~ii~
.~m ~!! a~g li~j
K.~l. h. ~"~ S'~
~iif E~~'~ ~~f 'IA d
!;~, ~gg;~ ~'B ': 'I:
~~~~ '-'li ,g~ IE ;-;
~~~. :j:., ~I .1 fb
lei; ~!.r,."l ~r u
fi~: ~f;i; Ii i= ;ii
i i. lb.. IS ~~ l~!
t 'I~i"l ~I If S"
I
, ':i
iJ; Iii! ~
~'i "
Ii-! ~
i'~ 9
I!! !
jf ~
'g~ '"
g8i
I~~
~JI
:[[D
l!!
~ l~r,
fi
i Il~ ~ r J C) i r.if i j <;'
~ "
J ...... H ,.
I ~ i I! j ~
;; ! ... ;;0 ~I .J
;;0 I il ~ -.
:d~ '" f~ ~I
f I ~ J'
~~ ~! ~ot
h EXHIBIT F ~ UTILITY PLAN
,f j~l
3
~ !{ I lil
:- III ____
: ~Ii! ;h. ~ Ii ~
SII. ,.... u "6~ ~i~i;a 0 e10S;JUU!W 'OU;J::>!1UOW M
> ~~jl :~t J ~ I t~, ~ h ...
:; ~ ~j 1 lUll' }J31N3:) ONV13^O}Ja i ~ ~; < <(
;.., ! >
!t i,,:1 . ~ Jl ~U!PI!na pasodoJd H - ~ g ~
'U .~;f I I ~ t!~! H~
~: ~lj ~l hi, d I 0 0
.
!~.
; ; ~ g
d h. oil".
~ ~ d Ii
~ 00",__
i
~
.
~
"
--"
II
"
II
"
"
II
"
II
II ~
:: ~ ~
II... 15
f,h~
11 = ~g
II if! ~o!i
.~J J
'yo
II
'0
"
"
II
"
II
"
II
"
"
"
"
"
"
II
~
II
.~
II
"
"
II
"
"11
"
'"
"
II
"
II
"
II
"
"
"
II
"
"
"
.~
II
"
"
"
"
II
II
~
"
-"
"
"
"
II
"
"
"
-~
II
"
II
"
II
"
II
~
~
n
"
"
II
"
II
"
II
"
..
~
l; I~<
;' : ~,
~, ~, ~.
~ ~-~
.
o.
,:,
~ "
~"
z
o
;=
<(0
>'
w'
-"
w.
I.
~~
"
"
-,
II
"
II
"
II
"
"
"
"
II
"
"
"
II
II
U
-II
.~
"
~
II
"
"
II
"
II
II
"
"
~
"
,
III
"
~~~
,"
,-
~~
z
o
'"
~
0,
-:,
a
0'
~:, i<'~:'
_ "- ~
": ~' ~:
'"
~
.::;>
g
~
~~
~;
IO
~~
~::;>
g~
<(,
E;,.
~.
.....
j~
~>.
~ '
.-
~:
~::;>
."
II <
..~ ~i
:: ~~
II &~
1"1 J
..11----
n
II
"
II
"
"
II
"
"
II
"
"
"
"
"
"
II
"
"
"
"
"
"
-II
"
II
.~
II
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
II
"
"
"
II
."
U
"
"
II
"
"
"
"
"
II
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
II
II
"
II
"
"
II
II
"
"
"
II
"
"
"
--II
II
"
",
"
II
"
~ l<
,,' ~,
~~ b,
! ~"
(;
'"
<(
~
i!'
'"
o
"
"'::;>
EXHIBIT G - BUILOING ELEVATIONS
8111 ~: ~!!~ ""' ii, ~
:~ j~!1 ~ .;-1':
~i!i' " Q elosauu!I.~ 'olla:>!lUOW !
(L~ L.;i S"f =r ..c: I z > r z
~l..l . ~ i ~ N
,.~ iW Gm' !' ~~Jm ~31N3:J aNV13^O~D ~
i
~u ~ .ulell I . : r ~ '"
-'~ I, SU!PI!na pasodoJd 0 <(
. ~~ d. ~ u;~ : III .. B ~ ~
d j ~::;
~ c S ~
.(J-.'iI
~
~-::~-,.,~_."-
'~.------=-o~._----...;
. _o::DZ' .
$~
"0)-
, "
~
.
= GA.
~..
'"
5
"-
"'.
~ g,
-,'
....
>-
~~
_N
.
b
~
t!
.-- ""1
~C1 I
c::~ I
=-_.J
~
.- -.,
~~J
....
'..
'-
.~
~~
:.~ j~~ i
. ~.:.~~
.1
:h
~"<
8~:i
Ii
i<e
~----:Ul~~'
'"
5
"-
.
~
.~
~~
'!
~
~~
O.
"'-
o
u
tj~
_;:.i;-'~~~ i:lIg:'"
_N
.
EXHIBIT H - FLOOR PLAN
,-
r;: -,
lH!I! elosauulW 'olla:lllUoW Iff z::l
~ i i .:'i<
~31N3:) aNV13^O~9 ....... N
<JW
~ 0 l ~ ~o
sgu!pl!ng pasodoJd fiH~ G~ -'
~!ljH :J~
Jz
]
L--.._.___...
.O-.~i: ..,...
~
w
Cl
"
CO
VI
Cl
~ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<~
rn~ -:( < < -(
>u.j ~ ~ it z z
~u I-- r- f- ~ ~
lJ
.
Q
"~~ ii
p~ ~~$
:~i: I!, \ II J ;;: 0
a~!I~ .~: _--.:~ ~~~~ ~~~~
~~~ : ~\' !~~<
_L _ _ ___ _" u:nn_ _ "_ i u u __ _ __ _:"_n n ___ - n n n n"__,,: .- _.n gee.
r~~~-~-- -~--~~ . :~~ -;::;: ) i . C
I'? ,; ; I /i)~ ) --- '. -=~ ~,- --:,-.f' ---
/ Is;, IJ.LJLli4; / _ - v<J ' -=- =:. '- ~ ::-__
; ------------ ' ~<'/",) ?
