The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 04-01-2003 . . . lZvJ AGENDA REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - April 1, 2003 6:00 P.M. Members: Council Liaison: Staff: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and David Rietveld Brian Stumpf Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission mecting hcld March 4,2003. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for concept stage planned unit developmcnt to construct office/retail building and parking. Applicant: Mikc Cyr/MLC Building & Remodeling and Liberty Savings Bank 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of amendments to the district boundary map identified in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello. 7. Consideration of a request of Home Depot to allow a pylon sign in excess of the zoning requirements. 8. Discuss residential design requiremcnts for planned unit developments in the Original Plat of the City of Monticello. 9. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on a Comprehensive Plan amendment that establishes a ratio of single family to two family development in developing areas. 10. Adjourn -1- . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - March 4, 2003 6:00 P.M. Members: Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart and Council Liaison Brian Stumpf Fred Patch and Steve Grittman Staff: 1. Call to order. Vice Chair Rich Carlson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and declared a quorum. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held February 4. 2003. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 4, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of adding items to the aQenda. Steve Grittman asked to update the members on the Hillside Farms development. This was placed as item 12 on the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a special home occupation permit allowing a photographic studio in a residential district. Applicant: Wayne & Patricia Mayer Steve Grittman, City Plmmer, provided a summary of the applicant's request for a special home occupation permit to operate a photographic studio in a residential district. He advised that the purpose of the conditional use permit/public hearing is to make sure that the business will not interrupt the neighborhood with such thing as signage, traffic, and parking. The applicants advised that this would be a relatively low intensity business and indicated only occasionally would they need to use the street for parking. Staff believes the request is in compliance with the City's ordinance and recommends approval. Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Wayne Mayer, applicant, 2630 Briar Oakes Blvd, addressed the commission regarding their concerns with parking, business entrance, increased traffic during the day, weekend hours, and signage. Mayer felt there would be very little impact on traffic with only one customer at a time parking in the driveway, although there may be times when there would be 2 cars with one parking on the street. but he did advise that his driveway is large enough to handle multiple vehicles. Entrance to the studio would be through the front door and going directly downstairs, depending on the time of the year. He added that there may be weekend hours but it would still be one customer at a time. Mayer added that he does have a full time day job as well. There would be no -I~ Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 signage as Mayer agreed with the City's ordinance against signage in a residential district. . The public hearing was then closed. Carlson also advised that a letter had been submitted by a neighbor who was in favor of this application. Grittman stated that the permit would become null and void if the owner were to move, adding that the permit would be for a period of one year and then at 3 year intervals after that. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL Of THE SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE METHOD OF OPERATION PROPOSED IS CONSISTENT WITH STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY CODE. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a shopping center and ioint parking in a B-3 district. Applicant: Michael KrutziQ Steve Grittman, City Planner. provided the statTreport, advising of the applicant's request as well as some staff concerns. He did note however that the applicant had met with staff earlier in the week and had already addressed several of these concerns. The applicant was asked to reduce the parking supply to minimize the amount of hard surface, noting that the total number of spaces shown was much greater than what is required by code. Grittman added however. that the applicant did have a concern with reducing this . number due to his tenant's needs for parking. Grittman also added comments regarding the general site layout and access to the building, but again it was noted that this was particularly due to tenant needs. One item most problematic was location of the access point. It was staffs beliefat the time of the original plat the 2 lots would be sharing a driveway, noting the City Engineer's objective was to move the access point as far away from the intersection as possible. It is expected that Cedar Street is to have a median in the left turn lane, building the median out as far as possible. and it is the City Engineer's desire to see a shared access point. The applicant was also concerned with this. Staff would like to work that issue out with the applicant, particularly because there are access points next to each other which they felt with that type of arrangement would cause traffic conflicts. The applicant indicated that he is not the owner of Lot 2, but Staff s understanding is that he would pursue development on the cntire property at a future date. It was also notcd that this may be worked out with the current title owner of the lot as welL and it may require cross easements or some other potential subdivision. Grittman further stated that overalL staff is supporting approval of the application. Grittman advised that parking could be reduced from the north and south ends of the site. Fred Patch added that although joint parking was stated as part of this request, it is not a consideration in this phase but will be in a future phase. He added that to the south, if joint parking is to be considered, the present ordinance would not aIIO\v this and they may want to amend the ordinance in order to accommodate joint parking. Grinman advised that there . -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . would be no green space between the buildings. but rather a shared common driveway. He further stated that the Planning Commission may want to treat this as a PUD or an amendment to the ordinance, stating he felt an amendment would be 1)(:s1. There was also a concern with building design and roof elevations. Mike Krutzig, applicant, addressed the concerns stated. In regard to access. he advised they had shifted the lot lines and he was not aware that staff did not know he was not the owner of the lot to the south, adding that he had envisioned it as a stand alone drive. Ifhe does purchase the lot before the first phase is complete, he would have no objection to a common driveway, adding that he was unable to consult with Mr. Weinand. owner of the lot, as he was out of town. Dragsten added that a common drive would save him money as well, as there would be no need for curbing. There was further discussion on roof lines and Krutzig advised this was concept only and facades could be looked at and not limited to this. He did view the Cedar Street side as the rear staff entrance, also advising that the tenant would be a paint store and contractor entrance to the rear or side is more desirable as they try to avoid walking into retail sections. It also is better to have their entrance close to their vehicles. . Regarding the cross easement/access agreement, this would come from Mr. Weinand. Regarding the number of parking stalls, he had no objection to eliminating, but was hopeful that if they are determined to be needed in the future, he would be allowed to develop them at that time. He further stated that this particular user would have a potential for 50 staff and clients at one time, and presenting with this type of parking was appealing to the two other possible users as well. He asked that he be able to keep some of the parking at this time and possibly reduce some parking from further away, versus up closer to the building. He had no objections to addition of landscaped parking delineators and addition of over- story trees. Sign plan will be looked at in the future and he will work with staff to ensure he meets all requirements. Krutzig did have a concern with condition number 11 in the staff report asking to shift the building and parking lot. He did not see a reason for this but would comply if that is staffs request. Carlson asked Grittman for clarification and Grittman stated he agreed with the applicant that it seemed to align with the property hetter with the way the applicant had shown it on his concept plan. They determined there was no functional reason for shifting it. Krutzig