Planning Commission Agenda 06-04-2002
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - .June 4, 2002
7:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, R.ichard Carlson, R_od Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Ilerbst
S tafT:
.lefT O'Neill, Fred Patch, John Glomski and Steve Grittman
I . Call to order.
2. Approval ofthe minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held May 7, 2002.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for concept stage planned unit development
approval allowing a mixed residential and institutional use in the R-2 zoning district.
Request includes use of church building for church purposes and conversion of former
parish center into combination church office and rental housing. Applicant requests
tlexibility to utilize existing parking south of 4th Street or develop parking lot north of
church building on Lots 6. 7, 8, and 9, Block 28. Applicant: Church of St. llenry's and
Hope Evangelical Free Church
6. Public I-Iearing - Consideration of concept and development stage planned unit
development and preliminary plat allowing oiT-site sales and display associated with
principle car dealership use. Applicant: Gould Brothers Chevrolet
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for concept stage planned unit development
approval allowing a mixed commercial development in a B-3 zoning district. Applicant:
Glen PosLlsta/ Amax Self Storage
8. Consideration of adopting a resolution finding that a modification to the redevelopment
plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the tax increment financing
plan for TlF District No. 1 ~30 conf{mn to the general plans for the development and
redevelopment of the City.
9. Consideration of a sketch plan review for a residential PUO in a PZM District.
Applicant: Shawn Weinand
10. Consideration of applications for vacated Planning Commission member seat.
11.
Adjourn
-1-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - May 7,2002
7:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten
and Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Staff:
Jeff O'NeilL John Glomski and Steve Grittman
I. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm and declared a quorum. Chair Frie
advised that Roy Popilek would be excused at 8 pm due to prior commitments.
2. Approval of the minutes of the re!!ular Planning Commission meeting held April 2.2002.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
APRIL 2. 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
"
.J.
Consideration of addin!! items to the al!enda.
None
4. Citizens comments.
.
Dick Van;\lIen, IDC representative, wished to add discussion to item 13 on the
agenda - so noted.
.
Resident on Eagle Court in the Klein Farms Estate 2rd Addition had concerns "vith
landscaping in their development and approached the Planning Commission for
answers. The resident questioned if changes to the landscaping plans were
approved by the Planning Commission and Grittman advised that typically they
are, but some are considered minor and arc approved by staff. Resident felt there
\vere major changes and he had copies of the landscape plans with him. Grittman
advised he should meet with Fred Patch, Building OfficiaL and resident stated he
had done so but was not satisfied with answers.
O'Nl.:i11 advised the resident that this would not be the appropriate time to discuss
this matter due to the length of the agenda. Herbst stated that he felt the Planning
Commission should take a look at it this evening due to the time of the season.
O'Neill stated that he is aware of this problem with the developer, Eagle Crest,
~ 1-
.
.
.
and that he kit this would be too lengthy a discussion. O"Neill advised that there
is a question on the actual approved landscape plan and \vhat actually has been put
in. Chair Fric asked the resident to provide a copy of the approved plan to staff to
review and if it is not in compliance, could staff get this to the Planning
Commission and/or Herbst. and asked that it be put on the next City Council
agenda.
5.
Public I Icarim,!. - Consideration or concept stal!.e planned unit develoDment allowim'. a
sin!.!le 1~II11ih rcsidcntial development in the R-3 zonin!.! district. Applicant: Central
Minnesota Housin!.! Partnership and the Citv of Monticello
Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator, provided the rep0l1 stating this is the first
housing project the City is attempting to establish and they are working with CMI-IP. The
location is 6th Street and Minnesota St. O'Neill provided a brief description of the
proposal. noting that they do not have an exact design but are yvorking on that. Access
will be l'i'om behind the homes and he provided setbacks and approximate selling prices.
O'Neill also advised that they \vill be looking at TIF assistance and a reduction in fees
\vhich \-yould allow them to buy and develop the property. Building in significant
landscaping and architectural design that will add quality and character. affordable with a
quality look. Asking City Council to consider approval of the concept PUD and there
will be an opportunity at upcoming meetings to look at landscaping and building plans in
more detail.
Chair Frie opened thc public hearing. Dick VanAllen, 6448 River Mill Drive, asked
about setbacks and ho\v they compare \vith standard setbacks on comparative housing.
O'Neill advised that it depends on the standard. For this type of development with an
urban reel. 20' setbacks are appropriate. This development is attempting to make good
use or the land and starr reels the setbacks are ample. (YNeill added that by urban
standards they are ample. by suburban they are tight.
Ilearing no further cOlllments. the public hearing was closed.
There was further discussion regarding density. setbacks, as well as parking for residents
and \'isitnrs. O'Neill stated that they would be using Minnesota and 6111 Street roadways
f()r \'isitnr parking, adding that the roadyvay is quite wide and provides ample space.
Also discussed mning standards f()1' R-2A and Grittman stated that in regard to density it
is consistent but not in regard to lot size. Due to costs and with a TIF package. building
density is necess~lry, but the goal is to not do this at the expense of a quality
neighborhood. Chair Frie noted his concern with the partnership of the city. CMHP and
Sunny Fresh Fnods. Specifically he asked about the donation of money toyvard this
project from Sunny Fresh Foods and hO\v would they be involved. O'Neill advised that
Sunny Fresh has always had interest in the community in that much of their workforce
needs housing and this is the type of housing they need. Howewr, money contribution is
-2-
.
.
.
charitable ami bridges a linancing gap. but does not give Sunny Fresh any leverage.
O'Neill also stated that this extra money allO\vs for more landscaping as well. Frie asked
Ollie Koropchak h()\\ lilr along the city/liRA is in approving TIF and she advised that the
city council has given approval and they are just starting to prepare the actual TIF district.
Carlson noted his concern \vith landscaping and did not feel it ,vas superior. Smith noted
there had been no response from any residents or neighbors on this project.
A MOTION WAS MADF BY ROY POPILEK "1'0 APPROVE CONCEPT PUD BASED
ON TI-IE FINDING TIIAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT
WITH TilE COMPRFlIENSIVE PLAN FOR 'rHE CITY. THE DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL
NOT RESUL"f IN A DEPRECIATION OF ADJOINING LAND VALUES. ROBBIE
SMITH SECONDED TIlE MOTION.
'fhere was further discussion by Dragsten that density and lot widths should tl)1l0W the
R-2A standards. Chair Frie agreed and asked if this proposal gets us close to those
standards. and Grittman stated again that it meets density. but not lot widths. therefore the
PUD approach which allows tlexibility for a better project. It was noted that this is not
an upscale housing project. but rather an affordable housing project. It is actually zoned
R-3 where the code "vould allow much higher density such as apartments. After no
further discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Public Hearinu. - ConsiderJtion of development staue plmmed unit development and
annrO\al of preliminarv pbt. Applicant: Hans Hauen Homes
.JeIT (YNeill provided a brief summJry noting the plan that was submitted in the agendJ
pJckct is \'Cry similar to the approved concept plan which consists of 10 units with alley
senice ill the rear for parking. and that several ideas that were previously proposed hJ\'C
heen hrought into this plan. Some of the previous discussion included J cross section
bd\vecn the front of the building and the edge of the wooded area on the river side. The
current plan shows about 5' of space missing to make this a nice transition. He added that
they did not \\"Jnt to reduce the building size. but that did not work otherwise. The
Design Advisory Team looked at this item previous to this meeting and one idea they
suggested was to pick up additional space by reducing the road width from 28' to 24' and
run one-\vay traflic in that area which gives parking on the building side of Front Street
and \vould pick up enough space. Another option was to run the sidewalk next to the
curb, but this reduces the green space. O.Neill added that staff has not received
information from PJtti Flmkr of the DNR. although Steve Grittman stated he did speak
to her by phone and she did not have everything complete. Roy Popilck asked what
would happen if there was negative feedback from the DNR. but Grittman stated that it is
the City' s authority to grJnt variances in that case if necessary. although he did not see
this happening. lie kels that the density requirements have been met.
