Planning Commission Agenda 06-03-2003
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TucsdHY - .June 3, 2003
6:00 P.M.
,,0
Members:
Council Liaison:
Staff:
Dick I:rie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart. and David Rietveld
Brian Stumpf
.lefT O'Neill. Fred Patch. and Steve Grittman
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held May 6, 2003.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing concept
stage planned unit development f()r 2, four unit townhouse buildings: and Consideration of a
request for a variance to the 30 foot hont yard setback in the R-2 district off Maple Street
and variance to the 20 foot side yard setback ofT 31d Street. Applicant: Emerald Estates LLC
6. Public I learing - Consideration of a request for interim use/conditional use pennit allc)\\ing
outside storage. Applicant: .lay C. Morrell/JME of Monticello
7.
Public }--Iearing - Consideration to review current sign ordinance regarding monument and
pylon signs in relation to height and square footage for possible amendment. Applicant:
Monticello Planning Comn'ission
8. Public J-Icaring - Consideration of comprehensive plan amendment establishing ratio of
single family homes to attached townhomes. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission
9. Public Hearing - Consideration to review R-IA, R-l. R-2. and R-2A setback standards for
the purpose of clarification of the regulations. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission
10. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of preliminary plat approval of the Otter Creek
Crossing commercial subdivision. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC
11. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of preliminary plat and development stage pun
approval of the Carlisle Village residential subdivision. Applicant: Shadow Creek
Corporation.
12. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a concept stage planned unit
development in the R-2 Disti'ict. Applicant: Richard Carlson
13.
Consideration of an appeal of decisions by the Monticello Design Advisory Team (DAn
regarding signs located at 211 Highway 25 South. Applicant: Flickers TV & Appliance.
14.
Adjourn
-1-
.
.
.
Planning COlllmission Minutes"- 05/06/03
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - May 6, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart David Rietyeld
and Council Liaison Brian Stumpf
S tafT:
.lcff ODNeilL Fred Patch. and Steve Grittman
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and declared a quorum.
')
6pproval gJ'the min~ltes ofthe.regular Planning Commi~sion mee,ting held April~L 2003.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD I-IlLGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE APRIL]. 2003 MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED "['HE MOTION.
MCrrION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
-.
_1.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
,. ',' ~,."m '", ~~
There were no items added however. Chair Frie noted that staff was to provide current sign
ordinance information. but due to the length of the agenda it should be provided at the June
meeting.
4. Citizens comments. None
5. Public _Hearing - Consideration of a request for an i1lterim use permit allowing a publ.is.
school use in the !~ I District Applicant: Monticello Public Schools
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the staff report regarding the school's application for
an interim use permit fiJr the Turning Point Alternative Learning Program. Grittman
provided a brief background as well. It was noted that the use has fit fell with the site to
date. and the last discussion they had was for consideration of a more permanent use. The
Planning Commission believed that a temporary use was more appropriate for the site and
Grittman advised that staff recommends continuation for a 3 year extension.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Benedetto, School Supt.. 19397 -180!11 SL Big
Lake. advised that they were again asking for an interim use permit to continue at that site.
It was advised that they currently have 45 at-risk students. ages 16 to 21. They believe they
have been good neighbors and have put a lot into the structure and would like to stay. They
stated they have continued to look around for other possible sites. but the cost per month to
occupy this building is a good bargain for the School District. The cost of the facility is paid
Planning COlllmission Minutes - 0.5/06/0.3
for by a levy for the School District. \vhich they noted would increase if they were to haw to
move.
.
Benedetto introduced Lynn I-Ialdy. an employee at ALP and Frie questioned her irthere had
been any reaction from adjoining residents/neighbors to them. positive or negative. Haldy
stated there had been a concern several years ago with some of the students smoking near the
lumbar yard. and at that time they discussed the matter with their students and it has been
taken care of. She advised that the students care about their school as well and there have
been no further incidents. She added that the comments she hears are comments in support
or the school. I-Ialdy advised that these students are from grades 9 to 12. generally evened
out. although this year there are a few more lOth grade students.
Frie asked staff if there were any comments and O'Neill advised that he has not heard any
complaints or comments. Patch stated that as far as any feedback from the public. it has
only been favorable and positive. The public hearing was then closed.
There was further discussion regarding enrollment and whether it fluctuated or stayed
consistent. It v.. as advised that the numbers arc usually steady. they may drop to about 38 at
the low point but usually stay steady between 40 to 45 students. It was also noted that they
arc maxed out at this site at 45 students. Haldy stated they do not desire to gro\\ any larger
as their strength is with this size group. and works \vell for them and their mission.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR TI-IE ALTERNATIVE LEARNING PROGRAM. BASED
ON A FINDING THAT TilE USE HAS RAISED NO CONCERNS FOR SURROUNDING
INDUSTRIAL USES. FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. AND WITH CONDITIONS OF
TI-IE PREVIOUS PERMIT AS LISTED IN TI-IE STAFF REPORT. DA VF REITVELD
SECOND 'fHE MOTION.