I \ ----------..__ \. . Vi
/ '~" '. - ,
I '''~
I ~
I '
I
I
I
I
I
;
(
5
"-.
co:
"
r--
g~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
/
!
i
./
~-
i\Y
-~
l,
\
, \
'\
.
" /
'y/-" -_//'/-~.\
/// / ,\)
/' ,
"
~ i. ~
,~~~ ~.
Il.'~ P i
"~~! ~ ~
fg~I ~~ I
~~i~.~i'
j;~ii Ii ~
I i~M ~i i
~"~~~ L .
H"~. g~ ~
Hh~ d ~
- I'i..;
EXHIBIT I - LIGHTING PLAN/SIGN DETAILS
b"II.Z:'~"\I9~oII>!1 :.,,,.I;>....~.:I
.
POND
~
I
I
!
(
--~---!)'rr
!. 1 i
. , , 11
., .,,_...L,1-,.,~, ; '-. , I. _. , 1. ___
.
.- \ffiffiHfffH)'- .-- --r---' -- .,- '-_1
I' I
. --...., - . , j. .\.". '~. ~ ~
--.........
NORTH
1"=100'
.
\
I
\
\
c
0(
o
a:
z
:;
a:
0(
:i
I
!
!
1
I
I
\
I
1
\
f
I
!
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
EXHIBIT J. DESIGN ALTERNATIVE
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/12/02
7.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a re(lUest for a Concept Planned Unit Development
for Otter Creek Crossings Business Park Applicant: Otter Creek LLC. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Otter Creek LLC is seeking approval ofa concept fllJD for a 185 acre "business park"
project in the West Chelsea Road area between 90th Street and County Highway 39. The
area has a large amount of frontage along Interstate 94, and would include the platting and
construction of Chelsea Road. The primary land uses in the project are intended to be
industrial in nature, although a broad range of commercial uses are also proposed. To
accommodate the mix nf uses in the district, a rezoning to a Planncd Unit Develnptllent
District will be necessary. This concept revicw is the first step in that process. The City
Engineer is working on a design for Chelsea Rnad that would provide acccss to the
development. The individual site layouts would be addressed as potential tenant needs are
identified.
^ flU D Zone is basically the creatinn nf a new zoning district that applies only to. the site
in question. The applicant has identified three pntential subdistricts that the PUD zoning
would apply tn. The first is between Chelsea Rnad and 1-94, called "Area A" in the
concept narrative. Area ^ wnuld use I-I^ as its hase zoning district, but wnuld add a
range of commercial uses. In addition, Area ^ wnuld require building materials that are
more indicative of cnntemporary commercial and higher-end industrial parks by
prohibiting exposed metal finish buildings.
With regard to. the land uses, planning staff believes that the additinn nf certain
commercial uses could be cnmpatible in this area. Ilowever. the City should be aware of
potential competitive cnnflicts with nther comrnercial property. The Ilighway 25 corridor
has a substantial supply nf commercial land that has been identified for future
development based on its prnximity to residential customers and highway access.
Freeway expnsure serves, typically, a different clientele. Some 0.1' the uses proposed for
the concept plan would appear to create potential conflicts with other cnmpetitive
locations.
Specifically. Department or Discount stores, Off-sale liqunr, Banks, Grocery Stores,
Medical and Dental clinics, and amusement places would seem to have a more defined
trade arca. and be less likely to rely nn freeway traveler traffic. Convenience style grocery
cnmbined with motor fuel sales wnuld rely on fj'eeway traffic. but this Incatinn would be
quite remote frnm convenient freeway access. Planning staff would support the first seven
uses on the list supplied by the appl icant, along with day care centers which have a direct
business interaction with the employee base created by a business park.
Plann ing Com mission Agcnda - 03/12/02
.
Thc other uses noted above should not be located in this area. In addition to the
competitive location issue, those uses are typically high-tralTic commercial generators that
would be better located in areas that do not directly intermix with industrial traffic, and as
discussed. are not typically reliant on freeway exposure for travel~related customers.
One other item should be considered in this district. The 1-1 A District allows outdoor
storage by Conditional Use Permit. Because the intent of Area A is for high visibility
(presumably with high site acquisition and development costs). planning staff would
recommend that outdoor storage not be allowed in Area A.
"fhe second tier of development lies south of Chelsea Road, designated as "Area BOO.
Within Arca R. the applicant follows the I-I A District uses, and proposes to add Trucking
and truck service, concrete/asphalt plant and concrete products. and automobile assembly
and major repair. Obviously, concrete/asphalt plants would be located in "heavier"
industrial districts. Moreover, the high amount of outdoor storage and typically lowcr
level of sitc improvements, would seern to be inconsistent with the I -1 A concept.
Trucking firms commonly rely on large levels of outdoor trailer storage. Some trucking
firms have raised code enforcement issues f()r local officials when undelivered materials
accumulate on the site. Automobile assembly and repair can be reasonably clean use,
however. the City needs to regulate the storage of automobiles awaiting repair, and the
potential f()r accurnulation of parts orjunkcd vehicles.
.
In summary. the additions to the I-IA District seem to be out of character with the
remainder of the district. Automobile assembly and repair would be allowed if it were an
indoor activity. and outdoor storage would occur by the issuance of a specific permit.
Because this is a PUD District, the City would issue a PUD permit rather than a
Conditional Use Permit.
The south portion of the project are is delineated as "Area C". This area is held out by the
developers due to its proximity to residential uses l~lrther to the south, and the timing of
development. The applicants state that they prefer to wait until Areas Hand C have had a
chance to develop prior to committing to a specific use or development scheme in this
area. Area C should be platted as an outlot and the PUD development contract should
reflect this intent in order to preclude inconsistent development.