-3-
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hans Hagen. applicant, expanded on O'Neill's
report pro\'iding three proposals for resolving the setback issue. The first one shows the
existing street centerline which is exactly where street is now. Ill' noted that street vvidth
today is 26' and the proposal shows 28' which results in the street being 2' closer to the
river \vhieh pro\'ides for two driving lanes of 9' wide and two parking lanes at 7' wide.
With the proposed 2R' width it provides for 2-way trallic and parking on one side. but
causes the side\valk to be immediately adjacent to the curb.
The next proposal shows a 24' wide street which makes them able to achieve the initial
goal of 5' space from porch to sidewalk. 5' wide sidewalk and 4' of green space. This
plan allows fi.w one- way tranic.
Third alternative is to provide a street that is 24' wide, two lanes of traffic, and instead of
parking on the street there would be toe-in parking on the north side of the street so traffic
to the west would end up with 10 parking stalls. He stated staying this would be staying
out of the tree line and is roughly in the area of the old driveway for existing house.
Again. this gives them the ability to achieve 5' green space, 5' wide sidewalk and 4' of
green space to the curb.
.
O'Neill added that the Parks Commission would want to look at this plan with the toe-in
parking, and stated that if the were in favor of that plan they could work under a planned
unit development zoning, Steve Grittman asked if the third option \vas acceptable, his
concern \\iould be regarding snow plowing due to angle parking. advising that at staff
level they discussed the advantages and disadvantages of one-way traffic and the majority
felt it was accl..?ptahle. but there were some in opposition. Hagen stated he would be
com/()rtahle \yith either of the options.
Ollie Koropchak. Ewclltiye Director. ECOnOll1ic Development. asked from an HRA
standpoint. if they clwse option 3. who proyides the cost for installing parking. I--Iagen
stated he is not sure of thl..? cost but that in the initial plan it \vas proposed for a 28' street
width and actual square I()otage of the proposed parking space is about the same. or
within 2 leet. and also they \vould be saving blacktop vvithin 200 sq. ft.. probably
minimal cost of $ I .oon to $2.nOO range. Koropchak asked if curbing would be moved
and it was notl..?d that curb \\ould al] be reconstructed anyway so that was not a problem.
.
Herbst asked ahout the 1 0 parking stalls and would they be public or private. lIagen
statl..?d public. Tom l\loores. resident. asked if the City vvould still be removing snow
from that street and parking area. under the applicant's tirst proposal. stating that if it is
only 9' witk they can't plm\' and meet a car at same time. But he did stated that one-way
traffic would \\ork \\ith proposal one. O'Neill added that Public Works did question this
as well and that they t'clt it \\ould be good to maintain two-way traffic. O'Neill added
that staff \vas looking at this It'om a standpoint of parkways and walkways along the river
and that many timcs thosl..? are one-ways, giving it a park teeL stating one-way circulation
lelt like a good altl..?rnati\c.
-4-
.
Doug Snyder. resident. stated that he \vas given the impression at the last City Council
meeting that the city does not want concrete through to the curh due to safety issues.
O'Neill advised that that was one of the reasons \vhy they did not like sidewalks right up
to the curb. but that there is quite a difference between trafTic on Broadway and traffic on
Front Street \\hich was the discussion at the council meeting. O'Neill added that traffic
volume had an impact due to safety issues. Snyder stated he felt it did not have anything
to do with traffic. but with children on bikes and (YNeiIl noted it was to do with traffic
and that was the difference. Dick VanAllen. resident. asked if it presumes on-street
parking and Hagen stated there would be four parking spaces per unit. two covered and
two uncovered.
.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There was further discussion regarding one-
way traffic, proposed path north of Front Street, as well as the possibility of reducing the
width of the sidewalk. Grittman advised that reducing the width may make it too narrow
and also that the sidewalk created a visual edge and a separation between public and
private property. Carlson added that it may be confusing to change to one-way with
Walnut and Locust remaining two-way. Grittman stated the traffic patterns and how they
would circulate. Carlson stated that he would bvor maintaining road as a two-way,
perhaps narrow the sidewalk and move Front Street over to the NE corner approximately
2 ft to compromise. Dragsten prefers the one-way and likes diagonal parking along Front
St. also sidewalk could drop back and narrow. Popilek also liked the one-way but not the
diagonal parking.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT
STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING THE 24 FOOT STREET
WIDTH. ONE-WA Y TRAFFIC ON FRONT STREET. 5 FOOT SPACE FROM PORCH
TO SIDEWALK. 5 FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK AND 4 FEET OF GREEN SPACE, AND
APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED PRELIMINARY PLAT. MOTTON BASED ON THE
FINDINClS II IAT TI IE PUD [S CONSISTENT W[TH THE CHARACTER or TilE
ARL:A AND CONSISTENT WITI I THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried 4 to 1 with Richard Carlson
voting in opposition.
Roy Popilck \vas excused at 8 pm.
7. Public I-Icarin!.! ~ Consideration of a re(lUest for a conditional use permit allowin!.! a
convenience food store in the Central Communitv District. Applicant: Dennis
Archer/Domino's Pizza
Steve Griuman. NAC. provided the report stating that a downto\vn husiness owner had
written a concern regarding loading/unloading and parking on 8roadway. and Grittman
felt that with the condition that delivery and loading from alley. this would alleviate the
concern.
.
-5-
.
.
.
Chair hie opened the public hearing. Dennis Archer. applicant. stated that loading and
unloading tJ'om allcy\vay is anticipated, but for security reasons. after dark he would
prefer I'mnt entranee on Broalhvay for his drivers. not for semi deliveries. [t vvas noted
that the business is moving directly next door.
f !caring no further comments, the public hearing was then closed.
A MOTION WAS MADr.: BY ROB8I1:: SMITH TO RI::COlVlMEND APPROVAL OF
TilE CUP. B^SED ON T[-[E F[ND[NG THAT THE CI [ANGES TO TRAFFIC AND
DELIVERY PATTERNS ARE CONS[STENT W[TH THE INTENT OF THE
DOWNTOWN REVrr ALIZA TION PLAN AND THE CCD ZONING D[STRICT.
WITH TilE CONDITION TI-IA T SEMI DELIVERIES TAKE PLACE IN THE
ALLEYWA Y AND DELIVERY TO THE PUBLIC TAKE PLACE ON BROADWAY
ENTRANCE AFTER 8 PM.