.
hie further commented that his request for two years versus three was due to concerns with
the closing of the elementary school. He also advised that he had spoken to Benedetto about
this as well. There was further discussion among the members whether they preferred two
three years. The consensus was that they were comfortable with three years. Heldy added
that 3 years would be better as it gives them more flexibility to look for another site as well.
Benedetto stated he did talk with Frie regarding a possible 2 year permit. but they do not
want to look at Eastview as they would probably reoccupy that building in 2004.
Therefore. Frie and Reitveld recindcd their motions.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR "fl-IE ALTERNATIVE LEARNING PROGRAM.
BASED ON A FINDING THAT TI-IE USE HAS RAISED NO CONCERNS FOR
SURROUNDING fNDUSTRIAL USES. FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. AND
WITH CONDITIONS OF THE PREVIOUS PERMIT AS FOLLOWS: .
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes -- 05/06/03
I.
A SHORT TERM TERMINA TION DATE IS ESTABLISHED IN ()RDER TO ENSl:RE
TI-IAT THE CITYDS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES \VERE NUf
AFFECTED BY THE LOCATION OF SCHOOL FACILITY IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
TIlE BUILDING WAS REMODELED ONLY TO THE EXTENT T1-1^ T CONVENIENT
RE-USE BY OFFICE OR INDUSTRIAL USERS WOULD STILL BE POSSIBLE.
THE P^RKING WAS JUDGED TO BE ADEQUATE FOR THE SCHOOL USE OF THE
PROPERTY.
'I
3.
Riel-lARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
6.
Puhlic lIearing - Consideration of a request for a variance Jg..!.l~Jea!'.Y.(!I:SL~<jb.9-~ks to allow
construction of a 20' x 29_'-.hui]ding addition. Applicant: Michael Renstrom
Steve Grittman. City Planner provided the staff report advising of the location of this
property where the applicant is asking for a variance for expansion of his home. This \vould
require a variance for approximately 11 feet. Grittman stated that variances have a rigorous
set of criteria and need to find a physical condition that is unique to the property which puts
a hardship on rcasonahle use of the property. In this case the property is in a reasonahle use
already. It is hard to find hardship in accordance with the ordinance. While the lot is
narrow. there is land availahle on the property that would accommodate expansion of the
home. as a result planning staff cannot find hardship in accordance with the ordinance.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Michael Renstrom. 112 Kevin Longley Dr. provided a
picture of the front of the house. as well as a background of how long he and his wife have
lived in Monticello. particularly at this residence and they" d like to stay residents. Renstrom
advised the reason for the addition to the home is that his wife was diagnosed with AI _S in
February of this year and they anticipate that in the next several years she will be \vheelchair
hound. The right side of the home \vould be inaccessible for her and she would need
bath/bed on grade. They looked at the sides and rear of the house but there vvould be no
access from the left side. and an addition to the right side could create a double bungalow.
but would defeat the purpose. Therefore the decision feJr a 26 x 26 addition. After they
researched this they found a prohlem with the tree line which separates his neighbors house
from his. therefore they compromised with a 20 x 26 addition. utilizing the full 26' of length
between the garage and portion of the house that would be inaccessible to his wife. He
provided a drawing of the proposed addition, advising the need for a service entrance to the
bath with handicap accessibility. He stated he realizes that health concerns do not constitute
a hardship for variance but he feels he has addressed that.
Renstrom further added that if he used the average lot size of 96 n. deep as a basis. he is
already cut down by 1/3 in depth of his lot which he feels is a hardship. Not one side is
equal on all 4 sides. He again pointed out that he is in the R-2 district. If his house was
placed in the center or ran parallel to the back line it would also be different. He also
suggested when considering their request that they look at what is usable depth for their lot.
72'. which then he would he cut down at least Y: of the 1110St com1110n lot size. He felt these
..,
.l
Planning COlllmission Minutes -- 0.5/06/03
\yould constitute hardship. He helic\"es he has provided a need in keeping the tree line. and a
hardship exists with lot size, house placcment. and tree line.
.
^Ilison Bakken, 111 Kevin Longley Dr.. addressed the commissioners and stated she has
lived in this neighhorhood Jar approx. 6 year and has known Karen Renstrom Jar a long
time. She further added that due to that fact that she intends to he involved in Karen' scare
as conditions worsen, she fecls that \vhere they live in accordance to the Renstrom's. the
addition would he virtually unseen. She would not want to lose good neighhors.