Procedurally, the City would grant concept approval to the area with the use and
performance standard stipulations tt)r the sub~districts. Next. a Development Stage PUD
would be considered, which would include a draft layout of the project, more detailed
sited clevelopment requirements, a draft PUD rezoning ordinance, and a preliminary PUD
development contract. At this stage, the area would be preliminary platted. Typically,
projects such as this would be plattecl into large, undivided lots which would later be split
.,
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/] 2/02
.
olT by simple metes and bounds descriptions when a specific user is identified. Each
individual site user would be required to obtain a Final PUO permit. Such reviews do not
require a public hearing, but typically would require ofTicial City review - essentially a site
and building plan review to ensure consistency with the PUD objectives. At Final PUD
stage, such issues as outdoor storage or other special considerations would be reviewed.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to recommend approval of the Otter Creek Business Park concept PUO,
based on a finding that the concept is consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. 'fhe Planning Commission should make specific recommendations
as to district land uses and performance standards at the Concept PUD level.
2. Motion to recornmend denial or the business park concept PU 0, based on a finding
that the mix of uses is not supported by the Comprehensive Plan and would create
conflicts with surrounding industrial uses.
STAFF REC'OMMENOA TION
.
Stall recommends approval of the concept PUD, with the conditions that the list of uses is
pared down from that proposed by the applicant (as suggested in this report). Because of
the high level of freeway exposure. the site is likely to provide the opportunity for higher-
end industrial uses. I ,imited mixing of industrial and commercial uses is positive due to the
interchange between commercial and industrial uses, however, the area should avoid
compctition with the City's other commercial property, and the inappropriate location of
high-traffic commercial uses.
SUPPORTING DATA
I.
2.
Applicant's Project Narrative
Site Plan
.
3
.
.
.
02/11/2002 16:44
9522490790
BIRCHLAND DEV. CO.
PAGE 02
OTTER CREEK CROSSINGS BUSINESS PARK
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Obiectives:
The Otter Creek Crossings Business Park is a large project (185 acres) and is intended to
fulfill the following objectives:
· Create an attractive extension and transition of uses in the high visibility 1-94
corridor.
· Provide the City of Monticello with a development plan that is flexible enough to
locate large industrial uses or smaller ones depending on changes in market demand.
· Extend the Chelsea Road frontage road concept to improve traffic movement between
Highway 25 and CR 39.
· Buffer existing residential areas (particularly Bondhus Addition).
· Locate infrastructure that will open up large areas for development beyond oW'
project.
· Protect and enhance existing wetland areas to serve as an amenity to the business park
and community.
Sub-areas:
There are three areas of the proposed business park that have unique characteristics and
we are proposing a Planned Unit Development to provide the flexibility to take advantage
of those unique characteristics.
Area A:
This area has superior visibility from 1-94 and is immediately adjacent to the existing
commercial businesses on Chelsea Road. Our goal in this area is to provide development
that has uses and aesthetic standards that are compatible with the adjacent commercial
businesses and provide a good image of the City to travelers on 1-94.
Although it is anticipated that the underlying zoning in this whole proj ect will be based
on the I -I A standards, we are proposing that building types in this area be held to a more
stringent design standard. Specifically, we would like to see the PUD eliminate the use
of exposed metal or fiberglass finishes in Area A rather than allow its use on up to 50%
of the wall surfaces. This will make the building design much more consistent with the
commercial areas to the east. In addition, we would propose that the setbacks in this area
be the same as in the commercial areas to the east so that there is a consistent "feel" and
massing along the frontage road and 1-94.
02/11/2002 15:44
9522490790
BIRCHLAND DEV. CO.
PAGE 03
.
Finally, in order to provide a softer transition of uses, provide conveniently located
services to future employees of the business park and to allow for expansion of the
rapidly diminishing undeveloped areas in the city that have highway visibility, we are
proposing that the following uses be added to Area A.
.
. Enclosed boat and marine sales
. Books, office supplies, stationery stores and copy services
· Furniture, carpet, rug, tile, glass, paint, wallpaper, hardware, and electrical appliance
stores
· Motor fuel station, auto repair, car wash, auto body shop, tire and battery stores and
servIce
. Machinery sales
· New and used automobile/light truck sales and display
· Motels, motor motels, hotels and conference centers
· Department or discount stores
· Off.sales liquor stores
. Bank
. Grocery store including convenience grocery
. Medical and dental offices and clinics
. Day care center
. Amusement places
Area B:
TIlls area has limited highway visibility and most of this area is buffered from the
developments to the east by a large wetland and the existing cemetery property. Our goal
in this area is to provide a flexible development plan that would enable the City to
develop a large industrial use or smaller users in response to changing market trends. In
addition, since much of this area is more remote with low visibility, it may provide an
opportunity for locating or relocating uses that the city might not want in a high visibility
area. One of the goals in this area was to develop a plan that quickly got truck traffic
onto Chelsea Rd. and highways rather than diverting it towards residential areas.
Since this area is not a continuation of existing developed areas, we are proposing that the
setbacks remain according to the I.IA standards.
The uses that we would propose in this area in addition to what is already provided for in
the I-IA are the following:
.
. Trucking and trucking service
. Concrete/asphalt plant and manufacture of concrete products
. Automobile assembly and major repair
~'
02/11/2002 16:44
9522490790
BIRCHLAND DEV. CO.
PAGE 04
. Area C:
The development in this area will need to be sensitive to the adjacent residential uses.
Given that the overall Otter Creek Crossings Business Park development is quite large
and will likely take many years to develop, we are proposing that this area remain an area
for future study to ensure that the interests of the adjacent residents are preserved.
Depending on the market conditions and development patterns at the time this area is
studied, we could see this area potentially ending up as an industrial development with
special concern for buffering and uses or even a mixed use development area that
provides some housing for the workers in the business park in addition to industrial
opportunities. We believe both the property owners and the City will be in a better
position to create the best standards for this area when we all have had an opportunity to
see the results of some of the earlier phases of this project.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/12/02
.&
Consideration of establishing: Senior HousinQ as a conditional use in a PS District
Public/SenJi Public District. A licant Cit of Monticello Planninu Commission (./0)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Planning Commission is asked to consider adding Senior Housing as a eonditionaluse in
a Public/Semi Public District as a housekeeping measure as it has been discovered that
this use is not identified in the PIS District even though we have allowed Senior Housing
in this district (St. 8enedicts). It is the view of the City Planner that Senior/Congrcgate
care housing was originally intended to be permitted in the PIS District. however it was
inadvertently let! out when the original ordinance was prepared.