There was further discussion on satety issues with most downtown businesses closing at
5 pm and the fact that it gets dark before 8 pm. CHAIR FRIE AMENDED THE
MOTION TO STATE THAT DELIVERIES TO THE PUBLIC TAKE PLACE ON
BROADW A Y AFTER 6 PM. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Motion carried unanimously.
8.
Public Hearine - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for concept staee
planned unit development allmvil1l! a residential development. Applicant: Brul!l!eman
I [omes
Steve Ciritlman provided the report. Chair Frie asked if the Planning Commission had the
opportunity to consider the location of the eastern boundary line. and if so. does the
eastern boundary I in!.." of the I'\'IO^A include this property and the Jensen property.
Grittnwn stated the lVIOi\:\ boundary was further east but it docs include the property
q Ul'S t i l1ned.
Chair h'ie l1pened the public hearing. Mike Gail'. MFRA. pro\'ided hackground stating
that the core of the 94 acres includes wetlands. also traversed by UP easements that run
!.."ast and west. as \vell as a Northern Gas line easement. Gail' advised that this was the
reasl1ning behind the proposed site plan. The central portion of the land is really the hub
and \\l1uld be surrounded by the development of properties. maintaining the two existing
homes. The northeast corner would be park land. helow would be one level twin homcs.
th!.."n south or that \\ould be the attached 8 unit two-story townhomes. and 33 percent is
open space. Gail' ad\'ised that thc greatest hcnefit is that the master concept designs the
three neighborhoods creating individual idcntity; landscape and building dcsign is taken
carl' of in the detailed {ksign.
Clair also advised of l\lnDOrs options regarding impact on either of the two options.
Th!.."y \\cre advis!.."d that ~ lnj)OT will inf()I'm them of their plan yet in 2002; also stated
-6-
.
that acquisitioJl of ROW \\ould occur in 2004, and in 2006 they would begin
construction. Sanitary se\\er study is complete" but they arc w-aiting for WSB &
^ssociatcs to compktc the water supply study.
Chair I.'rie stated that a concern of his is the issue with MnDOT and how can this project
move this forward without MnDOrs decision. It was noted that the property affected by
MJlDOT lics bct\\een 1-94. and includes 6 acres of woods. O"Neill advised that it is
zoned under ^-O and rc-zoning has to be taken up with the MOAA. as it is still in the
Township.
Frie questioned another property and who was preventing the sale it and Grittman stated
that no one probably is" but that the mvner may want to know what is going to happen
with the land bdl)re selling. O'Neill advised of the process the land owner would need to
go through, but that the city has not yet seen an application. City staff has no authority to
interfere with the sale and MnDOT cannot stop the process either.
O"Neill noted that the applicant may be taking a risk in proceeding with this plan. but that
this may get MnDUf to come up with a decision. Gair also stated that they have a pretty
good understanding of the timing and with that they have begun the planning.
.
Tom Moores, resident who owns property in the Township. asked if this particular site
was in the city or township and it was advised that it has not been annexed yet and that
the standard procedure is to review this prior to annexation. Moores also asked if the
to\\nship would have representation in this matter and Grittman stated that the city
provides a concept plan to the township and if it is successful with annexation, this gives
the township a picture of what is being proposed prior to annexing. They still need to go
through annexation process and then back to city council tl)f approval.
Moores also asked about upscale housing in this area as he was under the impression that
is \\hat the city had hoped Ill!". yet the developer is proposing t\\in homes and townhomes
in an area \\here they ha\e already started upscale housing. O'Neill stated that the city is
trying to encourage upscale housing but also does not exclude affordable housing, and
that the developer is trying to use density as a tool to add quality to the project. not using
it as a tool to put in less expensive homes. It is still up to the planning conunission to
decide if this project is superior enough for a PUD. Moores also noted that current streets
aren"t built to accommodate increased traffic, and I [erbst added that this was a concern of
his as well.
.
Ilerhst also asked about the tlmmda to figure density \\hen wetlands are involved and
Cirittll1an achised that he did exclude the wetland when figuring densities. Gair advised
the same. l'vlnores stated that his figures don't match up with staff s and he was also
cnncerIled \\ith the d(,\'i~ltlper putting the parkland were the power lines and gas lines arc.
O"Neill ackkd that these areas are not included in park land area. Gair clarified that the
area encumbered fnr \\etlands. gas lines and power lines nets an acreage of 70.14 and
-7-
.
density It)r this concept plan. of 28] gives them 4 units per acre. Gail' stated that this is
concept only and that they arc asking It)r feedhack. Chair Frie asked Gail' ifthc applicant
was \\i II i ng to prorate do liars versus ded icated areas in regard to park land and he stated
yes.
Moores then asked ahout sewer and water capacity and stated in his research with the city
he was told there would he a prohlem and the city would have to re-do some of the
sanitary sewer lines. Gail' stated that is correct. although the vvater supply has not yet
been determined. There are improvements that need to be made and they estimated
$1200 per acre. O'Neill added that this portion of the project drains to Ditch 33 and there
is the ability to shift the site away from there as well. Moores asked for a price range and
Gail' introduced Greg Schlink, Bruggeman Homes, who would stated approximately
$ 170.000 and they all would be owner occupied. Frie added that the new standards
would be in effect with this development.
Dick VanAllen. 6448 River Mill Drive. asked Gair about family size per unit average.
and it \vas stated the single family detached would generate 3.1 which is consistent with
Wright Co. VanAllen asked about the noise separation/buffer and Gair stated there will
heavy landscaping. herming. or fencing, something that would alleviate noise and be
visually appealing.
.
Keith Homes. resident on 95th Street. asked about Haug and Gillard being the only two
roads in and ouL he is concerned with traffic as it is already heavy on 95th Street.
Concerns were noted.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There was further discussion on the MnDOT
issue as \\ell as the possibility of the developer working with the DNR to create a more
enhanced wetland, stating this vvould be a recommendation of the planning commission.
CJair advised that therL' are wa:s to accomplish this hut they have not gotten to that point
yet.
Chair Frie asked from standpoint of annexation, where docs this proposal stand as hiI' as
being procedural and correct regarding state statutes, etc. O'Neill stated that they are
f()lIowing the policy of the city regarding annexation and that the city believes fl)llowing
state statutes is correct. In the meantime the city can review this plan as well as the land
use plan. Under either annexation procedure. this land would be eligible for annexation
and staff is planning It)r that. Also. assuming that state statutes are to be followed. this
land \\ould not h(' eligihle lor annexation until a preliminary plan is submitted.
.
There \\as further discussion regarding township roads and Grittman advised that
mainten:lIlce. etc. \\ould be handled through an agreement with township and city.
lIerbst ljUestillned maybe to table action at this time due to MnDOT, but it was stated that
this is a decision of the applicant and Gail' added that what they would like from the
planning commission is a sense as to how reasonable/rationale this concept looks and that
-8-
.
.
.
they \\ill continue to \\ork \\ith staff and MnDOT. O'Neill added that concept approval
docs nut mcan that thc planning commission is obligated to approve the ncxt phase. but
that it is important to let the developer know \vhat the city is expecting. Carlson added
that perhaps the proposed 8-plexes could be Llsed as a buffer.