JetfO'NeilL 114 Kevin Longley Dr.. west of the Renstrom's. went on record stating no
ohjection to the request as stated and would not appeal the variance if approved hy the
Planning Commission.
Jerry Crocker. Monticello township, stated he is a friend of the Renstrom's and his reason
for addressing the Planning Commission was that his wife has had ALS for over 9 years. I-Ie
explained his wife' s condition and limitations. and that at some point Karen Renstrom will
have to be on one floor and the rest of the house would not be accessible to her. therefore the
added space would be necessary.
Resident at 108 Kevin Longley Dr.. concurred that the tree line \vould be kept intact and he
would have no problem with the addition.
The public hearing was then closed. Dragstcn questioned if the applicant had considered
Jinishing off the garagc and putting another one up in li'ont of it. and Renstrom stated that
they had not taken a look at that. further advising that there is a 28 x 24, and 14 x 24 single
car garage attached and the reason for that is that in working with the designer they were
working to create an open space with vaulted ceilings. Carlson didn't feel an expansion onto
the front would \\-ork.
.
Renstrom further advised that the drawing he submitted was close to scale. the front property
line is not actually' the curb. and it is approx. 40 to 45 n. Reitveld stated based on the shape
of the lot and the garage, he felt this would constitute a hardship and he didn't feel there was
any alternative. Carlson asked Renstrom to explain where the tree line exists in accordaJ:ce
with the lot line and he stated it was right down the lot line but there are trees on both sides
and a fence on Mr. Ebner's property. He added that the most highly concentrated trees are
in the area of where his house is and when the trees are in bloom there is no way to see his
house from the Ebner's. Frie clarified that the attitude of the Planning Commission in
establishing a variance has nothing to do with definition of hardship. This is in accordance
with the ordinance. Frie asked the applicant if staff had advised him that the initial 26' x 20'
addition would not be in compliance. and did they state what design would not encroach on
required standards. Renstrom advised that he had not yet met with staff but had talked with
Jeff O'NeilL as his neighbor, in their yard. Renstrom further stated that the 26' x 20' was
hacked off to make it smaller so as not to interfere \\lith the trees. hie asked if he realized
that what he proposed would not \\lork and he stated no. They further discLlssed an option to
move the addition toward the O'Neill residence so that it would be in compliance, however
.
4
.
.
.
Planning COll1ll1ission Minult's - 05/06/03
Renstrom achised that this would not work due to this heing a spl it level and roof pitch of
4/12 running one \\ay on one side. another direction on the other side.
Brian Stumpf commented that one of his requirements would be that the tree line is kept in
place.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE REAR 'I' ARD
SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON A FINDIN(I TI fAT A HARDSHIP EXISTS IN
TI-L'\ T "rilE SI-IALLO\VNESS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PREVENTS THE
APPLICANT FROM SATISFYING ORDINANCE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED "!lIE !\10TION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
7.
P.!,l_hlic Hearing - .Lonsideration of a re~luest fell' c!~yelopmcnt ~!_<l!.!;e plannedll.Ilit development
allowLJ:l!.!; 8 single family lID!.t?_ in a proposed R-2A di~!!:ict. Applic,:!pt Tom l'lolthall~
Stevc Grittman. City Planner. provided the staff report regarding the applicant" s request for
development stage PUD. He advised of 8 individual units and the density complies \",-ith the
R-2 zoning. the lots are smaller than the R-2A requirements. and therefore the request for a
PUD. They have looked at the layout several times at Planning Commission level. The
applicant has also provided a landscaping plan for the individual units with a good amount
of landscaping for each unit. Grittman ad\ised a requirement of the R-2A district v,-ould be
rather extensive landscaping in hont and hack. as \vell as a buffering requirement to the
north that adjoins larger lot single L1mily homes. l-ie stated staff is asking that landscaping
he addcd to the north side. but another option was to shift units closer to Broadway and
enhance the hutler to the north side, Grittman also noted the procedural requirement that the
applicant needs which is to acquire land and the plan needs to show the sidewalk with
crossing to Pine\vood Elementary. Also. the Engineer is still finalizing his IT\'icw. hoth the
construl':ion of Otter Creek Road and the utilities. Adequate turnaround also needs to he
shown and the Engineer is reviewing this as \vell (Irittman added that stafr feels the project
meets the R-2A requirements as \vell as requirements for a PlJD and would recommend
approval of both with preliminary plat. Dragsten asked how this aligns with the other
existing homes and Grittman stated these may be slightly closer to the road.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Ed Solberg, 1204 Sandy Lane. questioned if the R-2A
zoning had been approved and O'Neill advised that the Planning Commission had approved.
but had not been approved by the City Council and would be taken into consideration.