Following are suggested conditions to be included in the ordinance relating to
establishment of senior housing as a conditional use in the PS District:
I. Setbacks fc)r Senior Ilousing related structures should meet the Ininimum standard
fl)f the district, or equal the height of the building, whichever is greater.
7 lhe parking lot must have direct access from a minor collector or collector road.
3. Underground parking must be provided at a rate of 3/4 spaces per unit.
4.
The development must be contained on an independent parcel. 30% of the parcel
must be preserved in green space.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to add Senior lIousing and associated conditions to the list of conditional
uses in the PIS District. Motion based on the finding that establishment of this
use and associated conditions is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and
consistcnt with the character and neighborhoods adjacent to PIS Districts.
2. Motion to deny adding Senior Housing and associated conditions to the list of
conditional uses in the PIS District based on the finding that the establishment 01"
this use and associated conditions is not consistent with the comprehensive plan,
and not consistent with the character and neighborhoods adjacent to PIS Districts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative I.
SUPPORTING DATA
Map showing all PS Districts
.
en
()
::J'"
o
o
+~
~
0-
:::-3:
c-). 0
.:c:
~~
3(")
-. PJ
~r-
0-0
:;. --
o'
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/12/02
9.
Puhlic Hearilll!: Consideration of amendments to the single family zoning standards.
Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. Reference and Baekl!round.
Attached to this report are three draft districts for the R-l, R-l A, and R-2A zoning
districts. They have been modified to reflect the discussion at the February public hearing,
including increasing garage size to 480 square feeL changing the R-I finished square
footage to 1.050 square feet, and adding language to require certain facade treatments in
the R-I district. The changes are highlighted on the summary table. also attached.
One other ehange relates to finished square footage for rambler-style units. We have
provided for a minimum of I AOO square feet of finished space in sueh units, assuming a
full basement or slab construction. The discussion at the Planning Commission meeting
focused on a building size of 1,200 square feet. Staff felt that a larger size should be
considered for two reasons. First. ramblers without walk~out basements do not lend
themselves to creating more livable finished space, so a larger minimum size seems
warranted. Second, 1,200 square feet would be the absolute minimum house size for a
three bedroom home. One or the objectives of this project has been to create houses that
bmilies could grow into. Third. a I AOO square foot finished rambler should cost out at
about the same as a 2,000 square f()ot/l.050 finished square fiJot split level, so the
ordinance would not be building in a significant cost-related bias for one style of housing
over the other.
8. Alternative Actions.
I. Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance amendments for the R-I, R-l A.
R-2A zoning districts, and the subdivision ordinance changes relating to plat
design and development, based on findings that the amendments will facilitate
more housing options, that afTordability will be preserved, that better
neighborhoods will result, and that the changes will have positive impacts on
school populations.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the mnendments. based on findings that the
changes will not have the desired impacts on housing and neighborhoods.
C. Staff Recommendation.
StafTrecommends the changes as submitted. We believe that the City's goal of expanding
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/12/02
.
the range of housing choice in Monticello is an inlportant onc fiJr the long-term hcalth of
the community, both econolnically and socially. As noted in many previous
correspondence, as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan, the lack of housing choice
results in families leaving the community just as they begin to accumulate some wealth and
because of children, begin to have a greater stake in the community and schools. While
this premise had been discussed as relating to more mature families, it is manifesting itself
even at the young family age group as the schools have seen declining enrollments even as
the City's population and housing counts increase rapidly. It is believed that the proposed
changes will help address some of the issues related to neighborhood quality, and
hopefully, lead to I~unilies staying in Monticcllo I(Jr longer tenures.
D. Supporting Data.
]. R-l Zoning District, revised
2. R-I A Zoning District, new
3. R-2A Zoning District, new
4. Summary Table of District standards
.
.
2
Chapter 6
. "R-I" SINGLI~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DIS"rRICT
.
.
SI,:CTION 1:
6-1:
6-2:
6-3:
6-4:
6-5:
6-1 :
6-2:
6-3:
6-4:
6A-5:
Purpose
Permitted Uses
Permitted Accessory Uses
Conditional Uses
Specific Performance Standards
PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R-l" single family district is to provide f(Jr low
density, single family, detached dwelling units and directly related
cOlnplementary uses.
PERMITTED USES: The following arc permitted uses in an "R-I" district:
---- no changes ---
PERMITTED ACCESS OR Y USES: The following are permitted accessory uses
in an "R-I" district:
n_ no changes - -
CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "R-IA"' District
(requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set f()rth in and
regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance).
- no changes ---
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: The fiJllowing standards shall be
made of uses and new subdivisions in the R-I District in addition to those that
may be applicable under other sections of the City" s codes and ordi nances.
lAl
12,000 square feet, average*. For any subdivision in an R-
I District, no lot may be less than 10,000 square feet in
area, and no fewer than 40% of all individual lots in the
subdivision shall be equal to or greater than 12,000 square
feet in area.
Lot area:
lBl
Lot width:
SO feet, average*. For any subdivision in an R-I District,
no lot may be less than 70 feet in width, and no fewer than
40% of all individual lots in the subdivision shall be 80 feet
or more in width, as measured according to this ordinance"
.
ICJ
Setbacks:
Front yard, 30 feet average*. For any subdivision in an R-1
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 fi'ont setbacks of 30 feet or more.
Side yards, interior: 6 feet 111inimum on the attached garage
side. total minimum setback widths for the two side yards
of 21 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.
ID I Building Standards:
1.
Building Materia]s. No less than 15% of the front building bcade
of any structure in the R-1 District shall be covered with brick or
stone. Any accessory building that can be seen /i'om the strect
shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades
covered by at least 700;() stucco or real wood may reduce the brick
or stone coverage to srYo. The Zoning Administrator may .lpprove
optional facade trcatments when additional architectural detailing
so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches,
cxtraordinary roof pitch or other features.
.
2. Garage size. An attached garage of at Icast 480 square feet shall bc
constructed as a part of any single family home.
3. Roofpitch. No portion of any roofofany structure in the R-I
district shall be less in pilch than 5/ 12, that is, 5 inches of vertical
rise fix each 12 inches of horizontal length.