The planning commission adviscd that they would recommend bulTering of the property.
park land to be approved by the Parks Commission as welL to\vnship roads be studied.
completion of the infrastructure be done. enhancements to the wetlands be made. and that
the developer work with MnDOT.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMrnI TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR TlIE BRUGGEMAN HOMES PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT. WITII COMMENT"S LISTED ABOVE, AS WELL AS
ANNEXATION APPROVAL. BASED ON A FINDING THAT nIE PROJECT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. AND IS
CONSIDERED TO BE READY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME. RICHARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a zoning map amendment re-zoninQ from
Agriculture ~ Open Space to Residential: Consideration of a rec.luest fl.)!' concept and
develoDment staQe planned unit development allowinl! single familv residential homes
and Consideration of a preliminarv plat for the Fields of Hillside Hurst.
Applicant: John Arkell/Carriage Homes
Steve Grittman provided the stall report. Grittman reviewed the connection to 85th Street
at the sOllthwest corner of this project. ponding. connection to the north through the
proposed Mapkwood Development. and Park Dedication. He added accommodating
some open space areas at the edges. as well as corner spaces. and woodlands. stating this
would be a requirement in the landscape plans.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Gary Nordlocken. township resident. asked how
large the holding pond \\ould be and what is its capacity. Grittman stated he believed
that the water that is intended to "siC in the pond is approx. 4 feet. adding that possibly in
May there \\ould be another 3 to 4 feet in depth that would then drain back. There is an
outlet. O'Neill added that the city engineer is well aware of the water drainage in that
area and "ill handle that. advising that the city engineer would be at the May 13 city
council meeting to discuss as well.
l'vlario CuehareIla. Maplewood Development. stated they recently closed on the Shultz
property. stated he felt they could be accommodating with streets and plans and would
also like a copy of the applicant's plans. He stated the issue to them is access to sanitary
se\\er and he is assuming that they will be bringing this to the north of their site as they
would need access as \\ell. He also added that the issue with zoning has kept them from
pursuing further.
-9-
.
Loren <)" Brien. resident to the west of Shultz property. asked the number of lots and
applicant stated they arc proposing 80 homes. Also asked about zoning and what is
proposed to he zoned in the city's land use plan. Grittman stated it currently calls for
R-I A zoning and cr Brien asked why that would be zoned different. O'Neill stated that
stall ",,,ill he tine tunins: and would he lookins: at R-I and R-I A. also stating that the
~ ~ ~
Mapkvvood property may not meet the R-I A standards due to the lay of the land and the
impact ot'the cell tmvcr. O'Neill added that primarily the R-IA zoning would be where
there is land \vith hills and views. trees. no gas lines. etc. Price range per applicant is
$200.000+.
Craig Madsen. resident in the Wildwood Ridge development, asked what that
development and RollingWoods development are zoned. and Grittman stated R-1.
John ArkclL applicant. stated they carne in as an invite from staff to do a second tier
project. doing an R-l development with R-I A standards as the land is flat with no trees.
'fhey have chosen to proceed as he feels this community has the need and it can be done
here. Also stated that the Shultz property across from the development will stay as it is
whieh he feels is an asset.
.
The public hearing was then closed. Chair Frie asked that knowing the opinion of the
stat'f regarding PlJD. why apply for that and the applicant agreed that it is not necessary.
He stated that he was aware of the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. Applicant was asked
about his concern with R-I A standards and Mr. Arkell stated his concerns were \vith
density, adding that the Parks Commission pulled out two of their lots already. Arkell
also stated that \\hen they began they did not know there would be that many exits. or
that they would lose the two lots. as well as gas lines in the area.
I-Icrbst asked if this \\as zoned R-I A could they meet the density requirement and he
stated he did figure this in and ifhe eould get 80 units they could meet the standards.
O'Neill also asked the applicant that if this \vere to be zoned R-I and the applicant chose
to build R-l A standard homes. what would be the city's guarantee that this would occur
and Arkell stated that perhaps they could state this in the developers agreement. othenvise
he was not sure \vhat he could do to guarantee the city. Mr. Madsen. resident stated that
the reason they purchased where they did was because it was on a hill with a view and he
kit Arkell was not correct in that his land did not meet the R-l A standards, but Arkell
stated there is a hill. but no trees. Grittman stated they actually could apply PUD zoning
to this which would enable the applicant to get that number of lots on an R-l A.
suggesting that the planning commission may \vant to approve a PUD concept rather than
denying. suhject to veri llcation of zoning standards. Applicant stated he wanted the PUD
to be denied. but wanted zoning to be R-I.
.
A fvlOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
TIIF RE-10NING TO R-I. SUBJECT TO FINAL ANNEXATION APPROVAL.
BASED ON A FINDING '1'1 IA T IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S LONG
TERM LAND USE PLAN. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
-10-
.
Motion carried unanimously.
!\ MOTION WAS iYL\DI:: BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
TilE PRI-:L1MINAR Y PLAT. SlIBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT/.
BASED ON A FINDING TI-IA T WITH APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS. THE PLAT
WOULD MEET TIll.: C/lY'S INTENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION IN
TillS ARI:A. RICIIARD C\RLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried
LlIwni mOLls!y.
A MOTION WAS ivlADE 8Y ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
TIlE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FIELDS OF HILLSIDE HURST.
ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Consideration of a siml1lc subdivision request and Public HearilHl on consideration of a
retlUest for a conditional use permit allowinlf: residential uses on the first floor of a
structure in the Central Community District. Applicant: Gary Nesseth
John Glomski provided the staJTreport describing the applicant's request fix simple
subdivision and conditional Lise permit fiJr Lots 9 and 10. Block 20. Original Monticello.
The applicant's intention is to construct a single family home on the newly created lot.
Glomski stated the applicant meets requirements for lot size and setbacks. A list of
required plantings was provided as well.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. There was no response. therefore Chair Frie closed
the PLlblic hearing. Frie commented that the motions should be separate for the two
requL'sts. Frie asked Mr. Nesseth if he was aware of the conditions listed and he stated
that he \\as.
A t\IOTION \VAS MADL BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE TIlE SIMPLE
SUBDIVISION BASED ON TIlE FINDING TIlA T IT MEETS TilE REQUIREMENTS
OF TIlE eCD IONING DIS'fRICT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Motion carried unanimously.
A IVIOT/ON WAS l'vIADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL
USI: PU~MIT WITII TilE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. Front yard setback of no less than 20'
b. Side yard sethack of 6'
c. Rear yard setback of 30'
d. I\linill1um building setback for buffer yard of 20'
L'. l\'linimum landscaped yard in bufTer yard of 15'
r Applicant must provide verification of meeting the minimum landscape unit
n:quirL'ment of 39 units
RICIIARD CARLSON SI::CONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
.
-I J-
.
.
.
]1.
Public I /carin!.! - Consideration of ordinance amcndments clarifyin!!. sim:de family zonin!.!
standards based on recent district standard adoption. Apnlicant: City of Monticello
Steye Grittman provided the report advising that this item is intended to bring the
ordinance into consistency with the changes that -vere recently made.
Chair I.'rie opened the public hearing and hearing no responsc. the public hearing was
then closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE ORDINANCE REVISIONS. BASED ON A FINDING THAT 'fHEY
SUPPORT TI IE CITY'S ADOPTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONING
STANDARDS. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried
un an i mous I y.