added that the trash enclosure would be the same as at the Towne Centre site and would be shown on his building permit application. He would also comply with all other conditions noted in the report. Krutzig added that he was hoping to stmi his project as soon as the weather permits and that he is very fortunate in getting tenants to make commitments. He added that these tenants are in need of places to locate very soon. . Hilgart questioned Grittman how many parking stalls the applicant is asked to eliminate and .., -J- Plann ing COlTIm ission M inutes ~ 03/04/03 Grittman advised the code requires 90, the applicant had proposed 130, and that he did . understand Krutzig's concern although it was his experience that even if there were 50 stalls in use at one time, there would still be adequate parking. StafT would recommend 90 and if it becomes an issue in the future, the applicant could add more. Grittman added that this is an opportunity to cut down on storm water impacts and aesthetics. Patch added that if in the future they would have shared parking they might find that they actually have excess parking, possibly up to 20%. Krutzig added that he would reduce parking if he develops the other property. It was also advised that High\\-ay 25 would be the main entrance. Hilgart asked if 3 tenants completed the building and Krutzig stated that it would. Hilgart wondered if there was a compromise on parking so that they do not have to spend additional money on landscaping, only to have to take it back out and add in asphalt. Krutzig asked for somewhere in the middle, and possibly after a year if they find that it is not needed he could take out some landscaping and put in asphalt. Krutzing again noted that I stall per every 200 is the minimum per code. Carlson stated that he would suggest Krutzig work that out with City staff, adding that it was refreshing to have the parking minimums met. Dragsten noted that if Krutzig knows his tenants and their pad:ing demands, it may be found that he needs the parking. Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. There was no further discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A CUP ALLOWING A MUL TI- TENANT SHOPPING CENTER WITH JOINT PARKING, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. ELIMINATING CONDITIONS 3, 4, AND 11, AND APPLICANT TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO DETERMINE PARKING NEEDS. MOTION BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. . 7. Steve Grittman provided the staff report. The applicant is requesting concept review for a proposal allowing 8 single family units on the parcel which is currently the West Side Market. Grittman stated that due to reconstruction of Broadway, Otter Creek Road would be realigned to create a safer intersection. The County also required the applicant to close driveway access points to his site and therefore he feels his retail operation will no longer be viable. Grittman added that the City and County have been working on this for some time. The realignment will leave some ROW on the cast side that will not be necessary any longer for public street. As a result, the applicant is hoping to obtain that land. adding to West Side . Market property, re-zone, then subdivide to meet R-2A standards. The layout is in -4~ Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . compliance with the comprehensive plan. traditional land use pattern. and re-zoning to R-2A would be an opportunity to allow this with 2 story structures. Grittman provided concept sketches and added that staffs view was by increasing the variety of these units it could be a positive improvement to the property. The R-2A allows flexibility with setbacks as well. Staff is also recommending that the development be shifted to allow additional width from the back property line to a common driveway, allowing adequate room for landscaping and buffer from the existing residential and there appears to be enough property to allow that shift. Staff believes this proposal would be compatible, although a slightly higher density than allowable. A landscape buffer also preserves aesthetics and additional substantial landscape amenities have been added. Grittman also noted that they are requesting the applicant to flip the end unit floor plans to allow turnaround access at the end of the driveway, and with the noted changes. staff is relatively satisfied that the concept meets the intent of the R-2A district and recommends approval of the concept plan. . Grittman clarified how the units would line up with existing homes, adding that the neighboring property appears to be set back further. Holthaus clarified that the property is setback approximately 45 [1. Grittman stated typical a R-l setback is 30 feet, R-2A allows greater flexibility and the applicant is asked to allow 35 foot setbacks. They also discussed the need for a homeowners association due to maintenance of the common drive, which Holthaus concurred with. The addition of a sidewalk along that property was again discussed and Grittman advised this had been discussed during development of Co Rd 75, but was abandoned due to the area being almost a fully developed area. Grittman further stated he felt it would be beneficial to have a sidewalk, but felt the County would need additional ROWand due to cost and practibility, he felt that idea was given up when the project was developed. The compromise was to carry a crosswalk to Otter Creek. Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Candi Johnson, 1233 Sandy Lane, stated that she sees this development as compatible with single family homes and her main objection was the number of homes put on the 1 12 acre site. Many of the yards in the neighborhood are about 12 acre. She questioned if setback requirements in an R-2A are 20 ft. on the corner, why did it only show 17 ft. on the applicant's plan. She felt this does not meet the standards. She added that it seemed they are squeezing more houses into this parcel than what even an R-2A is suggesting, other than the 45 ft. setback. Ed Solberg, 1204 Sandy Lane, stated he had no objection to tearing down the gas station or putting up houses. Objects to 45 ft. frontage and stated he doesn't feel it is consistent with the other homes. He feels they are really only increasing the size of the driveway. He also asked them to address the size of the lots as he felt they were too small and not consistent with existing. The number of homes should also be taken into consideration. . Laura Tazelaar, 1] 24 Sandy Lane, stated she was opposed to the proposed alleyway and asked if there had been consideration for one access closest to the residence. She felt a frontage road would be better and one access would match the rest of the residences on -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 Broadway. Grittman stated he agreed with the access but again. the County would not allow . any increased accesses. She asked if the buffer would be landscaping or fencing and Grittman stated they would be open to hearing people' s preferences. noting typical buffer requirements consist of landscaping. Tazelaar stated they would like an 8 ft. fence and Grittman stated the Planning Commission and City Council could make that recommendation if they chose. The public hearing was then closed. Tom Holthaus, applicant, stated that for the most part they have address all of these issues at previous meetings. He stated the existing fence that was noted is 5 ft. on his property line and he would prefer landscaping versus a fence, but he also was okay with keeping the fence. He stated there was also a chain link fence on another property that should be moved as it is impossible to maintain his fence with the chain link fence where it is currently placed. Patch added that the fence ordinance had been amended to allow it to be placed right up to the property line, not on or over. Holthaus again stated it was a maintenance issue and would require getting permission from existing property owners to have access to it. He felt it would be better to work it out now with a homeowner's association. rather than later. Patch felt it should be worked out with landscaping requirements at development stage. Holthaus further advised that the homes were proposed to be slab on grade with crawl space for furnaces. Hilgart asked the proposed selling price for the homes and Holtaus stated . approximately $170,000+. Hilgart fwiher added that he felt even if the lot sizes were inconsistent the prices of the homes would be consistent with the existing homes and did not feel there were any issues. Dragsten asked who owned the existing fence and Tazelaar advised the owners are out of town, but also stated she was willing to remove her chain link fence if necessary. Regarding the proposed 17 1'1. setback, Holthaus thought it was 17 ft. to the sidewalk. Grittman stated they were not including that sidewalk with the ROW, the engineer was adding the sidewalk, and they should also look at the end unit again. Regarding the smaller lot sizes, Dragsten felt that having a homeowners association would offset the lot size, making it a much better project versus homes not being maintained. He felt this would be a good