Solberg wanted to know how the City Council consent agenda was handled and Brian
Stumpf explained that the Planning Commission holds the public hearing for the City
Council. Solberg also stated he did not like the size of the units, 100 small and too many
units. He feels this doesn't fit with the existing homes.
Laura Tazclaar. 1124 Sandy Lane, wanted clarification on the landscaping and where the
service road would be placed. Grittman stated the plan shows a row of trees as a landscape
huffer and staff has asked for them to increase the density. She felt there needs to be a fence
:1
PIJllllillt-'- Commission Minutes - 0:'/06/03
and didn't feel trees will be enough. Stumpf stated that at the last meeting Mr. Holthaus did
not object to a fence. noting there is an existing fence there. and Holthaus advised that he is
proposing a solid hedge. Tazelaar stated that a hedge could take many years to grc)\\ but
Holthaus stated it to be about 3 years. Also Tazclaar has a concern with the existing fence if
it stays as it is in poor shape.
Diane Peters. 1120 Sandy Lane. stated her objection is the density for the site. Doesn't feel
there would be yard space for children. the back \vill be a lot of driveway which would abut
to their property, and there are no such driveways like that in their neighborhood. Hilgart
asked her what density \vould she leel is adequate and she stated 3 to 4 houses, further
adding that money should not be a consideration. Tazelaar added that the existing fence is 6
ft. and they \vould like to see an 8 ft. fence, further stating if it were only trees there \vould
be a problem with that many homes.
The public hearing was then closed. Reitveld advised he had looked at the area and he felt 8
homes with the proposed landscaping and a fence may fill the area. and he also doesn't feel
it fits in w'ith the other homes. Carlson asked staff the status of Otter Creek Road
realignment and erNei II stated negotiations on acquiring land are in process. details have
not been set. and actual completion of this plat as proposed cannot occur until this is
finalized \vith City Council. The plat is only viable after that transaction \vould occur. at this
point it is presumed that the developer would pay the city for the land necessary. Carlson
asked if they were then looking at 6 units versus 8 and O'Neill advised that with the past
council members and engineers. it is presumed that a fair arrangement of terms would be
arranged, further stating that it has always been the intent of the city for that land to stay
with that site and he felt in good faith it was reasonable to proceed with the plat.
frie asked Holthaus to respond to the concern about land acquisition and the possibil ity of
only 6 units versus 8. Holthaus advised that right now it is in the City's hands. and Public
Works Director Simo]a is working with land owner for ROW propel1y and is not sure that
there is a final layout of the road at this time. O'Neill added that the alignment of the road
was thought of long ago to improve the safety of the intersection. and therefore the reason
for the realignment and not to add additional land as this is a ren1l1ant parcel. Dragsten
asked what would happen ifhe doesn't get the additional land and Holthaus stated he
assumed that this would not be a problem, but if it \vere to change then the deal will not
happen. Dragsten also asked about sizes of front porches as stated in the stafT report and
Holthaus advised he had looked at this and doesn't feel it is a problem. Holthaus further
advised that he was unable to obtain information on the required landscaping and this needs
to be defined. He added that if more landscaping is required it needs to be clarified and
more direction given. Grittman stated staff would be happy to work with applicant on this
and that the R-2A district has specific landscaping requirements. Dragsten advised that he
still felt that this would be a better lit than the convenience store in regard to number of cars
coming in and out of this property. stating this proposal would cause much less traffic.
Carlson asked what the applicant could do to soften the reality of 6 to 8 units I ined up with
the same setbacks and was there any \vay to alter the units. Holthaus stated there are 3 to 4
different fi'ont elevations. diflerent colors. and landscaping is different for each house as
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/03
\\ell. lie further advised that he did mO\e the units closer to the road already. (:rie asked
Grittman and llolthaus about previous comments at th: concept stage purdie hearing and
now at development stage regarding square footage alld lot sizes 01'45'. as it was Frie's
understanding that within that district the proposed project would meet standards and
Grittman stated it did meet the standards. Frie further stated that he felt landscaping could
be worked out further with stafT.
Brian Stumpf stated that if this project goes through. he felt as a eity they should do
everything possible to address the concerns of the people who live in this area, and feels
strongly that a fence would probably be necessary. hie stated to include the fence as well
and Stumpf added that he \vould like to see both a fence and the landscaping. There was
further discussion on fence height and it \\'as also noted that the fence is not being
maintained. Holthaus stated that the property owner behind his property had erected a fence
right up to his fence and therefore he is unahle to maintain it. Holthaus advised there \vould
be an association with this development and O'Neill stated that staff does have this
information.