12. Public I-Iearin!,!: - Considcration of a request for an amendment to the zoning map to re-
zone Groveland 3'l1 Addition from Allriculture - Open Space to SinQle Familv Residential.
Anplicant: Ocello. LtC
John Glomski proyided the report stating OceIIo' s request for re-zoning fix the third
phasc of the Groveland Addition.
Chair Fric opened the public hearing. Thcre was no response so the public hearing was
then closed. It was advised that the development _viII have the same requirements for
standards.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR RE-
ZONIN(; OF TilE GROVELAND YIJ ADDITION. BASED ON A FINDING THAT
Till': PROPOSI~D llSE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE
CITY'S COf\IPRI:I ILNSIVE PLAN. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Motion carricd unanimously.
13. Public I !carin!.! - Consideration of amendments to the comprehensive plan land use guide
plan. Applicant: Cit\' of I\lonticcllo.
Stew Grittman provided the report stating that the plan has been reviewed in concept
t()nl1 by staff and city officials. and has been presented at a public open house for review
and feedback. Grittman summarized the comments received at the open house as well as
questions that -vere raised that could affect the overall concept.
Chair Pril: opl:l1ed thl: puhlic hearing. Dick VanAllen. representative for the fOC.
qUl:stiol1l:d thl: Guld Nugget property and also why staff had excluded manufacturing
fwm that property. O'Neill advised that he did not believe that they excluded all
mal1ubCluril1g in this area. but perhaps heavy manuhlcturing. Grittman stated that was
-12-
.
trllL and that thLY did not 1.::\L1L1lIL \varehollse/oflice. Van Allen then rl.:qllested that the
planning commission dl.:clare a moratorillmllntil there was further input from the liRA,
ED^. I DC'. Chamhcr. Planning Commission. City of Monticello and any local groups.
He suggested the possihility ofa Saturday workshop with opportunities to discuss. I--Ie
telt thl.: cit) should look at thc proposed land usc plan and the fact that there \vould need
to he an interchange. as \vell as problems \vith serving capacity. which he believes is
necessary to n:cmer ta:\: capacity.
Ollie Koropchak addressed the planning commission advising that the HRA had made a
previous recommendation as presented back on January 8, 2002. to complete an industrial
park hy the City/HR^. by April 2003. She stated she just wanted to bring that
recommendation forward. Frie stated he had met individually with members of some of
the commissions and was dumbfounded by the lack of support of the proposed land use
plan. stating that many were very disgruntled \vith what was being proposed. It was a
council member who recommended to Frie the same idea ofa meeting of the groups to
discuss the plan further. Fire asked if the planning commission \vas locked into a time
frame as I~lr as recommending a plan to the city council, stating he would feel more
comfortable if the other commissions and the community were more supportive in what is
being proposed.
.
Frie asked about the IDC s plan for industrial acquisition and where is the city at with
that. O'Neill stated that they agreed it would be great to have land as a tool. but did they
want to use the available land up for that purpose. lIe also stated the eity council was in
li\vor ofa portion oftht:: Gold Nugget propt::rty. as well as the Remmele parcel. to be re-
zoned to industrial. I--\Lrbst also reminded them that the Chadvvick property was initially
thought to he industrial and unfortunately that did not work out as first planned. Grittman
stated that from land use side. the LJuestion should be \v-here should the industrial park be.
not should the city ha\e one. Once decided on where it should be. then is the time to
tkcide ho\\ w dl.:\l.:lop it. Grittman stated he \vanted to separate the hmv to do it from the
\vhere to do it. III..' stated that his recommendation \\ould be not to re-zone the Remmele
propl.:rty to industrial as a LJuiek fi:\. as it is better suited for commercial due to its
locat ion/visi bi I i tv.
O"Neill stated that is the purpose ofa public hearing. to get opinions and feedback.
Carlslln stated hI.: Ii:lt everyone sel.:med to have their own agenda. yet they don't come
furward. O'Nl.:ill asked if the main issue is the industrial side of it. and if that was
resohl.:d. \\oulli that satisfy SOOiC) of the concerns. Van Allen stated. personally. he felt
that may he the case and that he kIt that if the city \\'ould zone a certain amount of
industrial land at a designated area by a designated date. they would be satisfied.
Koropchak f()llm\ed up on a comment from Van Allen. under Grittman's narrative
regarding item -l- in staff report.
.
It was stated that wning th)es not distinguish bet\veen "light m,-lI1uLlcturing" and
"industrial"' at this point. Cirittman stated that regarding Gold Nugget. that distinction
-13-
.
.
.
hadn't ht:t:n mack. Tht: puhlit: ht:aring was then closed.
The planning commission kit tht:y would like to haw an informal nweting \vith the
commissiuns stated prev'iously, prior to making any decisions on the comprehensive land
use plan,
A ~10TION \VAS MADI: BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE ACTION, PENDING INPUT
FROM TilL rvIONTIC/-:LI.O TOWNSI lIP, COMMISSIONS OF TI IE IDe EDA. HRA.
PLANNINCJ COMMISSION AND COUNCIL LIAISON CLINT HERBST. WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING 'n IAT THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO FINALIZE AND
MAKE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL BASED ON
THE RESULTS OF THE MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was furtIKr discussion advising that the various commission should be prepared to
show their rationale when presenting at the meeting. O'Neill asked the commissioners if
tht:l"t: was anything they relt staff should modify/clarify in the proposed plan prior to the
meeting and Frie stated possibly offering options, but also asked that staff come to the
meeting with an open mind. ~krbst agreed with the meeting and asking tl1r rationale as
well. O'Neill stated he wuuld schedule this within 30 days, after each committee has met
to discuss. Van Alkn questioned having Township representation and Frie advised there
was no formal presentation to Monticello Township or County officials. There was no
further discussion and tht: Motion carried unanimously.
14.
Public I-karin~: Consideration of an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance pertaininl;!
to recent amendments to the Residential Development Standards. Applicant: Citv of
Montit:ello.
Steve Cirittlllan provided the stall report stating that the proposed changes have been
discussed generally. and arc intended to affect the way nevv plats are laid out. Chair Frie
opened th..: puhlic hearing. and hearing no response the public hearing \vas then closed.
A MOTION WAS MAD/-: BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT
TI IE A[\!ENDMENTS SUPPORT TilE COMPREI--IENSIVE PLAN GOALS OF
IIIGIIER QUALITY I lOUSING DEVELOPMENT. RICI-IARD CARLSON
SECONDLD TilE MOTION. tvIotion carried unanimously.
Th~re \Vas further discussion by Herbst regarding development on the Schultz property
and his concern is that they \Vould not meet the R-I A standards. and then sold ofT to
another dcwloper. as in the case of River Forest. He also asked if they need this in the
form or a developers agreement and it was stated they cannot f()J"ce this issue. Grittman
stated the only \Vay to enforce \\ould be that irthe developer imposes private covenants.
appnl\e \\ith tht: condition that the covenants can not be changed.
-] 4-
.
.
.
15.
Consideration or applications f()r vaeated Plannin!.! Commission member seat.
The planning commission Jelt they would like to keep the position open [or a while
longer to see i r then: \\ould he a hetter response.
16. Adjourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT
11: 15 PM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimously.