4
a.
Building size. No single Llmily home constructed in the R-
I District shall bc built that does not consist of at least
1,050 square fect of finished floor space at the time of
initial occupancy, and 2.000 square feet in finishablc
interior 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.
.
b.
No rambler style home (whether full basement below grade
or slab-an-grade) in the R-l District shall have finished
11001' space of less than 1,400 square feet at the time of
initial occupancy, exclusive of garage space.
c. Basements that arc neither "walk-out" or "Iook~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 gypsLlln 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 urilhrnelic rI/ean, not the mediaN. For examplc, lot widths in a five lot
subdivision could be 70 feet. 70 feet, 75 feet, 80 feet. and 105 feet:
(70+ 70+ 75+80+105 = 400 feet, divided by 5 = 80 feet average lot width, \vith
4()l/,() of the lots (2 of 5) 80 feet or more in width).
.
.
Chapter 6A
. "R-l A" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
SECTION I:
6A-I:
6A-2:
6A-3:
6A-4:
6A-1:
6A-2:
.
6A-3:
6A-4:
6A-5:
.
Purpose
Permitted Uses
Permitted Accessory Uses
Conditional lJses
PLIRPOSE: The purpose of the "R-I A" single family district is to provide for low
density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related
complementary uses. The R-l A District is distinguished from the R-I 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.
PERMITTED USES: The f(lllowing are permitted uses in an "R-l A" District:
[A]
Those uses permitted in the "1(-1" District, under the same conditions as
listed in that district.
PERMITTED ACCESSOR Y lJSES: The following are permitted accessory uses
in an "R-l A" district:
rA] Those permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "R-I" District, under the
same conditions as listed in that district.
CONDITIONAL USES: The f(Jllowing are conditional uses in an "R-I A" District
(requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and
regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance).
IAI Those conditional uses as allowed in the "1(-1" District. under the same
conditions as listed in that district.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: The f(Jllowing standards shall be
made or uses and new subdivisions in the R-I A District, in addition to those that
may be applicable under other sections of the City's codes and ordinances.
IAI
16,000 square feet. average*. For any subdivision in an R-
I A District no lot may be less than 12,000 square feet in
area, and no fewer than 4()l% of all individual lots in the
Lot area:
.
IHI
lCJ
.
[DJ
.
subdivision shall be equal to or greater than 16.000 square
feet in area.
Lot width:
90 feel. average*. For any subdivision in an R-I A District.
no lot may be less than XO feet in width, and no fewer than
400;;) of all individual lots in the subdi vision shall be 90 feet
or more in width, as measured according to this ordinance.,
Setbacks:
Front yard, 35 feet average*. For any subdivision in an R~
I A 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 minimunl 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 minimunl 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.
Building Standards:
1. Building Materials. No less than 20lX) of the front building Ji.lcade
of any structure in the R-l A District shall be covered with brick or
stone. Any accessory building that can be seen fronl the street
shall meet this same standard. Structures with front Llcades
covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick
or stone coverage to 10%.
? 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 Ji.llnily 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 fl:Jr garage doors that face the street, but are set back
at least ten feet in back of the front bui Iding line of the principal
use.
4.
Garage location. No portion of any garage space may he more
than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the
principal single family use.
.
5. Roofpitch. No portion of any roof of any structure in the R-IA
district shall be less in pitch than 6/12, that is, 6 inches of vertical
rise for each 12 inches of hori7.0ntallcngth.
6. Building size. No single f~lll1ily home constructed in the R-l A
District shall be huilt that does not consist of at least 2,000 square
feet in interior finished floor area, exclusive of rnechanieaL garage,
or unfinished storage space. All such finished space shall he 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 tl10tage requirement. no building
in the R-I A District shall have a foundation size of less than 1.400
square feet, exclusive of garage space.
.
Basements that arc 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 heal,
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 stail1l:d, painted or covered with other
residential wall covering prior to occupancy.
* Averaging of lot area, lot width, or setback dimensions shall be considered to he
the arithmetic Il1eun, not the Inedial1. 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 feel, 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 I:
7A-1:
7A-2:
7A-3:
7A-4:
7 A- I:
7A-2:
.
7A-3:
7A-4:
7A-5:
.
Purpose
Permitted Uses
Permitted Accessory Uses
Conditional Uses
PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R-2A" single hilllily district is to provide for
mediUlTI density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly
related complementary uses. The R-2A District is distinguished from thc 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.
PERMITTED USES: The tl.)llowing are permitted uses in an "R-2A" District:
[AJ
Those uses permitted in the "R-I" District. under the same conditions as
listed in that district.
PERMITTI':D ACCESSOR Y USES: The fl)l\owing are permitted accessory uscs
in an "R-2A" district:
I A J Those permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "R-l" District under the
same conditions as listed in that district.
CONDITIONAL USES: The f()lIowing 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 I Those conditional uses as allowed in the "R-I" District, under the same
conditions as listed in that district.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANC[~ 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.
[Al
L,ot area:
7,500 square feet.
1131
Lot width:
45 feet.
rq
Setbacks:
Front yard, 15 feet.
.
Side yards, interior: 6 feet minimum.
Side yards, corner lots: 20 feet on tbe street side, and no
less than 6 feet on the interior side.
Rear yards, 20 feet Ininimunl 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 J Building Standards:
1. Building Materials. No less than 20% of the front building t~lCade
of any structure in the H..-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 ti-ont facades
covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick
or stone coverage to 101Yo.
!
Ciarage size. A garage of at least 450 square feel. attached or
detached, shall be constructed as a part of any single family home.
.
J. Garage frontage. From side building line to side building line of
any single fmnily 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 suhject
to this regulation. An exception shall be made for garage doors
that face the street, but arc set back at least ten feet in hack of the
front building line of the principal use.
4. Garage location. No portion of any garage space may be more
than the front huilding line of the principal single bmily 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 hunily 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
ahove 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 l11ay be finished, but shall not be
included in this calculation. To qualify as "finished", such space
must have heal, flooring such as carpel, 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 1 X 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 feel, I,ot area that is not covered by shrubs and trees
may be covered with lawn, gardens, and patios or decks. ^
landscape security shall be provided to ensure the landscaping of
each lot in accordance with this section.