Decision 1: Development Stage PlJD for Pine View
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. BASED ON A FINDING
THAT TI--Il: PROPOSED PROJECT OFFERS SUBSTANTIAL LANDSCAPING AND
UPGRADED FENCING. AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS IN EXCIIANGE FOR THE
PRIVATE DRIVE ACCESS FOR THE UNITS. MOTION INCLUDES REQUIREMENT
THAT BOTII FENCING AND LANDSCAPING BE INCLUDED. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED TI IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH CHAIR FRIE
ABST AINING.
Decision 2: Preliminaf)' Plat for Pine View
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PINE VIEW. BASED ON A FINDING THAT TI--IE
PROPOSED PROJECT GENERALLY MEETS TI-IE SPECIfIC ZONING CRITERIA
FOR THE R-2A DISTRICT AND SUBJECT TO TI-IE COMMENTS LISTED WITHIN
THIS REPORT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4
TO 1 WITH CHAIR FRIE ABSTAINING.
It was further stated by Frie that there had been previous comments by a resident that there
was felt to be a conflict of interest with Chair Frie regarding this item.
8.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for concept stage planned unit development and
preliminary plat approval. and consideratio,!1 of a request to rezone from AO to R-] A and R-
2A. Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the staff report and advised that the Planning
7
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/03
Commission revie\\lxi this project previously when it included only the north portion where
the attached townhouse style homes are proposed. It \vas the direction of staff and City
Council at that time to reduce the density and since that time the applicant has acquired the
area to the south. R- I A standards apply here due to the wooded land and physical site
amenities. When looking at this proposal since the smaller project was proposed. the land
use plan directs that the south portion be zoned R-l A and the north portion v,:ould be more
appropriately zoned low density, typically R-] single family. although the city has allowed
R-2 zoning. Grittman advised that the working definition of low density is 3 units per acre
on gross. 4 units on net. The applicant's have proposed utilizing the 3 and 4 units per acre
over the entire site. and as a result there is a net density of approx 3.01 units per acre; the
calculation f~lctoring the R- I A section of the property. Planning staff s opinion is that the
intent is not to co-combine those 1\\0 areas and not to do aw'ay with R- I zoning. further
advising that the Planning Commission should look at this site as two physical zones such as
R-I and R-I A. Grittman summarized that the north portion would have 40 too many units
on the site to comply with the 3 units per acre. although the applicant disputes that
interpretation. He stated the applicant wishes to proceed with development stage and
preliminary plat. In staff's opinion the land use issue needs to be resolved.
The applicant's are looking for PlJ[) approval on the south portion as they are asking for
narrmvcr streets and narrO\ver cross sections which will permit them to save additional trees
in that area. per the applicant. Grittman stated that late last week the applicant provided a
plan indicating which trees would remain and which would be lost. Their indication is that
they would save 61% of the trees in the wooded area after development. More detailed tree
preservation is to be provided by the applicant as a requirement of staff. Therefore the
recommendation is to proceed with concept stage and re-zoning. but hold on the
development stage and preliminary plat until they have a chance to review and pending
Planning Commission's direction. they will proceed. It was recommended by Grittman that
the item be continued and table action at this time. lIe further stated regarding the structure
of the decisions in the stat1 report. this is a complex project and therefore they have broken
down the decisions between the north and south portions.
Brian Stumpf questioned Grittman if on a concept stage PUD. it is common to have a list of
conditions as long as the one provided in the staff report. Grittman stated at concept stage a
list of conditions/suggestions can vary. Concept stage gives the opportunity to get these
items on the table to discuss and bring back at development stage. Since this is a combined
concept and development stage, that list is combined. Frie asked if the applicant was aware
of the 11 conditions for approval of the concept stage, and Grittman stated that they did get a
copy of the repOli. and they have had a number of conversations with the developer.
Whether they expected to see all of those conditions. he was unsure. Staff felt it was their
obligation to bring these forward.
.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Frie asked Mike Gair. representing the applicant. to
present a compelling case to the Planning Commission and focus on this to convince the
Planning Commission to approve. Gail' stated that the matter of compelling argument is .
subject to definition and that he would present their best thoughts. and due to a long history
8
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/03
.
\\ith this project hopefully by the end they will convince the Planning Commission. Chair
Frie asked Lucinda CiardneL applicant about her comment in her recent letter to the
Planning Commission stating she was taken aback by comments in the staff report and
v.'Ould she explain. Gail' stated for Gardner that it was primarily due to the request to
separate the two parcels. He further stated that the list of conditions could either be reduced
or expanded. depending on the results of this meeting.
