Loading...
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