tradeoff Dragsten also felt having the front of homes on Broadway would be more attractive than the backs of homes and driveways, preferring the landscaping be toward the existing homes. He also noted the 3 different elevations presented to vary the homes. Carlson brought up the possibility ofre-zoning to R-2 at Willow St. down to Otter Creek. This parcel faces Broadway and all of the other properties on Broadway are in an R-2 zone. Regarding density, due to the length of the site, and if they were to apply this in the older part of town the developer would be allowed between 5 and 6 units, not 3. Agrees that properties to the north are Y:- acre lots but that is not required by the City in the old part of town. He felt 3 units on this site was not realistic, 5 or 6 would be more appropriate on that . size parcel. Carlson also commented on setbacks to Broadway and that he felt having the -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . hOlnes closer to Broadway would give the tendency to open the backsides, which should be favorable to properties to the north as this adds more buffer and open space. Holthaus noted that was the consensus of staff as well. Carlson added that he didn't t'eel a sidewalk would make sense to put in if it was not going to lead anywhere. and asked Holthaus if he could eliminate the last lot next to Otter Creek. Holthaus stated that originally he had proposed a 12 unit townhouse development and he would need 8 units to make it financially feasible. He added that the cost for tearing down the existing building, along with the proposed development would push the costs of the lots up to $45,000, which is not feasible. lIe was open to reducing to 7 units, but could not do this without the City's financial help. He noted that he is not asking for any financial help such as TIF in putting in the 8 lots and he is not leaving the site empty. Carlson asked Grittman about the 8th unit and setbacks and Grittman stated the code requires 20 ft., the measured dimension shows 17 n. to the sidewalk and it would need to be worked out with the Engineer. He also stated that if this was a PUD it would then allow some flexibility. They discussed including a homeowners association and Patch noted that the City can help with enforcement and bill the homeowner if necessary. Patch noted that perhaps there were other issues that could be included in the association agreement such as exteriors, roofing, etc., for aesthetic purposes. Patch noted that covenants could be established to include the City where they could not be altered without City approval. Holthaus concurred. . Stumpf added that he thought there would be 6 or 7 units, not 8. Holthaus again noted that previously he had proposed 12 unit townhomes, but he also noted that if these units were averaged out they do meet the 7500 sq. ft. requirement. Stumpf asked if there were any variances being requested and Grittman stated only in regard to setback requirements with the edge of the home on the corner lot to Otter Creek. Carlson noted the idea is to move them closer to Broadway having more open space in the back. Stumpf liked the idea of moving the units closer to Broadway. Dragsten asked if Holthaus was familiar with the conditions stated in the staifreport and he stated he was. Dragsten also clarified that the Planning Commission does not look at economic concerns and wanted the public aware that they are not taking that into consideration. It was also clarified that moving the units forward 15 feet also would move the drives up by 15 feet. Grittman advised that a landscaping plan was not required at this time, but at development stage they would hold another public hearing. The timing of this depends on when the applicant comes back with plans. Again, he noted this was strictly concept stage. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE HOLTHAUS PUD, WITH COMMENTS NOTED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CONTINGENT ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: . a. Provision of detailed landscape plan, including placement of a fence or other butfer as -7- Plann ing COll1m ission Minutes - 03/04/03 determined by applicant and staff. on the north side of site. . b. Provide building finish color and roof line detail for every structure c. Revise site plan showing setbacks as identified in this report and show revisions to drive allowing garbage truck turnaround area. d. Homeowners association approved by staff LLOYD HILGART SECONDED TliE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a concept stage planned unit development a roval for a mixed use develo ment includin 1 residential. commercial and industrial. Applicant: Gold Nu!-':!!et Development Inc. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report regarding the concept plan for a mixed use development including residential, commercial and industrial. He noted that this property had been previously reviewed several years ago, but at that time there were annexation issues the project did not move forward. Grittman advised that land use patterns had been discussed and revised since then. Staff is relatively comfortable with the design of housing unit types. In their previous project they had looked at some small lot single family units and felt that would be a . possibility as part of the mix, creating a transition between R-l housing and some of the attached housing. Grittman advised that the City Engineer had reviewed the plan as well and requested the access width to be adjusted, and also advised that the Parks Commission had reviewed this proposal several years ago suggesting park land for potential ball fields. He advised of a substantial area to the south that may be a good use for that area, however they need to be aware that if the Parks Commission were looking at lighted fields this may not be compatible. Grittman noted some minor comments regarding layout and that the mix between industrial and commercial would need to be considered. Staff recommends a higher amount of detached housing versus the number of attached units, but feels that the concept plan is ready to proceed to preliminary plat. Stumpf asked about future development in the southeast corner of the site but it was advised that this property was not owned by the applicant, although they have provided possible access to that property. Fred Patch advised of the IDC's recommendation at their meeting earlier that day which was to increase the industrial land to 65 acres and reduce the commercial land to 5 acres. Dragsten asked for their rationale and Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director, provided the reasoning by the IDe. Grittman noted that if MnDOT provided access to the City it would be in that location and he wasn't sure how much flexibility the City would then have. Koropchak advised that Jeff O'Neill had been present . at the IDe's meeting and she was speaking on his behalf, as well as the IDe. She stated -8- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . that this group is a lobbying group on hehalf of the City and also that they are trying to improve communication with the Planning Commission and City Council. The recommendation by the IDe was based on thl.': 70 acres that were originaIly planned for industrial land use and the IDC's desire to maximize the City's industrial land. Koropchak advised of the second recommendation by the IDC which was to scale back the number of townhouses and to buffer between the neighborhood from industrial to residential. She added that possibly an 8 foot berm could be added, as well as a setting similar to a park on the residential side. She believed that this came from several of the industrial property owners and their comments in regard to issues with residential placed next to industrial. Carlson stated that there would be a road dividing this area, but Koropchak stated that they preferred the 8 foot berm, and Dragsten concurred. Dragsten questioned what would be done with the park land and Grittman stated the original idea was to have a mix of finished space along the pathway with some natural grass areas as welt and a mix of wooded and open linear park space. The land would be conducive to many possibilities. Carlson asked about the amount ofponding and would it he lined. Grittman stated that there has probably not been a lot of hydrology done at this time. . Horst Graser, Gold Nugget Development Inc., provided revised drawings as well as what was previously presented in 1998. He discussed the City's comp plan and the constraints that were place~l onthe development in regard to buffering, as well as its location on Highway 25. He noted they met with staff for input regarding the revised comp plan. The residential consists of 370 units with single family lots approximately 83 to 88 feet in width, which he feels is necessary to construct 3 car garages and still meet the 10 foot sideyard setback requirement. The 68 quad units consist of 4 units each with 4 differenl.s.tyles whicb can be combined, depending on desire of the buyer. He added that they are currently building these units in Rogers and have received positive feedback. They can also include a sun porch or patio and they are a slab on