Gail' concurred \...-ith Grittman's statement that this project could be seen as complex. but
from their point of view it is good and simple. Regarding the PUD. the only flexibility they
are seeking has to do with the 50 ft. ROW versus a 60 ft. ROW. and only in the wooded
area. I r determined that there is little if any value in reduction. they will maintain the 60 1'1..
ROW. It is their feeling it is beneficial. Gail' provided a site plan indicating wetlands and
topographic relief. noting the highest portion is in the wooded area. Gail' provided the tree
preservation count which listed types and numbers of trees, and where they are located on
the site. Their primary focus is preservation of the woodland area and protection of
wetlands. lie also pointed out the road way and how it lays out in the site plan for
maintaining larger lot sizes. saving trees. and producing a lot yield that is usable and in
accordance \vith the ordinance.
.
Gail' concurred there had becn several meetings previously with staff dating back to :2000
and advised that all previous comments by stafr have been incorporated into this plan.
Regarding Bret WeissO report on wetlands. they knew approximately where they were
located. A decision was made to design an intersection at that location for ROW. enter the
development. loop back through development and back out. The subdivision to the west
would be connected. Gail' stated 3 product types indicating 94 row townhomes. noting the
12 ft. road width \vas an alley and only for trash vehicles and snow plows to pass through.
He stated a selling price of approximately $215.000 to $230.000 and owner/occupied
attached. The second type would be single family. R-2A standards with 50 1'1.. lot widths
versus the 45 ft. required: the last type is in the southern area and would be R-1A single
family with larger wooded lots and selling price of approximately $200.000 to $260.000.
lie does not feel this project has jumped ahead as stated in the staff report and also advised
that the tree inventory was a pricey ordeal and feels that this developer will do a good job at
preserving the trees.
.
Gair stated that regarding density. he felt they had a f~lirly good understanding that the larger
lots would be located to the south and smaller to the north. blending them together. but stafT
is asking to separate the 40 acres and he didn't see any particular value to segregate. He
advised there was already a mix of homes in the southern 40 acres. Gail' further stated that
he felt the density was slightly low. versus high. In regard to the request for a 50 ft ROW.
he pointed out that there is roadway. curb. gutter. sidewalk. and uti I ities, all within that 50 ft.
He also noted for the Bruggeman proposal they settled for 52 ft. If they were to have a 60
ft. ROW the buildings would have to be moved back and he felt they would lose an
additional 77 trees. He noted that the intent of the R-1 A is to preserve wooded lots and
therefore the reduction in ROW.
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 0)/06/03
Frie asked Gair to "vork ,,\ith stafr on addressing the 22 conditions. due to the length of the
agenda. Gair advised that conditions 21 and n deal with the County. conditions 17 and 1 R
regarding separation of buildings had been included in revised plans. and condition] 9 meets
the standards as well. Parking within the townhome area. per Bret WeissD concern. provides
1(11' a ratio of I space per:2 units which is in excess of the 1 per:) required by ordinance.
Gair advised that 37% of the total units proposed are townhomes and 63% single family. In
the Wildwood Ridge development he advised it was 66% townhomes. 44% single family.
which is just opposite. Gair further stated that the proposed Spirit I-hils addition is also
similar and this development is generating more single family detached than the other two
he noted.
Lucinda Gardner. Farr Development advised that regarding the trees. those listed are only
the trees that are 8" and larger. Frie asked Gair to address storm water and he advised that
there would be a new stormwater basin which was originally designed to minimize or
eliminate problems with Ditch 33. He also advised of more catch basins as well as wetlands.
and that this was all engineered by a professional. Frie asked staff about the holding pond in
the southeast corner of Rolling Woods and was it the intent to hold storm water olTthe
Hermes property as well as adjacent properties. Griltman stated that was correct this one
would handle its own. O'Neill clarified that there are possibilities to shift Some of the "\-ater
from this site to Gil]ard. avoiding construction of a storm water lift station to the north. but
that details need to be explored. He also added that this might have some impact on this site
and Gair stated that this would be good for them as well. O'Neill added that one of the
reasons the former mayor and himself encouraged inclusion of the southern portion in this
plat was due to atTordability.
Steve Conroy. Attorney representing Scott Walters. an adjacent property owner to the south.
addressed the commission and stated he had spoken to I ,ucinda Gardner previously. advising
of a potential issue with a fencc and prope11y line discrepancy. adding that the fence has
been in place for approx. 40 years. Mr. Walters may seek annexation at some point. per
Conroy. O'Neill advised that this would be addressed at final plat stage. and from nO\\- until
that time they will proceed. Frie asked Gardner if she had applied t(}l' annexation for the
north portion and it was clarified that the southerly portion is the part that has not been
annexed. not the north portion as stated in the staff report.