Recorder
-15-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/04/02
5.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a Coneent Sht2:e Planned Unit
Develonment allowing a mixed use nroposal for a church and residential uses at the
former St. Henry's church site. Applicant: Church of St. Henrv's and Hope
Evangelical Free Church. (NAC/JO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Hope Evangelical free Church is seeking concept approval of a mixed use PUD to use
the fonner S1. Henry's Church as a combination of church an residential uses. Both uses
are normally allowed in the R-2 Zoning District. The church would like flexibility to use
the existing parking or shift parking to the area to the north of the church. The new
church user would redevelop the "parish center" bui Iding at 4th Street and Locust for
residential use. The main church building would be used for church purposes. At this
time, it appears that the church would create two rental units in the parish center - one
unit upstairs, and one downstairs.
For the purposes of this review, the Planning Commission should comment on those parts
of the proposal that are firm, and add any other comments that may affect the chances of
approval. These may include the following items:
1.
Mix of uses generally. If there is a maximum density that the City bel ieves will
be applied, this should be identified. for reference, a typical R-2 zoning density
would allow six to eight units per acre. The two units proposed would be within
this allowance.
2.
a.
Use of off-site parking. The applicant is seeking continued use of the
parking lot to the south of 4th Street. Because there is almost no on-site
parking as now developed, the City should identily the acceptability of the
parking arrangements, including whether garage construction will hc
required for the residential units.
b. The church is also requesting flexibility to use property north of the
church. This would allow potential housing development at the current
parking lot site and provide space on the same block as the church for
parking.
3. Architectural issues related to the remodeling. Previous proposals have included
some dramatic changes to the exterior of the buildings.
4. Other site development conditions that will be required as a part of any further
plan approvals.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/04/02
.
T'he concept stage PUO is intended to provide feedback to the developer as to any issues
that will affect the continued processing of the project, including land use comments, as
well as design issues. PUO is a zoning tool that is intended to provide flexibility to
developers, in exchange for some tangible benefit that would not be likely under standard
zoning regulations. If the project proceeds, one of the requirements Cor consideration of
the application will be submission of a site survey and building elevations illustrating
exterior changes, utility plans, and landscaping plans.
AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Approval of the concept stage PUD, with conditions as noted during the hearing.
Motion should include identification of acceptable parking areas.
2. Denial of the concept stage PUD, based on findings that the uses and/or
development standards are not consistent with the requirements of the PUD
section of the Zoning Ordinance.
.
S"IAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that the resumption of the church use in this building would be appropriate.
At issue is whether the non-church use will be consistent with the site and the
neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan calls Cor a continuation of the current land use
pattern in this area. Because ofthe low density of residential use and the (apparently) low
impact on the building, staff is supporti ve of the concept plan.
SUPPORTING DATA
Aerial photo
Applicant's narrative
.
2
.
To Whom It May Concern:
May 20, 2002
Proposal for St. Henry's property on 4tb Street
The Hope Evangelical Free Church of Monticello would like to apply for a
conditional use permit for the Church building. We plan to use the church for the
purpose of religious activities just as it was used by St. Henry's Catholic Church.
We intend to honor the lease of the "Convent" (building to the west of the church)
as a rental property. We would like the option of using this building as a duplex
with one apartment up and one down after the lease runs out in 2003 or until the
church needs the facility for its use in Christian Education. Modifications would be
appropriate for privacy.
We would like to use the Parish center for church office space. Specifically, three
rooms upstairs and a half bath (As you enter the front door - the first two rooms on
the left and the first room on the right.) A door would be added to the room on the
left for access to the third room. The door in the third room would be dead-bolted
so that there would be no access to the office. The door leading into the living room
upstairs would be available for the upstairs renters. The basement stairway door
would be dead bolted. A second entry would be on the west side for both upstairs
and downstairs access.
.
The old garages (now rooms) would be converted back to a single and a double
garage. There would be access to both apartments from the garage through the
west hallway and doorway. Parking would also be available in front ofthe garages.
A laundry room would be made available for both apartments use.
Parking for the Church would initially be to the South. However, we would like
approval for parking in the lots to the north of the church if they became our
property at any time.
Thank you for your consideration,
~
,( . '\ t:v..,.~
u~.-~
Daniel Osborn
Pastor
.
.
.
.
Planning COllllnission Agenda - 06/04/02
6.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for concept and development sta2:e PlJD
and Preliminarv Plat to allow a subdivision of the Gould Chevrolet propertv into
two platted lots. Applicant: Gould Bros. Chevrolet. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Gould Chevrolet is seeking a subdivision of its property that would separate the display
lot ti'om the building parcel. The PUD is necessary to allow the property to continue to
comply with the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit for automobile sales lots and
their relationship to principal buildings. It also allows the display area to be situated on a
lot separate from the lot on which the building is located. The PUD does not a/Teet any
of the construction issues on the property. The plat permits the owner to clarify outlot
boundaries that were raised at the time of the original project review
I3. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
I.
Motion to recommend approval of the pun and Plat, based on findings that the
project is materially the same as that previously approved with the CUP, and with
conditions that engineering review is completed and the project is found to
consistent with that review. Motion to approve contingent on recording of a
document linking parcels, thus eliminating potential of sale of necessary parking
area needed to support the principal use.
2. Motion to recOll1mend denial of the PUD and Plat, based on findings that the
intent of the PU D ordinance arc not met.
C. STAfF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the PUD and Preliminary Plat. T'he project is Llllartected
by this proposal, and the City will continue to have review authority over any future
improvements. The City Engineer will be reviewing easement and drainage issues that
may be raised by the platting process.
D. SUPPORTING DAfA
Preliminary Plat
"l '-
'} "', ----.:D ---- b
'\ '"
-
1
)
,
,
""
"'
I
1
)
1
b f-
N ~
b
N
o
"0
(!J
;:; ,
~
W
--1
<(
U
VJ
b
'"
~
<(
u
V1
/
/
---.--------.......------------------
\
I ,
-_...---------..".....---------~.~......---------~----
~____- "~_"_ _____".my
)
""_/
J--
/
. 0 /
l /
/
~ "-
i ~ ~~
~ ~~
~ ~s
... .
ij ~ I~
i i ~
~
....
io
/
/
/
- /
--1
Jj
...... I
-.t...... ............ I I
-4. ..... ............... 'J I
, .......... 71'4- ,
) ............ .. f'r I
- , I I
-~, /' JI I I I
\1 " it I ,
''\. \. !. I I
"'"'- , l' / I
'\\.. ' ': I
....." \. I ~ I
"00'''''''''':0, - - ~~ I I I
\.. \ " ---J I
~ I ,- I
... I I ( I
~." I I t I
1;. , I I I
~ I I
.. I I
I
-
~
C
L
--
I
t
'"
I
--
L
--
L
--
--
--
e5
-
(
I
I /i /''j
/ I
/ i
/
s SooOP,;~l'~
-"""
"'88.62 D
--
-=
\
\
\
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/04/02
7.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a Concept Stage Planned lJnit
Development to allow a mixed commercial development in a B-3 zoning district south
of Dundas Road and east of TH 25. Applicant: Glen Posusta. (NAC/JO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Glen Posusta, owner of the AMAX Storage t~lcility, is seeking a concept stage pu~ for
property south of Dundas Road and east of Trunk Highway 25. The pu~ would allow
for the southward expansion of the mini-storage hlCility, and additional commercial
development along the extcnsion of Cedar Street. A PUD is necessary for mini-storage
since there is more than one principal building. Otherwise, the concept plan would need
only a subdivision approval. A part of the consideration in this request is a land
exchange tl.)r property acquired by the City during the I-lighway 25 upgrade, and as a part
of the vacation of the current Cedar Street right-of-way. The terms of this exchange will
need to be negotiated between the City and the developer, although it is imp0l1ant to note
that the City may require dedication of street right of way as a part of the subdivision
process regardless of the developer's interest in other land that the City may have
available for sale.