grade type of design, one level living geared toward the elderly. The townhome units on the norther part of the development are 2 story, 2 car tuck under garages with 1600 sq. ft. finished. The residential component containing more townhomes is indicative of the market, although he does understand staff s desire for more detached units. . Graser stated that regarding the acreage of commercial and industrial land he feels that 10 years out there will be changes and perhaps could be twice the population from what is there today. He didn't understand why the City would want to put industrial on that corner. He stated the whole corridor from Chelsea to Highway 25 would be buffered. They have proposed a frontage road all the way to School Boulevard as well. Regarding buffering and screening, he will do what he can to make it a pleasant transition. He stated the ponds that have been pre-designed would handle run off. Ponds in residential area are for residential only. He explained the park system and the access of pathways through the development as well. He also noted staffs input on the potential for a ballfield and noted where they intended to place it, although he was not sure about lighting as previously mentioned. The -9- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 trail section goes through the entire development and is proposed to end at the commercial corner. There will also be a trail or sidewalk along the collector street. Graser stated he had received stairs comments and addressed the cui de sac concern, adding that he \\mIld like to keep one of them. He can shorten it to meet standards hut to connect the other two would be a challenge. Graser added that the desire lor cui de sacs is by homeowners. He then pointed out a low area on the parcel where they would place the pond and park systems designed on each side. He added that this grade change would give them the opportunity to make some of the homes walkouts. It was noted that the number of units had been reduced to approximately 370 from the initial 570 units and that the density is basically identical overall at 2.5 units per acre. They discussed increasing the industrial land and Graser advised that he would he required to file for an amendment to the comp plan, further advising that his plan was taken directly from the City's comp plan. They also discussed the number of cuI de sacs and had they considered possible tear drops, not actually continuing all the way around. Graser he was not in favor of that due to there being such a large area of blacktop, but he would consider it if he could have center islands, adding that with large masses of blacktop it is difficult to organize traffic. They also discussed center islands being a benefit and Graser agreed, although there then becomes a maintenance issue. He did state however, that possibly center islands with trees and pavers would work, but the landscaping would have to be the responsibility of an association and would also need to be sprinklered. Grittman added that they have discussed this at staff level and have developed a standard for center islands, the idea would be to address maintenance issues, but they have been working on a standard to accommodate center islands. He stated they have been using them internally for new developments. Dragsten added that in trying to get higher quality housing, cuI de sacs are preferable. Grittman stated they are working with the street dept. on this matter to create a design they are comfortable with as well. Stumpf asked if this was something that could be incorporated in this development and agrees with staff that there seems to be an overabundance of cui de sacs. Graser stated that if he needed to move them or loop them, he would have to re-work the plan, doesn't feel connecting them would be the answer. . . Stumpf also questioned the IDC recommendation for an 8 ft. berm and did Graser feel they could do that. Graser stated that he did not feel he had enough dirt for that, and it is too aggressive, but possibly a combination ofberming, plantings, and fencing. He added that he did not feel that an 8 ft. berm would be a good solution. He did agree with Koropchak that this would be a sensitive issue, noting for them as well as they need to market these homes. He would prefer a mixture. Stumpf stated he would like to see something somewhat aggressive as he has seen residential Owners purchasing next to industrial sites and then complain later about buffering. Graser noted that the structures will be placed to make them more aesthetically pleasing as well. Stumpf added that regarding the request for 65 acres for . industrial he did not feel that the 5 acres would be that substantial and felt there are other ~ I 0- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 . areas available where they could add 5 acres. Stumpf preferred to keep the 10 acres commercial. Graser stated that they also wanted the 10 acres for commercial as they have potential users for that site. Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Roger Bechtold. 8617 Edmonson Ave. NE, stated that his property is adjacent to this parcel and he keeps horses on his site, as well as an alfalfa field that he farms. He questioned if the Planning Commission had any plans for his 20 acres. Carlson stated the Planning Commission is not a devcloper. He then asked if his land would be zoned residential as it is currently agriculture and Grittman noted that in the camp plan the land would be guided for residential, but until it is annexed and requested by him. the land will stay as it is as long as he chooses to keep it that way. A resident at 8817 Hwy 25 questioned the access that MnDOT had approved on Hwy 25. stating her concern with this and Grittman stated that this would need to be resolved and negotiated by MnDOT. She was concerned with how this would impact her entrance/property and it was noted that she would have to wait it out. . The public hearing was then closed. There was further discussion regarding the IDes request for the change in acreage and that they did not feci it would serve well unless accesses were to be changed. They agreed with berming and encouraged the applicant to work with staff on a mutual agreement. The applicant was also advised to work with staff to eliminate the number of cuI de sacs, specifically in the northeast corner of the site. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE GOLD NUGGET PUD, WITH COMMENTS AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WHICH INCLUDED REMARKS RELATING TO: SITE/LOT DESIGN ENHANCED LAND USE TRANSITION BUFFERING CIRCULATION/ACCESS INCLUDING A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF CUL- DE- SACS ADJUST HOUSING UNIT MIX IN A MANNER ESTABLISHING SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING AS TIlE PREDOMINANT LAND USE. MOTION BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. MOTION CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL OF A PARK PLAN BY THE PARKS COMMISSION. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. There was further discussion stating it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to keep the industrial and commercial sites as noted in the comp plan and that densely planted berming may be more beneficial. . - 11- Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/03 THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. . 9. Public Hearin.J - Consideration of amendments to the district boundar ma identified in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Applicant: Citv of Monticel1o. (Open public hearinl.! and continue to the A riImeetino for review b ful1 membershi of the Plannin r Commission. Vice Chair Carlson noted that it was requested that this item be continued at the April meeting due to a desire to have the ful1 complement of the Planning Commission present. Vice Chair Carlson opened the public hearing and continued it to the April meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP IDENTIFIED IN THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE APRIL 1,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 10. Consideration of setting special meetinL! date to conduct interviews for the vacant position on the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Carlson asked the commission members to decide on a date to conduct interviews for the vacant planning commission position. He advised that he had spoken to . Chair Frie who would be back in town on March 8. It was the consensus of the members to cal1 for a special meeting on Tuesday, March I I, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. to conduct the interviews. 11. Consideration of providing input on goals and proiects for the Citv. This subject to be discussed at the s ecial Planninn Commission meetin r when interviews arc bein r conducted. It was advised that goals and projects would be discussed at the special meeting to held March 11,2003. 