Table of standards for sinqle familv zoning districts
Existinq R-1 New R-2A New R-1 New R-1A
. _ot Area 12,000 sf 7,500 sf, avg.* 12,000 sf, avg. * 16,000 sf, avg.*
ot Width 80 feet 45 feet 80 feet, avg.* 90 feet, avg. *
Front Setback 30 feet 1 0 feet 30 feet, avg. 35 feet, avg.
Side Setback - 1 0 feet 6 feet 1 5 feet 15 feet
House Side
Side Setback - 1 0 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet
Garage Side
Rear Setback 30 feet 1 0 feet 30 feet usable 30 feet usable
Roof Pitch none 5/12 5/12 6/12
Garage Size two cars 480 sf 480 sf 700 sf
House Size 960 sf 1,200 sf 2,000 sf 2,000 sf
Finished Size none 1,200 sf 1,050 sf 2,000 sf
Foundation Size none none none 1,400 sf
Garage Location std. setbacks no closer than std. setbacks no closer than 5 ft
front building line in front of front
of living space building line of
living space
Facade Detail none 20% brick/stone or 15% brick/stone or 20% brick/stone or
10% if 70% is 5% if 70% is 10% if 70% is
covered with wood covered with wood covered with wood
or stucco""*' or stucco** or stucco 'It*"
Garage Frontage none 50% of building none 40% of building
width if front-facing width if front-facing
Landscaping sod and two trees special require- sod and two trees sod and two trees
per lot in new ments for front per lot in new per lot in new
subdivisions yard landscaping subdivisions*** subdivisions***
*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 70 feet, 70 feet, 75 feet, 80 feet, and 105 feet:
(70+70+75+80+105 = 400 feet, divided by 5 = 80 feet average lot width, with 40% of the lots (2 of 5) 80 feet or more in
width).
**Zoning Administrator may permit substitute facade details for the brick and/or stone facade
***New subdivisions shall also be subject to new rules, including 1) internalized ponding, 2) preservation of natural
.enities, 3) additional depth adjacent to collector streets, etc., 4) creation of naturalized areas at perimeter of
..velopment, 5) additional landscaping along pathways
.
.
.
Plann ing COIl1Il1 ission Agenda - 03/12/02
ill
Consideration of a sketch plan feedback prior to application for a conditional usc
permit to allow 2round-tloor residential units in the CCO District. Applicant: Hans
Hacen Homes. (NAC/JO)
REFI.:RENCE AND BACKGROUND
Ilans Hagen Homes will be requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction
of a ten unit townhouse project along Front Street between Walnut and Locust. Prior to
submittal of the application, Hans Hagen would like feedback on the most recent design.
Thc project would consist of single level residential units facing the Mississippi River,
with rear-loaded garages along a private alley. The units are located near Front Street, and
the City.s objective has been to encourage an urban environment, both in site planning and
architecture. 'fhe site is supported by the adjacent Bridge Park, and has been targeted by
the City's HRA as a prime location for a part of its "North Anchor" redevelopment.
In the CCD zoning district, residential units are permitted uses on the second level of
buildings, and may occupy the ground level by Conditional Use Permit. Staff has raised
concern in relation to the project based on the nature of the proposed market and the
architectural demands relating to the residents. At one point in the development of the
design concept, the applicant had worked on two-story buildings with a strong vertical
appearance and relationship to the street. These units would likely have been marketed to
young professionals or farnilies. Ilowever, the applicant has stated that based on market
research. the only realistic market for units of this type is in the "empty nester" category.
Home buyers in this market demand single level units to eliminate stairs.
The change from two to one-story buildings has resulted in a dramatic impact on the urban
look of the project, and would change the social dynamics of the neighborhood. Staff has
asked the applicant to work on the architecture of the buildings in an effort to create
buildings that are noticeably distinguishable from suburban townhouse projects. The
applicant has indicated that he expects to have some alternative design concepts ready to
present at the Planning Commission's meeting.
The change also raises an issue with CCD District compliance. The zoning ordinance
states a minimum height of 15 feet for all buildings in the district. The intent of this
regulation is to accomplish an urban look to all areas within the CCD. The applicant's
design changes should address this standard.
Apart fron1 these use and design issues. the project otherwise appears to be consistent with
the Downtown Revitalization Plan, the future land uses in the North Anchor area, and the
neighborhood. One site planning issue relates to the location of Front Street which will
Planning Commission Agcnda - 03112/02
.
be reconstructed as a part of this prnject. Staff had encouraged the applicant to. cansider
small front yard spaces, and relate the buildings to the street, including the patential for
placing the buildings very near the street and sidewalk areas. 'rhe proposed design
appears to relocate front Street toward the river in an ef/e)!"t to allow deeper building
footprints (resulting from the change to single level units), and to acconul1odate grading
along the rear property line. However, there is some concern that the location of Front
Street may have pushed too far toward the river, resulting in some problematic
construction issues. These issues should be resolved with the City L':ngineer prior to linal
approval.
.
This project is also in the Wild and Scenic River area, and subject to Shoreland
regulations. lindeI' the Shoreland Area rules, standard residential density is required to be
12,000 square feet per unit. Staff has done a calculation that the development, when
considered in the context of the puhlie lands dedicated or acquired as a part of this project,
is at about 11,780 square feet per unit. I fowever, the DNR's Shoreland regulatians
include provisions that allow increases in unit density of more than 1.5 times the density
when the units are clustered and ather Shoreland Management ahjectives are met. These
include management of starmwater, minimizing the impact on the existing vegetation
alang the ri ver, among others. Stalr believes that this project is consistent with those
objectives, and as an attached project, complies with the clustering requirements of the
Shore land regulations. As such, the allowable density would be 8,000 square feet per unit.
The project is well helow this density requirell1ent.
AI_TERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to. recommend support of design concepts for a 10 unit town hame project
with the condition that the conditional use request modi/ies the architecture to. meet
the minimun1 height of the ordinance, and that street reconstruction issues are
resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Under this alternative the developer will submit an application Ie)!" a conditional
use permit to be processed in the April Planning cycle.