Roger Mack. Street Dept. Supt.. questiom~d if there would be park dedication and O'Neill
advised that there is a park seareh area that staff has identified and they will be acquiring
park dedication funds from the developer. He advised that the adjoining subdivision "vould
provide park, and there are trails in place that wil] connect. Mack felt this was a lot of
people "vith no park. He also discussed street width and due to snow plowing, this could be
a problem. He also asked about parking and it was stated they propose two spaces per unit,
per ordinance. Mack stated as a private citizen. he did not feel that 16.000 sq. ft. lots were
considered large.
.
.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There was discussion among the members .
regarding how to address the park situation and Carlson did not feel they should rely on the
10
Planning Commission Minutes - 0.5/06/03
.
neighboring parcel. Cirittman stated that the park plan concept is that neighborhood parks
would be spaced appro.\. 112 mile apart. Rolling Woods \\ould tneet that space requirement.
The park search area is also meeting that requirement. Frie stated that the park in Rolling
Woods is small and does the Parks Commission know that this v. ill not be large enough to
handle both. It \\as advised that the Parks Commission has reviewed the plan. For the short
tenn. access will be from existing parks. It was further stated that this project would obtain
fees to acquire additional park land. It was advised that this development would require 8
acres of raw park land. Gair also noted that trail connection would be added. Carlson asked
Gair about preserving trees in the front yards and Gair stated they could. it is almost
impossible but there are ways. I Ie stated that at the next level they would provide
engineering data to shO\v how these will be preserved. There is a management system put in
place for tree preservation. Grittman added that another project that Gair was involved in
had a successful tree preservation plan. Frie added that upgraded housing \vas a goal of the
city and he questioned if this developtnent was meeting that. referring to the price of the
homes per Gair. Grittman stated he felt it docs from a development side with preserving
\\oodlands. leaving the dollar figure discussion out. Frie \vas surprised that the homes in the
wooded area were only in the $200.000 to $260,000 range. Gair noted that this number is
conservative. O'Neill clarified that the 2.000 sq. ft. finished requirement for this zoning
\vould put the lot average at appro.\:. $62.000. just to meet code, and the homes may be
closer to $260.000 to start.
.
Dragsten asked how the developer \vould guarantee the size and quality of the homes,
referring to the problems with the Wildwood Ridge development. It was noted that there
\\ere problems with covenants. or the lack of. Lucinda stated she had submitted house plans
and proposed covenants/association documents for this development. Hilgart asked about
the previous zoning of the nOl1h portion being R~l at 3 units per acre, and now wanting to
average this over the entire 80 acres, going from R-l A to R-2A. Gardner stated that when
they purchased the property to the nOl1h it was zoned R-l A. Through the process of
working with staff it was determined that in one area. due to Ditch 33. they needed to
remove 5 acres for stormwater and when they put the costs together several years ago. it was
at that point in time they were encouraged to acquire additional property, spreading the 3
units per acre over the entire area. She stated they felt that was the direction given from the
past mayor and staff. O'Neill clarified that they did not necessarily state the entire area to be
3 units per acre, they were just trying to spread the costs out but not necessarily the density.
Gardner further commented that when the city was looking at R-1 A and R-2A. she had
numerous conversations with O'Neill that they were guiding the nOJih portion toward R-2A
as it did not have the amenities. O'Neill stated that with every site plan that comes through
they do not state that it would definitely work or not work. Gair further added that in the
staff report it states it has been the city's standard to use 3 units per acre net and 4 units
gross, and he feels they are not abusing this. Hilgart did not feel it should be spread out over
the entire 80 acres. Grittman further advised that this was the intent to further discuss what
this portion should be zoned. since it is not zoned at this time. lIe noted they were reluctant
to go too far without having this discussion first. Land use types and residential mix is not
the city" s objection. it's the density, per Grittman. l-:lilgart asked that presuming they require
3 units per acre on the north 40 acres. how would they feel as this \VOLtld give them 120 units
.
11
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06!O3
versus 160 units. (Jair stated that \vould be sOlllething they \vould definitely need to discuss
to see if it would be viable.
.
O'Neill asked Gair about the stormsev.:er lift station and had they figured out a cost. O'Neill
stated that there could be additional savings if this is found to not be necessary. Frie asked if
the concerns noted in the staff report were those noted in the conditions of Exhibit Z.
Grittman stated these were general comments/concerns. some are reflected in the conditions.
some are design issues. O'Neill clarified that he did have the elevations of the homes on
hand for them to viev,,'.