12. Hillside Farms - update bv Grittman. Steve Grittman advised that he had spoken to Jeff O'Neil1 previously regarding the single family portion of this proposed development south of the Monte Club. He reminded the Planning Commission that this proposal is similar to what had been presented by a prior developer. Grittman stated that the area is guided for R-I A on the land use plan, but the plat was pursued as an R- I development. Originally when approved it was done so under R-I standards and the new standards were brought in after that. Staffs position is that the preliminary plat is approved but they are encouraging the developer to carry forward with R- . I A standards. The only issue posing difficulty woulJ be the percentage of garage frontage, -12- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 03/0-1./03 noting they are proposing 3 stall garages. Hilgart concurred and wanted to hold them to the new standards. Developer had originally discussed larger. higher quality homes. Carlson asked if there were any comments previously that this be developed with the next 40 acres but it was advised that nothing official had been stated at this time. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to proceed with R-IA standards. Patch asked what would tie the developer to comply with R~ I A standards on R-I lots and Grittman advised that this would be a requirement of them by City Council and incorporated in their developer's agreement. Grittman noted they were reluctant. but receptive. If they did not agree with this. it would need to come back to the Planning Commission. per Patch. The applicants were concerned with several of their lots being ofless square footage, not counting basements. but the remainder orthc lots were not an issue and they were looking for flexibility on those few lots. Grittman stated they have room to build the 2000 sq. ft. homes, most will be 2 story. and the only thing they will not be able to comply with is a percentage of garage frontage on some of the units as they do not have the width to comply. Hilgart asked about the chati of standards provided by Patch regarding square footages and sty les of homes. particularly the requirement for 1400 sq. ft. requirement and asked if there were different standards depending on the style of housing. Patch advised that ramblers are separate from that and advised that this will need to be looked at. Grittman stated that the 1400 sq. n. requirement pertained to all districts, stating the minimums in the R-IA would be a modified 2 story, 1400 sq. ft. on the first floor. Dragsten asked about the joint parking issue previously noted by Patch regarding the Krutzig development, that it should be required by CUP and the need to hold a public hearing at that time. He would like staff to bring something forward to the Planning Commission to consider at the next meeting. Stumpf asked about the post office access off of Locust Street now closed off, stating he understood that it would remain after Broadway was completed. Carlson stated he thought that it was only during the construction phase. Dragsten advised that it did not come through the Planning Commission. Patch added that the City does not have rights to that property as it is privately owned. 13. Adiourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:55 P.M. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED TI-IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Recorder -13- . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 4101/03 5. Public Hearine: Consideration ofa l"eauest for a Concept PUD review to permit a two- buildine commercial proiect on a parcel between County Road 39 and Liberty Lane. Applicant: Mike Cvr. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking Concept PUD review of a proposed project at the intersection of County Road 39 and Liberty Lane. The subject parcel is zoned PZM, and adjoins the Liberty Savings Bank facility. The applicant indicates that the two buildings will be occupied by a number of commercial office. professional office/service. and retail businesses. The types of uses proposed by the applicant require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the PZM Zoning District. The PUD process will serve to provide the CUP review for the project. If approved. the applicant should not need to obtain updated approvals. However, some commercial uses require separate Conditional Use Permits in the PZM District, most notably, Restaurants and Car Wash facilities. It would be expected that the introduction of these uses would require further CUP processing due to the unique traffic and parking generation aspects of those types of businesses. The PZM District states that the perimeter setbacks arc to be the same as the zoning district within which the proposed devclopment would be located if it were in a standard zone. In this case, the applicable zoning district would be B-4, General Business. For that district, zero setbacks are permitted. The proposed development shows two buildings that are generally set back approximately 10 to 12 feet from the perimeter lot lines (enough to be located off of the proposed drainage and utility easements). Two driveways serve the site, both located off of Liberty Lane. The applicant should provide a survey of the site, and identify driveway locations across Liberty Lane in an effort to match those locations and avoid offset intersections. The total project development shows 15,696 square feet of gross floor space. The required parking is 3 spaces, plus one space for each 200 square feet of floor area. The gross floor space is reduced by 10% to create an approximation of the net area for purposes of parking demand. For this site, a total of74 parking spaces would be required. 75 spaces are shown. The applicant has provided a concept drawing of the buildings on the site. The proposal is for a hipped-roof design, with projecting gables supported by columns covering building entrances. Materials are not identified. Planning staff would recommend that Planning. Commission Ag.cnda - 4/01/03 materials should be brick, stone, decorative block, and stucco, without the use of lapped siding. A textured roofing material \,"ould add interest to the rooL as opposed to standard asphalt shingles. . The applicant had initially asked for preliminary and final plat approval as a part of this review cycle. However, grading, drainage, and utility information \vill be necessary to proceed to preliminary plat. As such, planning staff recommends that only the concept PUD be considered at this time, and that the Preliminary Plat be considered with the Development Stage PUD during a subsequcnt planning cycle. One issue that will likely come from the drainage planning for the site will be stormwatcr ponding. This can significantly affect the layout of the site plan. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Concept Stage PUD for Liberty Park 1. Motion to recommend approval of a Concept Stage PUD for a two-building commercial development known as Liberty Park. This motion should be supported by a finding that the plan is consistent with the PZM zoning. with conditions that the applicant coordinate the driveway locations with other nearby development, and that Development Stage PUD plans include building materials. landscaping and lighting plans. and other standard PUD submission requirements. . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD for Liberty Park, based on findings generated as a part of the Planning Commission discussion. Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Liberty Park 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Liberty Park. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat for Liberty Park. 3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat for Liberty Park. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the concept plan as discussed above, but finds that the Preliminary Plat is not ready for approval due to additional required suhmissions. These 2 . . Plann ing Cotnm ission Agenda - 4/0 I /03 include Grading and Drainage Plans and Utility Plans. The Preliminary Plat may be considered at the next stage of review along \vith the Developmcnt Stagc PUD, and should be accompanied by Landscaping and Lighting Plans as well as information relating to building materials. SUPPORTING DATA 1. Site Plan 2. Building Elevations . . 3 ~ .,r "'v / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / \ \ \." " " " " " " " , \.' .J. '\ 1'>/ J ."'1 ,..A. .~ (). ~ \.. . .~, f)' ,^ ~. ,J\ " "l I / 't;:,. T(' ... - -( <;,. '''/ ~'k- 1I1 C/ -. /).... <. --<? " '-::--7 I\) -... ..... " " , " " , " '" '" '" , , On " (~~ , ,- " oS'--, . '\ ..., , '\ "~ '\'\ .,.. '\ <::> '\ .... \\ q, >:;.:. \ 'T. \ -- \ ~ \ \..\ Ar.. \ 'D u~ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Q :::-, ,.... C-' ..., b. r-- ~ ~ I d' -' ..... ~ '.0 1; '-, :,) "- :::! s;:; ~ i -Ilo. '-i ........ I~il ~~~I ~\I.. \IIi !~ !; ll~ ~. at.; hi I.., i i ~s I ~ & ! ~! I i R ~ II a I . '1Q I U ~ ~I 8 h ~ .. ~ Ii . :,\+,::~~(<, ~~: ~: . . -. N^'W_ . ~ ~ ~ ."; ~Y:~"-'''::i .'<. '. ' " ""', '.: .'. ~ u :.. " ~X :.\g~' !