2.
Motion to recommend that the sketch plan is unacceptable and provide direction to
the developer accordingly. This alternative could be selected if the Planning
Comlnission believes that single level. ground 1100r residential use is not
consistent with the Downtown Revitalization Plan's emphasis on urban-style
development.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/12/02
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct Hans Hagen to procecd with
applying f()I' a CUP under the design as proposed, with architectural modifications as noted.
Additionally, modifications necessary to satisfy engineering concerns should he
incorporated into the CUP request. This area should he considered a prime redeveloprnent
site, given its location and views, and the City is I~lcilitating the project with a signilicant
financial investment. As a result any project should be made to demonstrate its full
consistency with the objectives of the Revitalization Plan, including the Plan's interest in
pron1Oting active, urban architecture and energy for further redevelopment projects in the
area.
SUPPORTING DATA
Aerial photo
Sketch plan
.
.
,.,
.)
.
.
.
11.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/12/02
Consideration to adopt a resolution findine th~lt a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 and the
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-29 conform to the general plans for the development
and redevelopment of the city. (OK/JO)
A. Reference and backl!round:
The Planning Cornmission is asked to adopt the attached resolution stating it finds the
proposed Tlf District No. 1-29 Plan conforms with the comprehensive plan of the city.
Proposed TIF District No. 1-29 is being established to assist the developer (Front Porch
Associates) with land acquisition for the development of 26 townhouse units. However,
the district will consists of 1 S townhouse units. Since a majority of the project area
included raw land and only one parcel consisted of substandard improvements, a Housing
District was created and not a Redevelopment District. The developer has provided
evidence of the "but for" test and has agreed to the income level requirements of a
housing district. For owner-occupied developments, at least 9SCYO of the units in the
district must be sold to persons at 100% of median income for a family of one to two
($74,700) and at 115% of median income f()f a farnily 01'3 or more ($85,905). Median
income under this provision is the greater of the statewide median or the county median.
Per the Contract with the HRA, the developer has agreed to a minimum improvement of
approximately 1.320 sq ft main level living space and an initial market value of $148JlOO
per unit. Construction to commence May 1, 2002 with construction completion of the 1 S
units by December 2004 and the total 26 units completed by no later than December
2007.
For this purpose, the Planning Commission is stating the TIF Plan fl)r I lousing District
No. 1-29 COnfl)fJl1S with the Comprehensive Plan: Land use, zoning, planned unit
development, density, housing standards, etc.
The Council will hold a public hearing and approve the TIf Plan on March 25, 2002.
B. Alternative Action:
I. Motion to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment project No. 1 and the TI F Plan for
TIF District No. 1-29 conform to the general plans for the development and
redevelopment of the city. Motion contingent on developer obtaining
development stage PU D approval.
2. ^ motion to deny adoption of a resolution finding ..............................................
"
.) .
A motion to table any action.
Planning COlllmission Agenda - 3/12/02
.
c.
Rccom mendation:
Thc TIF Plan having received preliminary approval by Council, the recommendation is
^ltcrnative No.1.
D. Supoortine Data:
Resolution for adoption and summary ofTIF Plan.
.
.
2
.
.
.
PLANNING COMM ISSION
CITY OF lVIONTICKLLO, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CENTRAL lVlONTlCELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I AND THE
TAX INCRElVlENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1-29 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council It)!" the City of Monticello, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to
adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and
a Tax Increment Financing. Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-29 (the "Plans") and has
subrnitted the Plans to the City Planning Cornl11ission (the "Comrnission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform with the
general plans for the developrnent and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: March 12, 2002
Chair
ATTEST:
i
<'
Secretary
.
.
.
A Ehlers and Associates
W Tax Increment Financing District Overview
.
'\,
....0,
'+
City of Monticello - Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-29
The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
TIF District No. 1-29. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF
Plan.
Proposed action:
Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-29 and
adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Redevelopment Project:
Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan Modification for the Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I. (Modification is to include the
project activities anticipated in Tax Increment District No. 1-29.)
Type of TIF District:
A Single-Family Housing District
Parcel Numbers:
155-010-084010
155-010-084080
155-0 I 0-0830 1 0
Proposed Development:
The District is being created to facilitate the construction of a owner-
occupied housing development that is to be purchased by families with
incomes below 100% to 115% ofmetropolitan-area median income in the
City of Monticello.
Maximum duration:
The duration of District No. 1-29 will be 25 years from the date of receipt
of the first increment (26 years of increment). The date of receipt of the
first tax increment will be approximately 2004. Thus, it is estimated that
District No. 1-29, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent
phases or other changes, would terminate after 2029, or when the Plan is
satisfied. Ifincrement is received in 2003, the term of the District will be
2028.
Estimated annual tax
increment:
Up to $37,045
.
\
"
I
.
.
.
TIP District OV€rvi€w
Proposed uses:
The TIF Plan contains the following budget:
Land/Building Acquisition .......................... $200,000
Site Improvements/Preparation .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25,000
Public Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75,600
Parking Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,000
Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425,000
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,000
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL ........................ $925,000
Interfund Loans/Pay-As-You-Go/G.O. TIF Bonds. . . . . . . . . 500.000
TOTAL FINANCING AND PROJECT COSTS ..... $1,425,000
See Subsection 2-10, page 2.5 of the TIF Plan for the full budget
authorization. Additional uses of funds are authorized which include
inter-fund loans and transfers and bonded indebtedness.
Form of financing:
Pay-as-you-go note, including an interfund loan and/or a G.O. TIF bond.
Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified.
Administrative fee:
LGA/HACA penalty:
The 2001 Legislature eliminated the provisions for a reduction in state
tax increment financing aid (RJSTIF A) or the alternative qualifying local
contribution.
Interfund Loan Requirement:
If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures from a tax
increment fund a resolution authorizing a loan from another fund must be
passed PRIOR to the issuance of the check.
3 Year Activity Rule
($-469.176 Subd. la)
At least one of the following activities must take place in the District
within 3 years from the date of certification:
o bonds have been issued
o the authority has acquired property within the district
o the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public
improvements within the district
The estimated date whereby this activity must take place is March, 2005.