As with any PUD, the City is to allow the f1exibility offered by this special zoning tool
where it finds that some unique design or amenity is being integrated into the project.
The concept requires that a development proposal exceeds the minimum zoning standards
in tangible ways, thus justifying the variation from the standards in other areas. For this
project, that would typically mean that the storage facility employs some element that
sets it apart from typical storage building projccts.
From a general layout standpoint, stafT believes that thc project mcrits consideration. The
storage facility would occupy the cast side of the development (nearest the industrial
zoning). and the higher traffic commcrcial uses would be located along Cedar Street,
some with exposure to Highway 25. The applicant shows a bufTer along a portion of the
lnini-sloragc boundary - staff would recommend that such a butTer be continucd all along
the westcrn edge of the storage t~lcility.
The Planning Commission and City Council should comment on the acceptability of the
land use in this project apart hom the land exchange. Typical considerations for mini-
storage PUOs include the following:
I. Paving requirements.
2. Landscaping and buffering requircments.
3. Screening and fencing 111atcrials.
Planning COlllmission Agenda - 06/04/02
.
ALTERNATIVI.: ACTIONS
I. Motion to recommend approval of the PUO concept plan f()[ Glen Posusta, with
conditions and recommendations as noted at the hearing.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the pu~ concept plan based on findings that the
expansion of the mini-storage is an inappropriate land use in this area.
STAFF RECOMMENDA nON
StafTis supportive ofthc PC)D concept for the reasons notcd in this report. Thc mini-
storage use is an important business element in a growing community, and this location
seems to bc appropriate, given its location betwccn higher traf1ic commercial on onc side,
and industrial uses on the other. Urban improvements to the projcct including paved
circulation, drainage control, and significant landscaping would bc conditions that staff
would recommend as a part of any approval.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
Concept PUD
.
2
r
.
.
11
--._..~
--
----
'n :!:
~:~
--. '--
._~
; ,
.. ~'1
~
~ M;
~:~. ..
"
i
I
,,,;{
,'.
/~~;~
<,
-'"'-~.'
---- ~,
\
:~"'H.h"
.
,I
l.j;
I
.I
_ i
I 1J.. J""'ru It....."~~l\Ifl,.,IlIIt'J'~ I"'lI. I
..'"'fin I-'V'V-ti" ... A5S"~0J6ts~ Iltd. ,,~...~lIt'1l Dr ,..~ "'_ "j~llI"'t~ Il. r>>.~ ~~/OJ lilt' ! N:;I ~l: I
! ~"Io.tl ^;;:;,.:-:.::--... ~ -"'--.... J:.: 7il'P,~"~ ~:\,~;~:;.~I::M_ 1)CS"11 liT ~ I
I ,Ilk ~ ~tIa._... f""~ "'&0'/<116 ~,., Ufo..... I'" Ih. -(-I ,-.. ---""'-----
"'-..'-w'"-' ,.~ r',.......,.,_.._ i"~ l.It'" , Qfl;tf.n ~"l "\I~
t 'V",..- ~ Iu Alwn .I0Il")\00........1. 1'1\1--4 C'IWI'/. tll!'~ I~
11-: ___~ ~.. .~., ~"uc.: ~~ i'P:i' .
.HoIoo II.-'X.~t "!.i ~..,t;~~ f:'..I""'~...J'
AM^X ~L.i" :-'iTORAGE. LLC
M~:"l1o.:J..L.o, t~N
'0>
(;L~l PQSWST II
S:TE ~I.AN
" ;:i
\1
E1:1:>1
I
I
i:C0Z;/80/o;fj
C:,C
:;:'!:)'iid
JDSS\1 'Z tI3^nD NHUr
1 A
.
.
.
Planning Comlnission Agenda - 6/04/02
8.
Consideration to adopt ~l resolution findin2; that a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No.1 and the
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-30 conform to the general plans for the development
and redevelopment of the eitv. (O.K.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is asked to adopt the attached resolution stating it finds the
proposed TIF District No. 1-30 Plan conforms with the comprehensivc plan of the city.
Proposed TI r District No. 1-30, a Housing District, is being established to assist the
Central Minnesota Housing Partnership (CMHP), the developer, with acquisition offive
parcels and demolition of four substandard homes in the area of Minnesota Street
between 5 Street and 6 Street. CMHP has successfully closcd or has executed purchase
agreements on all five properties and will construct 11 new single-family, owner-
occupied, affordable homes. 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 95% 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 nledian income fl.)r a
family of 3 or more ($85.205). Median income under this provision is the greater of the
statewide median or the county median. The developer has agreed to minimum
improvements of approximately 1,200 sq ft main level living space per home with a
selling price of approximately $115,000. Construction to commence between
August/October, 2002.
Because CMHP is also providing gap financing and affordable mortgage products to
potential buyer, the incollle levels must meet the Greater Minnesota Housing Agency
restriction of 80% of statewide median income ($51,600 fi)r a family of 4).
For this agenda item, the Planning Commission is stating the TIF Plan fl.)r Housing
District No. 1-30 conforms with the Comprehensive Plan: Land use, zoning, density,
housing standards, etc. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing and adopt
the TIF Plan on June 24, 2002. The request for certification of the TIF District to the
Auditor of Wright County prior to or on June 30, 2002.
At the May Planning Commission meeting, the commissioners approved a concept PUD
based on the finding that the proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive
plan for the city. The development is consistent with the character of the neighborhood
and will not result in a depreciation of adjoining land values. The proposed project to
fl.)llow the standards of the new R2A zoning. The next step is to prepare a detailed
development stage PUD and final stage PUD.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/04/02
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment projeet No.1 and the TIF Plan 1'01'
'1'1 F District No. 1-30 conform to the general plans 1'01' the development and
redevelopment of the eity.
2. A motion to deny adoption of a resolution finding ..............................................
3. A motion to table any action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation is Alternative No.1. based on the Planning Commission's action of
May 7, 2002.
SUPPOKTlNG DATA
Resolution for adoption and summary of I'll" Plan.
.
.
2
. Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of Monticello - Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-30
The following SUlnmary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for Tl F District No. 1-30. More detailed information on each of these topics can be t(1und in the complete
TIF Plan.
Proposed action:
Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-30 and the
adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Redevelopment Project:
Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan Modification for the Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I. (The Modification is to
include the project activities anticipated in Tax Increment District No.
1-30.)
Type ofTIF District:
A Single-Family Housing District
Parcel Numbers:
155-010-009030
ISS-O 1 0-009040
15S-0 I 0-0090S0
1 55-010-009060
IS 5-010-009061
.