~~i~';' <.. ,*",' ,.'".. I- - &:. U -=:::: ~ o 5B~ . . . . Planning Commission Agenda ~ 4/01/03 6. Continued Public Hearin2 - Consideration amendment to the Citv's Comorehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Apolicant: Citv of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission is asked to consider an amendment to the Downtown Revitalization District Boundary Map. There have a few instances where the City has approved projects that were deemed to be appropriate as presented. but were technically inconsistent with the District Boundary Map. The Revitalization Plan is quite detailed in its land use recommendations, breaking down blocks into 11 different sub-districts. Because the occasional project changes the way in which the land uses arc arranged in the district. staff would like to update the downtown plan to be consistent with the development approved to date. Changes proposed include changing the old Library site (now Wells Fargo) from Civic uses to "Walnut Street District", and change the former,Wells Fargo (now Library) property from Walnut Street to "Civic Use District". Also, the Towne Centre site needs to be changed from "Civic Use" to the "Walnut Street District". The Design Advisory Team reviewed the proposed changes and supports the amendments as proposed. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to approve amendments to the Downtown Revitalization District Boundary Map. 2. Motion to take no action on the Downtown Revitalization District Boundary Map amendments. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the changes to the boundary map as proposed. SUPPORTING DATA Map of the Downtown Revitalization Plan Land Use Districts DA T Minutes .. ~ ~ . organized to create a sense of pieces fitting exactly together. The picture that results in a built downtown is one that is beautiful and one that functions well for the community. . ----- " , " \I ~ - 'if, ,. - " ~ - .. - \I " iIiII ill iii iii . .. C .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . , f I 1.:, D1str:i$ _ Downtown Monticello will always be a mix of uses, ages and patterns, and the plan recognizes a series of districts formed around basic uses and character. Therefore. a building near the river will have a character different from a building near the interstate. A uniform building character across the entire downtown will never be achieved and would likely be undesirable for tenants and the community. Within districts, however, buildings would have a strong relationship to one another and a consistent relationship to the streets of the district. na..v ,..; b ,oI'b _ f(.,. 11.'" of i 6 WOo G 'l u, l K_,. Pl"net . "lYe"'''ottT ~ 'AOADW..y~ OOWNtQWH ~ lI"O~OW4Y; &a5TAND ~ W!rr ~ WALNUT .~"IHe: o II!VI!NTH STAIiET LZl2l n'\,aH81f10NAL. D NeJ,OHIIO..HOOD ~ INOuat"'A!,. ~ r'::'.. .." ...~~1 ~"'U( ANg O~I!" $~ACr __ CIVICltNITIT\JTION..... " , - . - ~ , ~ , , ~ , " " II " II ~ " ~ ~ ~ , , , , 1t The plan envisions eleven districts in downtown, each with varying targets for use and character: Riverfront · Specialty retail, eating establishments, lodging, entertainment, multi- family residential, offic~; upper level residential or office; two or three story buildings; river orientation; emphasis on public areas surround- ing buildings (rather than parking lots) . ) Broadway: Downtown · Small and mid-sized retail, specialty retail, personal and business ser- vices, eating establishments, lodging, entertainment and office; upper level residential or office; two story buildings; orientation to Broadway Broadway: East and West · Single family residential; strong emphasis on restoration of existing older homes If' Walnut · Small and mid-sized retail, personal and business services, eating establishments and office; upper level residential or office; two story buildings encouraged; orientation to Walnut Street Pine · Mid-sized retail and office; two story buildings encouraged; orienta- tion to Pine Street . Seventh Street · Larger scale retail and service, auto-oriented retail and service, drive- through restaurants, lodging; orientation to Seventh Street Transitional · Mix of small office, personal and business services, multi-family resi- dential and single family homes Neighborhood · Predominantly single family homes following existing neighborhood patterns Industrial · Sunny Fresh operations only; transition to Civic/Institutional, Walnut or Transitional if Sunny Fresh ceases operation Park and Open Space · Parks, cemeteries, outdoor public spaces and gathering spaces Civic/institutional · Municipal and county facilities (except maintenance operations), pub- lic meeting spaces, community activity spaces, educational facilities, churches, outdoor gathering spaces . A N,w .ddg<! :L Revitalizing Monllcello5 Downtown and Riverfront ~ - 1 . . . Minutes Regular Meeting - Design Advisory Team Tuesday, March 18, 2()()3 Monticello City I-Iall- Academy I{oom MEMBERS PRESENT: Pam Campbell, Dennis Sullivan, Roberta Gerads, and Susie Wojchouski MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Hoglund OTI-IERS PRESENT: Ollie Koropchak, and JetlO'Neill 1. Call to Order Susie Wojchouski called the meeting to order at 4:45 pm 2. Approval of minutes Pam pointed out that the name of the owner of the Crostini Grill \-vas misspelled in the minutes. A motion to accept the minutes from March 4, ::003 as corrected, was made by Pam Campbell and seconded by Roberta Gerads. Motion passed. 3. Consideration of adding items None 4. Zoning Changes in the Downtown District Jeff O'Neill presented the request for a zoning change to the planning commission, \-vhich will account for the swap of the Public Library property with the Commercial Bank property. Motion to recommend approval of the zoning change was made by Pam Campbell and seconded by Roberta Gerads. Motion passed. Motion by Pam Campbell to advise the council to support the HRA in additional re-development to replace the loss of tax increment revenue for the bank / library property swap. Motion seconded by Roberta Gerads. Motion passed. 5. Ollie's Update Block 52 A new Three Phase Concept was presented to the /-I RA A detailed site plan was reviewed and discussed. At this point. none of the architectural features were presented but we reminded Ollie that we desire something significant for this corner. 6. Meeting Ad.journ A motion to adjourn was made by Pam Campbell and seconded by Roberta Gerads. Meeting adjourned at 5:30pm Next meeting is scheduled for April 1,2003 Suhmitted hy: Dennis .1. Sullivan UD . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 3/04/03 7. Consideration of a request of Home Depot to allow a pYlon sign in excess ofthe zoning requirements. Applicant: Home Depot, et al. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City Council approved the Home Depot Plat and PUD with the exception of the pylon sign request that originally proposed an 80 foot tall sign, with 392 square feet of sign area for the two principal users (I-Iome Depot and "Retail B"). The zoning standards for the property would permit a 22 foot tall sign with 1 00 square feet of area for each property involved. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider the issues involved in Home Depot's request, and make a recommendation regarding the potential for a tall sign under the PUD, or the need for an amendment to the Sign section of the zoning ordinance. Since the Planning Commission discussion on this issue, Home Depot has agreed that they would be satisfied with a 60 foot tall sign, based on visibility of the sign from the freeway within one half mile either direction. The tallest sign approved by the City to this point is a 54 foot tall sign on the Mielke property (north west of this site) under a PUD approved for a mixed commercial project on that site. Much of the discussion supporting the Mielke proposal related to adjacent property signs that had heights similar to his proposal. Other signage allowances have been granted for other area commercial PUDs, including the Ford dealership. That allowance primarily addressed the number of freestanding signs on the property. Because the Ford dealer was within 800 feet of the freeway, they were permitted to have sign heights of up to 32 feet. For Home Depot, the proposed PUD analysis would be that the higher, larger sign is a trade for more, smaller signs on the property, and is based on Home Depot's contention that visibility from the freeway is critical to success of the project. On the first point the applicants also propose a 17 foot tall monument style sign that is in compliance with the City's sign regulations. The City would need to decide if it would be willing to "trade" the taller pylon in exchange for fewer, smaller signs on the individual development parcels. With regard to freeway visibility, planning statT believes that this standard is not appropriate as a consideration for varying from the established sign heights allowed in the zoning ordinance, since properties more remote from the freeway would be able to make this argument for ever-increasing sign heights. Moreover, it seems to planning staff that visibility from the freeway is more likely to be important for businesses that are dependant on impulse decisions of freeway travelers such as restaurants, gas stations, and motels, rather than building materials or general commercial products. These businesses typically cluster near freeway interchanges to take advantage of that traffic, whercas other businesses have a more defined trade area and rely on other types of commercial identification. While freeway visibility is undoubtedly sought by many types of commercial businesses, it would seem to be a poor criterion for decisions about signage regulations. Planning Commission Agenda - 3/04/03 . If the City believes that the sign regulations should be changed to accommodate higher signs in generaL an amendment could bc drafted that would do so. In this particular case. the PUD trade-off would have more limited implications for other properties. and may be prekrred for that reason. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to recommend approval of a taller and larger pylon sign for the Home Depot and Retail B complex, based upon the finding that the use of the PUD will allow the City to exchange approval of the taller sign for other sign restrictions that will result in a superior development, including. monument signage identifying individual tenants only. Selection of this option would enable the request to move forward to City Council. 2. Motion calling for a public hearing on an amendment to the zoning ordinance increasing pylon size and area in the B-3 District. This motion may be accompanied by conditions under which such size increases may be made, such as acreage or square footage of buildings. The amendment to be considered at the meeting. .., .J. Motion to recommend denial of the over-sized Home Depot sign, based on a finding that the sign does not qualify for PUD approval as an enhancement to the project. and requiring application of the standard zoning sign regulations. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staff does not believe that additional sign size is appropriate for general retail areas, and encourages consistent application of the sign regulations to all businesses as the fairest type of regulation, and easiest to apply. If the Planning Commission believes that accommodation should be made, two alternatives are offered that could be approved in combination. The first is approval by PUD, which would grant the City some ability to negotiate a package of signs that would be deemed to be better than the standard zoning allowance. The second option would be to prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would accommodate taller and/or larger signs. The City could apply certain conditions on this type of amendment, including extraordinary size of the property or building as a qualifier for additional sign sIze. SUPPORTING DATA Home Depot Sign Proposal . :2 . . f ~ L- " 'f 1 C' , ~. r"- f,- f r- r r-- I 'e i f I r f . . .....~..J...~:'... ~ii 9 en <D Ii ti- ll) :! ~ ~ al ,...:0 ~ i 2 ~ co 0 c a;;E~~ i t:s.3:g ..J 2.$ <l>E 'it:l~E"2 E :a ~ <Il "" <<J tI).!i o~ fj E-"'~E<ll BU~ 9 G)~N.! : ~.c *s <D . . . .0".9 co -' '<:t "VG 9 b ,.. .O-.f; G! & f/J 7ii ;2 ~ en ~ .l!! :c ~ ~ :c Q. CIl t; o ;:: J:J {t: .. CD Ul E 9 N <Ii Ct E E! 'E <ll J:: li5 Ii (I) ~ (I) ~ u CD :5 /i {g ,S 2 ~~ .r:; ~ ~ g .~ ~ ~t t:l c.!3:E *~ c:: :c t:l ,S ~ .2l~lij-g€o lI) ~~::O=C\I il>< ~'5o e ~ ':": c 0)- III 'S: t:l -'" <ll 'E i <I> E ~ <ll u:S'2 _E J! '~ ;r; <I> ,EO ~ CD ~.!. E"G5 '5 - <a>-flc::g- ~""g.o:c.= u;iu~~lj 9 ~,~2t:e ~ ~~~ffi~ , . ~ Q. ::l ~, 7ii ~;2 :0; - a.. a: o t- O <C a: I- Z o o b> (Q ....... G! & f/J al () .$ (l) 0, c 'Vi l1 :t: a. ~ OJ >. c '5 ..s '~ 'ii r:: CIl n. E :J l:: E :J a Tii u:: I'D -' ..... <ll Ol ro c: Ol iJ5 '0 Q. <ll o <ll <llCii E U oU) I~ Q) ~ i5-;t Cii Q hL td~ (j) ErUUH .E! "drnd B! I;OpHl ~ t~f~t~n' ~ ~""H ~n o .;~SH,fl I.C) , _,l! ~ ~ ! 1 , o l{) 'N '0 o ,N '" .., ;2:("..,jN };gg ..2 (''-l C'~ 'iidc .~ t:! (~ c: 0 t"".~ 0-- };'i:i;"; . " " o <<i.~ '"""" t;I ;;... ~u~ ce o"g Q.<J) QJ ~ Q .= QJ:E S ~ c 0 ==~ QJ.~ "C...... Eo- 6 :E -g ;;' g o rt'". 0 0:= ~ "E. "" " _ C'C:: - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tl ~ g R "& < ~ :: .z ~~~ ~ at; (;C, "-1 ....I:; 0-. 0-' ;:J;'j~ "17 0 ~ :::: I Z ;::. z.......ff I ;? -- -- ""' o f ......~ -......." I . (I) .0 a:; ~ 9- E x to (I) >- to <Il C '-' Cl ..'::o'ffiE~8 !2c,2.o.'oj <l>g'='-''-' ,~ '" ~ ~ fj _ "to ..- ~OlEZ8 E:a:;~CUl ::J{).s:~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ L.,I ~.s>.!!'l5~ lil3~J:; .r: C C '" '" U - <Ii 6 . !.ai~Q.<')~ ~~fj~~'S :oUlg-Z5 BE",Eou -0.2:6 -co ~ ~'iK~ '~rv/iD::'i i,S'J;,):$i .... :~:~;,~i~~j . ,..... . ....:: o c.: t-= b Q.. ~ u.. .... . t-= w~ . Z~u.. OxO <(.....0 w:: 00 zXoo ~~~ ~6<o J: o::t ~ ~. 0'> ~ o:t ..... OI ..' <( 80 t: o 00 o co co (l) 0> ttl C 0> 0) 0'- g. II 0: (l)CO E' o ,- I~ (l) ttl .c Q, f-(I) o ~ c.'~ i l' t '.. J.~ '.' jr. . < ~ f · , ! ~" .' ~.. if... J f. f .' .~. 1i'i~ dl;. ~ 1'1 'f' ". ~ Z : g~ .Jd~ h<Hiir~ t,\\,~r!i~~r' Hr" loi II" ~ ., 1..' ~~!dJi~I ..., '=' '=' '" <.I) 7 :Z:'" ::Eg ~at 8 gt:' ~ gS 0::; ..,. .. .. E-< "7~13tJ) Cl ~.~ ~ ~ t;o:; ,,.....0::>::1<1; .. ....0 ILl U t'I: ...... "0 t>Cj S c.. -0 (l; Q,l ctl ~ Q 0 C ~ .~ e(1j~ Q ~ c :tO~ Q,l...r:: c.; .c U '= F- 15 :2 "" ..., " '" "" c o f'F", C ~ ~ .J:: ::= ~ ~ ~ J: ~ ~ u: t ~ g ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ Z ; ~ :;: ~'€o-,~ N c "I:t "I:t ~C:~~; :r. 7 '-' >- J) :..r; 7, >- ,...... ,-. '-' i.) I { . . . o 00 CJ .0 B u '2 >- <1) +-, W Q ~ ~ -~ g 8 .to~E~-, <tir::-2-t~ ""'" cp.n:= t'O .J::.. ~n_~15~ m;grn(l>O ill"'~-D~ E~alc..9<1) ~ ::Ju-illg' > r::2",cm ...... E.S!~{ii5 ~ -2.gg:u; -- ('lJ 00 1.2 .r::-o uigCllc '~ Q) ~ g---~ ~--~ Q)2u.!!!Cllg~ .S: tJl '0 ~;c.x '5i ~ ~. ~..$o. ~7 ' -5 -~ (lJ OJ -m .0 (lJ (I) ctl..c .D (I) E _~ ::;J- C Q) ,- Ci E D- ::;J __ roUi o (0 o N to N .,.: lL o 00 N ..... ...J ::5 o t- t- ~ : 09t: t-9t: fheo Zeo. C><OZ <><g 00 . W: WOc.o ::EOc.ot-.C') 0.' C') eo :I:U) hh~~fi~i rr~ia~ni I!lhjljlj g~!~(!~!i: ff'i!~{~~l ;_i ~Jl'Jd ~J ' ~ o .N 'Q'] ~NN o8~ -~a vooN v.......... '-..-. -"';:::;M "'-- o ".;,; ~ 1l ... o -;.~ :I: ~ i; ,...u.:>: "'0 t1:l m o ...... 0::: 0 '0 t1:l ~ c.&C Clol - c Q (l)..... ClolO::E = dd 6 ~ :::: ::: 0 ~ Clol 0 'Z .c 0 C &-:-;: 0 ~~ -t Q ~ Q) OJ ro c OJ U5 8.~ Q) II 0., (l)-.;t- E:;:::- o .. I..22 (l) ctl ..c <.) .......(1) "0 E g ~ ~ ~ ~ i!'"'1 Co;I iI":: <-:=l = u ~ -;:; E !- "" ~ ~ g R: ,~ ~ ~ ~ c.."': , , Z= ~ ~ ~ \.'I: 0-., 0- ~ ~ ~ ~ t.;;. .Cl ~ ~ o J; 2- I ~. ~ J~. if, ~ ..... ::=:: v I ' V I . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 04/01/03 8. Discuss Residential Desi!!n Requirements for Planned llnit Devclonments in the Ori~inal Plat of the City of Monticello. Annlicant: Tom .Johnson, Emerald Estates, LLC (JO) REFERENCEANDHACKGROUND Tom Johnson has submitted a sketch plan showing three duplex units in the 41,000 square foot area (four city lots) north of the Church building at 3rd and Maple Street. Planning Commission is asked to provide general feedback to the developer to assist him in development of a concept PUD plan. Please note that Johnson has also provided a plan for the area of the Social Services Center. Planning Commission is not asked to review the proposed plans for this area. Planning Commission is asked to review the plan in terms of compatibility and consistency with the neighborhood. Although it appears that the sitc density and setback can be met following the design proposed, the layout of the project does not appear to be consistent with the traditional design of the existing neighborhood. As you know, this old section of town features the traditional alignment of homes facing the right of way. The development proposal features one driveway access off Third Street with parking and garage areas in the center of the development. Although the design might work well in new neighborhoods, it may seem out of place in a traditional neighborhood. As an alternative to this design, the developer could construct more traditional homes/townhomes facing West Third Street with driveway/alley access in the back. Ideally, the homes could be two story structures with architectural features consistent with the traditional home constructed in the older pm1 of town. City planning staff does not think that the developer has prepared a bad plan but on the other hand, we feel that the neighborhood would be best served by following a more traditional design. Since City code provides limited authority to staff to direct design, and because the comprehensive plan does not speak directly to this topic, staff and developer need feedback from the Planning Commission prior to the developer proceeding to concept stage PUD. Planning Commission should not take specific action with regards to this project, rather it should discuss the goals with regards to redevelopment of the traditional residential areas. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion supporting requirement that redevelopment/PUD projects in the traditional neighborhoods be required to follow a traditional design in order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Direct staff to develop an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan clarifying this design goal if necessary. Planning Commission Agenda ~ 04/01/03 2. Motion supporting design flexibility with regards to redevelopment projects in traditional neighborhoods. . ST AFF RECOMMENDATION One of the goals of almost every small town is to retain some of the charm and character. The answers to these questions will guide the applicant as he develops concept stage plans. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of Site Plan 2 . . . . . . February 26, 2003 Jeffrey O'Neill City of Monticello Deputy Administrator/ CommWlity Development Director Jeff, With your input from our previous conversation I believe we have come up with a good design that will promote the curb appeal the city is looking for in this neighborhood. I have attached two site plans for our proposed development in Monticello. Block 28 Lots 6 - 9 along West Third We like courtyard idea we discussed. Having all of the garages and parking toward the center of the property. This will allow porches and house elevations to face the street and the neighbors. Each unit will be a twin single story patio home with approximately 1600 finished square feet. Block 21 Lots 4 & 5 along Maple Street Here again we wanted to get away from the garages facing the street. We have tucked the garages inside the home, which will be a quad two story with bedrooms on the second level. Each Wlit will be on a comer allowing living areas and porches to face public space. I have attached an example of what the outside comer WlitS of this home will look like. If you have any questions or input please call. Sincerely, Thomas J. Johnson Emerald Estates, LLC. 17888 182nd Avenue Big Lake, MN 55309 763-263-8953 ~A . HOMESTEAD COLLECTION '.:.;. ',.,' . ~"'.. -;::;';~f-', ,. .1~1'~~~ . ./.' -' .~' -,:.,' -,- "'A','i',', -;'.:~f.';( ,,~.. . ',- ',,(\ .. ,,/' \' " . ~ TOWN &: COUNTRY HOMES ~B ....... 0 - - Q) 0 ..;::: c 0 ::E f+-o 0 td 0:: ca c .00 ..... 1-1 0 I/") ~ 'V .... 0 ....:I - N ~ 0 - t:Q 0.. Q) oM .... ~ ;eM ~ .... t> .S N I/")S~ G'J~ .<.o:i . s=- O\VV IU >< ~~~ a Q) ~~~ .... "'0 ~ ~ ~ ~.~ t't> -e~-e Q) lZl Q) !.~ lZl lZl s:: til =1/") .g 0 "'1/") ..... 1-1 ~ c::lo4- tIJ ~ ~aJ 179 ....... : IOD. X '1'4.'. :ocw C!YIMlC ..USI...... II!MIIIO """'" K:AA .......... IUU"'X ..... """""""""" -,., -.OUVI Railroad Tracks . ..jool ~ ...... e ..jool .... rLl eM ~ \0 - C4 orrHI l' = ~ . C{;B . . . ~~ ~ es ..... lZllZl (0 .....Z g"CT (") ~ ~~ l'>.Jl'>.J 00 ~~ ~a <~ ~. ft ~ lZl g:Z (0 CT .c;: ~ i:;l.~ :;'Vl w E?:o Vl gW (") ..... (0 CT i CT s. c:: ~ to 0" (") ~ l'>.J 00 t'""' S- uO', u--..J 00 ~ \0 o ::l. lJCl ..... es a :2 a o I'-+) s::: 15 ..... n' g. 0" l'>.J"tl ~... ooQ ~'i ~~ ~. t:1 t:l.o _. (0 a x to -= 0'\ ~. VIe ~~ Z t:l.o (0 .g .}a.u.}s aldsw r - _.... ..----~... =-: ,.-~---~ .. I *= I , , ~ ~ ..... ~ ..... a -j .:.... I ~ ji L"_, r"\ - I , , I == , ..._~-~~~ ........ - : 1 , =. - ,-~---.. =: cO . . . Plann ing COIllIll ission Agenda - 04/0 1/03 9. Consideration of callin!,! for a public hearing on a Comprehensive Plan ~Imendment that establishes a ratio of single family to two familv development in developing areas. (10) REFERENCE AND BACKGROllND The City Council reviewed the information that foHows and requested that the Planning Commission study the topic and consider making changes to the Comprehensive Plan accordingly. At this point, the Planning Commission is asked to review this introduction, discuss and consider calling for a public hearing on a potential Comprehensive Plan amendment. The areas identified as "low density" residential in the Comprehensive Plan have been generally guided by the 3 units per acre rule. This means that plats located in the areas guided for low density have been viewed as acceptable as long as this standard has been met. It appears that employing this standard as the only measure for guiding housing development in low density areas provides the opportunity for developmcnt of a relatively high number of attached homes relative to single family homes. Achieving the 3 units per acrc ratio is accomplished by developcrs through combining dcvelopmcnt of relatively few large single family lots with a greater numbcr of attached homes. Attached is a chart which shows the recent land developmcnt proposals and the associated ratio of single family to attached housing. Staff is concerned that the land development pattern, though achieving thc 3 units per acre ratio, may not be achieving the housing dcvelopmcnt goals for thc City in the arcas guided for low dcnsity. One method for addressing the situation would be to combine a density maximum (3 units/acre) along with a maximum ratio of attached housing to single family housing. For instance, a general rule could be established which says that low density residential areas shall have no more that one attached housing unit per every two single family units. The actual ratio could be determined by the Planning Commission/City Council through the comprehensive plan amendment process. Please note that thc concern relates to the Hokenson/Brock Park Development which is the development group that desire to develop the Klein/O'Brien property. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to conduct a review of the housing development goals for the City in areas guided for low density and call for a public hearing on a comprehensive plan amendment that would result in refined density and housing type standards in low density areas. Planning Commission Agenda - 04/01/03 ") Motion to take no action on the request to conduct a review of the housing deYt~lopment goals for the City in areas guided for low density and not call for a punlic hearing on a comprehensive plan amendment that would result in refined density and housing type standards in low density areas. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the housing development rends and consider directing staff to study the topic further and call for a public hearing on a potential amendment. SllPPORTING DATA Chart identifying various development proposals and associated housing mix. 2 . . . ! ,; / ,I . . ~,"~~,~ ~~ '~/;,Il.ijjj/!I~I/;ft= . 5f0~ ~~6f$;~~~fft6~ ri . ~~~~ll~~~~~ ) ~ '" \ . "~~ik~C5~@$~~~~%~ O I ~ fJjifq~fY.gf![jI!-fl/)Ii~;:~'$t 16~~D ~~~~~"$iO~ + ,. ~ '-==t:f T7i~ cWi@r>~~D ~I rTTt;,..'GIf/:i;,v, <: Lbr '-l.J..J 1I111 I I I ~ J 1#; "- I V ~ ~~ ~qlt:lllr~ ~l:ttit~~~ 7fi-.-=YN _~ T~~~\, ~ 6"1ko~ ~Ii{c,,/ ~ / ~ ~'lIlIeII /1 T7JI ""'~ ~gjg ~\ II '-''''ITTTT 7/0' ~ ~ II I~ 7/~c __q;. ~~ /l.f..~' \'~ ~ I III L 1 u ~ .. -1n' l ''',:r --II 1 "- ;) 7 " -" D '/ T I. ItJ-..a -'4Il..r ~t,- .'-~ktJ 1~11, h ~~ \0" \'f\-> ~J^f' I ~IT ~i~ ~ " \.VI" 7' "11Tf" o =::::r 9 b !..- ~ I ~,,-~ "-"'" ~~ '- ~, 1= ~ ~ II I _\~ ~':.....ll (~ .......... ~ ............ 'lIoJ. PI ~,,~ "T , Pl,.!--i -f:lo,",,-S J, ~ ANNEXATION CRITERIA Preliminary Plat Approx. Acreage , Comp Plan Guided Concept Plan [TI MW Johnson l."~+ ., Shermer - GJ Farr EJ Jim Shultz -- Eii+':-/ Ken Shultz l~/'I Ken Shultz ~<'H Future ~;.31 Future CLJ Future u=J Chris Klein ~ Loren O'Brien ___QJ Gold Nugget ft:jY:J Gold Nugget QJ Gold Nugget ~ Groveland IV CO Chadwick . + = Proceed with annex~tion by Ordinance or Joint Resolution o "= W.:lit for development of potential new MOAA Agreement or completion of necessary studies/planni:1' 1 27.06 (R-l) Approved Pending Need Study 2 21.47 (R-l) Approved Approved ~vailable 3 38.96 (R-lA) Pending Pending !\va:IIaEI"e 4 39.78 (R-1A) Approved Approved !\vailable 5 17.39 Med. Den. Attach Pending Pending A.vailable 6 34.55 (R-1A) PendinS!: Pending Available 7 107.40 Ind I R-1 Not Cant guous Yet 8 39.60 (R-1A) Not Contiguous Yet 9 67.55 (R-l) Not Cont ~gUOUS Yet 10 37.96 (R-l) &me Available None Available Available 11 56.72 (R-l) None Available, None Available Available 12 39.96 (R-l ) Under Develo~nt 13 I 40.35 (R-l) Under Develop;;;rnt /-bt Avail. 14 31.03 Ind I rot Avail. 15 I 26.27 (R-l ) Approved IApproved ~vailable 16 I 6060 Ind Approved IPending ~vailable "- 11 "5"' n f A I.. f',,_ j}u {F LJ.... ;.1...., ~.t ;A< wu.,/ ; n C., () Co .."'< : I "..,i... q A . -i -i "'0 o 0 CD ~9[ n CD c c ;2. 0 ~, ~. Q, '" cnu; W 8" 0 ~ iil Percent of Total o o '" o '" I. ;0 ~ '" ii1 " .g ~ ;; <c ~ ~ '" ill :::0 :. "'" ~ CD "'" (fl ~~ 5: '" CD ." :) '" :::!: :I III I I 0 c ~~ (fl 5' ~ :r CO r- 0 --l S1. ~ '" ;; '< ;; '" "0 <c .., CD m ." "0 . ~ ~ 0 CD < CD 0- "0 3 --f~ CD 0 ~ i[ 0 --l '" ...., PI CD '" :) '" a. "'" '" (fl 3' <0 CD ." '" j! "" I .... '" i[ ~ 0; l "'" .... '" :E " or '" 3 ~ . ::I:G)G)OC/'Js::r ~ i3 Q. ~ ~. ~ ~ -. <: Q. -. -. CD Q.~Z~""':r:a-::I CD OJ C CD _, ::r '" "11::1<0<=::>0 OJQ.<o=(/l",::> 3.t>-CDiiJ;U0[i:i (lJS:"-~~~a ~ 0 -i ;:0;- o "'D :E OJ ::> ;;<- ::r o 3 ...... w- . .t>- o...... -..Jo ..... Ol t'..J :::.e '" t'..J 0> :e.. ::/2. '" O>Ol ......000 ...... 0> eo .t>--..J W-..J Ot'..Jeo !:J"J 0> ::/2. '" .t>- -..J U1 :::.e '" -..J U1 o......oWo Z o -i o :E => 0............000 $ (oo-,"''''w (/l-..Jt'..J.t>-t'..Jeo )>OCf))>)> '00;:0;-'0'0 'O=>!!!.'O'O agg.aa di'S-odidi c.)>iiJc.Q. 'O=> '0 a <: CD Q. 'z 0 0 ~. i ! ~.g-8 a. !!: ~ !a 5 J i ~. ~ 8" ':: .g [ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ 5" Dl <0 1U ~ ~ .... '" :E " or '" 3 ~ )> () iil '" CIJ:lJ "117" )> Cf):lJ "11..... ClJCf) "113 OJ = r 51 d:? ruru ~o ::r CD c. ::r-i o 0 3 :E CD ::> '" ' c....... ::I 0 -, .... cn~ 00 ~ ~ ::l < (/l ~ -iIOZ o 0 ~ e: ~3iU3 ::l~nC" :T(/l:T~ o "C ~ .., 3~Q.o ~.., ..... eno lire: .... .., e: ii3 III =- o CD - nl n ::r CD a. ::I: o c en ::J co -f nl e- CD en ::r o ~, ::J co '0 ..., o ...... CD n - en ::J '0 Dr ::J ::J ::J co en - nl co CD en :e lir n :T ~ Q. > en en o n nl - CD 0.. ::r o c en ::J co 3 x' nl ::J 0.. 0.. CD ::J en - ';<: s: nl ..., n :r N ~ - N o o w Clo