Paq€ 2
.
.
.
TIF District Overview
4 Year Activity Rule
(9469.176 Subd 6)
After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the
following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the
District:
o demolition
o rehabilitation
o renovation
o other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and
water)
If the activity has not been started by the approximately March, 2006, no
additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the
commencement of a qualifying activity.
5 Year Rule
(f 469.1763 Subd 3)
Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must
be expended or obligated to be expended. Tax increments are considered
to have been expended on an activity within the District if one of the
following occurs:
o the revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the
activity
o bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are
issued and sold to a third party, the revenues are spent to repay the
bonds, and the proceeds of the bonds either are reasonably expected
to be spent before the end of the later of (i) the five year period, or (ii)
a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that
term under S. 148( c)( 1) of the Internal Revenue Code, or are
deposited in a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund
o binding contracts with a third party are entered into for perfonnance
of the activity and the revenues are spent under the contractual
obligation
o costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues are spent
to reimburse a pay for payment of the costs, including interest on
unreimbursed costs.
Any obligations in the Tax Increment District made after approximately
March, 2007, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments.
Poqe J
.
.
.
TIF D;str;ct Ow:rv;€w
BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT No. 1-29
Paq€1.f
it
0\
N
I
-
&-c
OZ~
~~~~
~~H-<
L.,UOf-l
~E=:~U
~zf;;:;
uo~o
~Cl~
~~
~
.
o
z
~
U
I-l
~
E-'
U)
~
Q
""
H.
E--<
fi .. ~I'-'" .. ...... .;.'.1.
- ).:,-.; ,.~~ .-
J':~".":"::-' ..4\~....
... ,.'." -' . . . ~'
-:--:,...... - ~ ';, " ,..,.-~ .\
~: :., ~...~, - ~ '\. _..-
.:\. t- ~ .~. ,
I ...-..JL:: i'.: . ' ,
~;,.. .: '.. .-' .... .'.(- -'.
J. _.. ~.;:. . ,
... '\
.....
!
_.....+
/..---
-
"
:: .:
, -=', - -: :i 7 .;: ~'I'''''~~ '
":;; \ ~
, t.. "
.. I
. ""I'" . .
~
.."
.~ 4~
.
.
....-:"'; .
. *;
--~
" .....
>..
"U
:J
-
en
..;,
:"l .
.. .I~
;=:::1
:l=~;
i=: Ii:
=:~JI'
...:.
:..:.:
Q :
-
a> ~
.() .E
--::
, :"t:/)
~.;
"g ~~
,N
"'01
:c
gu ..=.
i:tl ~.~:
c:
.0
ro
x
Q)
c
c
<(
c
o
2
u?~
>-
c
OJ
;-"'i:
!1-
o ::
'"
:. ?
" ><
"W
.
..
..
..
....
;::
.. ..
... E
Q..
E 0
--
- .
>
,....
... "D
- ..
ut:t:.
I ~
~
....
.
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-29
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minesota
(current)
~,.
. ._---..........-.-------:----~_. .
.......................
....-.-
I
"
"
"
'.....
..........,
",
.'.....
",
',-
--.--.
------------
---.
'.
-....
..w....
/
/
'...." j
...............
/........,............
,.'.............." ........, ~....,
............... . '.
........ -....~.......
. ..............
....
",
"...............,
t r -",
, Set """'"
....."
"
.....---
....,.
....,
Q)
.:F
",
....,
.....
......
............
.............,
"
........
.............
"
......................,.,
.~....-
'-.....
",
.'........,.
,
........
-......
.......~
!J1/
~
n, '....,
~ "'"
.!::-
~ /"-~",
.
"'70
"')
l'\1.r' ~
A
.....
"
.....'..............
..................
"
......"'-:-... - ............
....,,~,~, -:!I ~ e ~ '....,
....,'",., -", .,. ~ . "-\ l:l 0 ........,.....
", ",.c".......... ...................
". ........
'-~
E Q
CO
,::>0' t1
"'~'-
.,.... I
"',
",
'f. tl 1-
"" ,................
.................
'....
'---"-,
..-.
L"""""'" ..........".~....,.....,
--...... -'w
-. ---
.. '.---..
-------- .- -
---- --
.
.
.=.arr
.
.
N
!
~.r"
-
_....
,.fIdw;. _
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-29
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minesota
(proposed)
. I.r~.
"J 'S....:.l
/
..:infllinllll
'-~
&"JI. SltG:il1
'.12
SCALE; ,.. '" >O'-~-
....
:;:;.;:otr:";
~~-=.~
_..---s-::-......
s:~St...
....,....~,c:
~.....~IiJ~t -"'0
....
"""...".
':ir\t:;~
---
r'~"-
.
.
.
1b
Planning Commission Agenda - 03112/02
Consideration of a request for a 5' variance to the 10' side vard setback requirement
for a retaininl! wall that exceeds 8' in hei!!ht. Applicant: Gould Bros. Chevrolet.
(JO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
This item is being withdrawn from the agenda because a late revision to the approved
plan is being Inodified to conform with the original plan approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council SOlne months ago.
This item was originally placed on the agenda because the approved plan was modified
after conditional use permit approval was granted by the Planning Commission and City
Council. This modification resulted in a retaining wall along the eastern boundary that
exceeded Inaxinlum height and resulted in the loss of required live foot separation
between the drive area and adjoining parcel. Subsequently, the developer's architect and
engineer Inet with city staff and have successfully resolved the problem therefore this
item can be removed from the agenda.
No action requested
,
.
.
Plann ing COIl1Il1 ission Agenda - 03/12/02
13.
Consideration of changing the November 5,2002 meetim! date to November 12,
2002, due to election day.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission meeting date f()r November always falls on election day and
thereJiJre needs to be moved to an alternate date. The Planning Commission previously
agreed to move any meeting dates to the following 'fuesday of that 111011th.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to change the November 5,2002 meeting date to November 12,2002, due
to election day.
2.
Motion to change the November 5, 2002 meeting date to _
due to election day.