Proposed Development:
The District is being created to facilitate construction of II O\vner-
occupied homes to be purchased by families with incomes belm" 100%
to 115% of the metropolitan-area median income.
Maximum duration:
The duration of District No. 1-30 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. 1-30. including any modifications of the
Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would term inate after
2029. or when the Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2003.
the term of the District will be 2028.
Estimated annual tax
increment:
Up to $16,156
.
~-A
.
.
.
TIF District Overview
Proposed uscs:
The TIF Plan contains the follO\ving budget:
Land/Bu i Id ing Acqu isition .......... ..................................... $125.000
Site Improvements/Preparation ........... .... .... ........... ..... ... .... $70.000
Publ ic Uti I it ies............................... .......... ........... ................ $25.000
Housing Development...,....... ....... ............. ........... .............. $50.000
Streets and Sidewalks .............. ...................... ................... $50.000
Interest.. ... ... ... ....... ....... .,. ............. ........... .............. ....... ..... $200,000
Adm inistrative Costs (up to 10%) ..................... ................. ~50.000
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL ..........................................$545,000
Interfund Loans/Pay-As-You-Go/G.O. TIF Bonds .........$200,009
TOT AL FINANCING AND PROJECT COSTS ........$795,000
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:
An interfund loan and/or a G.O. TIF bond.
Administrative fee:
Up to 10% of annual increment if costs are justified.
The 200 I Legislature eliminated the provisions for a reduction in state
tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) or the alternative qualifying
local contribution.
LGA/HACA penalty:
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
r.f-/69. J76 SlIhd lu)
At least one of the following activities must take place in the District
within 3 years from the date of certification:
. Bonds have been issued
. The authority has acquired property within the district
. The authority has constructed or caused to be constructed
public improvements within the district
. The estimated date whereby this activity must take place is
.June. 2005.
Page 2
.
.
.
TIF District Overview
4- Year Activity Rule
(II' ./69.176 Suhd 6)
A fter four years from the date of ccrti fication of the District one of the
following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the
District:
. Demolition
· Rehabi I itation
· Renovation
· Other site preparation (not including utility services such as
sewer and water)
· If the activity has not been started by the approximately June,
2006, no additional tax increment lTlay be taken frOIll that
parcel until the COlllmencement of a qualifying activity.
5 Year Rule
(\\. ./69.1763 Suhd 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:
· The revenues arc actually paid to a third party with respect to
the activity
· 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 (i i) a reasonable temporary period
within the meaning of the use of that term under S. 148(c)( I) of
the Internal Revenue Code. or are deposited in a reasonably
required reserve or replacement fund
· Binding contracts with a third party are entered into for
performance of the act ivity and the revenues are spent under
the contractual obligation
· Costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues are
spent to reimburse for payment of the costs, inc Iud ing interest
on ullreim bursed costs.
· Any obligations in the Tax Increment District made after
approximately June, 2007. will not be eligible for repayment
from tax increments.
Page 3
~-A
.
T1F District Overview
BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-30
.
.
Page 4
N./~O"' I I. - /
J93 ;tt!..,!:,
~ /'4 p02;'y 1
-......~.- /
. ..... ::: -, -- ~00
.... ,:~, -
",
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1..30
Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Area
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
"i?
/
'-.
I
,
" "
~f'
~
.......
~/
I
,-
./1 //~
, . ,
I
~. ,'/ :-...
. v....,
f '
''f~
I
I
"
I
I
6
.
,.
I
I
I
I I ~ :---- _-.~~_
1'1'
!
i .
I, I
..:~ !
"..... .
...
I '-
. , ,
-,.r---
\
\.
:o..
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
RESC)LUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING 'fHAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CENTRAL MON'rIC[~LLO REDEVELOPMENT PRO.mCT NO.1 AND THE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCl~EMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1-30 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE
DEVI~LOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to
adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I
(the "Redevelopment Plan") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for "('ax Increment Financing District
No. 1-30 (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively
herein at the "Plans") and has submitted the Plans to the City Planning COlllmission (the "Comlllission")
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and
WHEREAS, the COllllllission has reviewed tIle 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 IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: June 4,2002
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/04/02
9.
Public "carin!!: Consideration of a request for concept plan review of a residential
PUD in a PZM District. Applicant: Shawn Weinand. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Scan Weinand has requested a sketch plan review of a PUD concept plan ft)r a proposed
residential project at the intersection of School Boulevard and Oakwood Drive (County
Road 117). Weinand requests review and comment at this time. 'l'he information you
provide will help guide a subsequent application for concept and development stage PUD
approval at an upcoming meeting. The project is located in a PZM Zoning District, and
consists of approximately 162 townhouse units on about 19.4 acres, plus an additional 2.5
acres underneath power line easements along the south border of the project. This
calculates to a net density (exclusive of the power line property) of 8.3 units per acre.
The gross density, including the power line property, would be approximately 7.3 units
per acre.
The project design relics on a series of internal private streets that wind through the
property providing access to units, but no primary internal road is planned. Staff Ius
suggested that the units along the east side be realigned to connect the private street /i'om
north to south. The project also relies on the ability to gain two access drives to County
Road 117. Without this additional access, it may be more important to have an internal
"collector" road serving the project. This will need to be determined with the County
Transportation Department. The City should also comment on the layout issues raised by
the plan.
A second issue raised by the plan is the location of a playground structure proposed lor
the area under the power lines in the southwest corner of the project. Based on
experience with other parks, stall is recommending that playground areas be located
outside of the power line casement areas.
Connected to this issue is that of open space within the project. Because of the density
and the fact that the prill1ary open space in the project is shown in the power line
casement, there is very little contiguous open space within the project itself. The design
of the project is intended to allow for a constantly changing view within the project,
however, the views will almost always be of building facades. One of the suggestions tt)f
the project is to attempt to con sol idate areas of open space within the project, and develop
terminal views of that space for drivers within the project. from a plan view perspective,
the project appears to be very cluttered.
At sketch stage, the City has the opportunity to give feedback to developers as to issues
.
Planning Commission ^gcnda - 06/04/02
that may he raised by the project design. As with any PUD, the intent is to use flexihility
from ordinance standards to develop a project that is superior in design and amenities to
projects that would meet every zoning regulation. Since this project design is highly
schematic, the City's review should focus on layout issues, open space, and general
density.
AI,TERNATIVE ACTIONS
No specific action is requested however, comments are requested with regard to density,
street configuration, open space, and other issues that will affect the City's further
consideration of the project.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff is supportive of residential uses at this site, give the low density residential
development to the east and south. Issues with this project include unit mix and internal
layouts. Originally, planning staf'fhas discussed a greater mix of unit types on this site,
allowing more multiple tllmily housing, with the expectation that a greater amount of
open space could he retained at similar densities as a result. 8.3 units per acre on a
townhouse design is very dense, and that density is ref1ccted in the plan. Because of the
density, a hard look can be expected, due hoth to the amount of building, and the relative
amount of paved surface. To accommodate the proposaL very intense landscaping would
be expected in an attempt to soften the hard look of the project. Alternative paving
materials in certain areas may also he considered to avoid the continual asphalt surfllCe.
SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of sketch plan
.
2
.
.
.
~ rLblq('4