Decision I: South Portion Rezoning from A-O to R-l A
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DlCK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
REZONING rROM A-O TO R-l A, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
lONING WOULD REFLECT TilE INTENT OF TilE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Concept Stage pun
A MOTION WAS f'v1ADE BY DlCK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CONCEPT STAGE PUD. HASED ON A FINDING THAT TilE PROPOSED PUD IS .
CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF TI-IE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SUBJECT TO
THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXIIlBIT I. LLOYD I-HLGART SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Development Stage PliO
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF
THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXI-IIBIT Z. LLOYD HILGART
SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion by Frie asking Grittman if staff was COmfOJ1able with the PUD
and Grittman stated yes. with the assumption that the tree preservation was the basis for
allowing a PUD.
THEREFORE ROD DRAGSTEN AMENDED TIlE MOTION TO INCLUDE TREE
PRESERV AlION AS THE BASIS FOR APPROVAL OF THE PUD. LLOYD I-:l1LGART
AMENDED HIS MO'fION TO SECOND AND THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Preliminary Plat
.
12
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes ...- 05/06/03
O'Neill ad\ised that the City Engineer and Public Works Director may want this item tabled
until resolution of the conditions.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE '1'0 CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
THE JUNE MEETING AND TABLE ACTION. PENDING RESOL VINCi CONDITIONS
LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AND TI--IE CITY ENGINEER MEETING WITH THE
APPLICANT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Decision 2: North Portion Re-zonc from A-O to R-2A and R-2
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF
THE REZONING FROM A-O TO R-2A AND R-2. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSE!) ZONING WOULD REFLECT TIlE INTENT OF THE CITYDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. DA VI:: RIETVELD SECONDED TIlE MOTION.
There was further discussion by Hilgart clarifying the 3 units per acre on the north portion
only and Grittman stated the density would be addressed 011 the plat and this was regarding
the zoning only.
THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Concept Stage pun
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL
OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH TilE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SUBJECT TO TIlE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT' Z. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Development Stage pun - North
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO TilE JUNE MEETING AND TABLE ANY ACTION. LLOYD HILGART
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Preliminary Plat - North
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO CONTINUE nrE PUBLIC
HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING AND TABLE ANY ACTION. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED 11IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9.
Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of pre Ii minar v plat approval of the Ott~r Creek Crossing
cOml}}~Lcial suhdivision. App1icallt: Otter Creek 11,C
13
Planning Commission Minutes - 0:;/06/03
Chair Frie opened the public hearing and stated their intent to continue. Frie asked John
ChadwicK. representing Otter Creek LLC for comments. vvith the intent to come hack at the
June meeting. Frie asked if they would have land acquisition at that time and Chachvick
stated that was their intent. He provided a concept plan including extension of Chelsea
Road. I-Ie asked for any comments as they ha\e not heard any concerns specifically.
O'Neill advised that they did not do an in-depth re\'iew as they do not have proper land title.
but feels that it will be a simple review and the main issue \\ioltld be land acquisition and the
developer is moving forward on that. Chadwick also noted that the Engineer is looking at
this as \vell. Carlson asked for the status of the Chelsea extension and O'Neill advised that
this would be up to Chadwick and he added that \\ith demand. that would be their intent.
Grittman clarified that this would be a PUD request \vith 1-1A zoning.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHAIR FRIE TO TABLE CONSIDF:RA nON OF
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE
JUNE. ~003 MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1 O. r"~tblic llearing - Consideration_ of a teque~<;t for a_con<;_c:Pt st~lanned unit develol?ment in
the R-2 District. Applican~: Richard Carlson
Richard Carlson excused himself 1~'om the Planning Commission and was seated in the
audience.
.
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the staff report. The applicant submitted a sketch
plan f()J' a three unit detached to\\llhousc project at Vine St.. north of the Burlington
Northern railroad. The applicant has asked for the vacation of the Vine S1. ROW which
would provide driveway accesses to the remnant end of Vine S1. and extend east and west
access to the garages. Grittman advised that the concept plan showed three] .350 sq. tL one
level ramblers with basements.
Grittman advised that R-~A zoning would he the appropriate zone for this but that would
require the applicant to re~zone and approval to vacate that portion of Vine Street to have
enough room fi)f 3 detached units. Grittman further advised of several issues that staff felt
the Planning Commission should discuss such as lot area. right-of-way vacation, driveway
width (stafffee1s14 feet is too narrow); driveway layouts as shown on the plan would make
turning movements for residents difficult; rear and side setbacks need to be defined: and the
need for the Planning Commission and City Council to state clear findings to justify the use
of a PUD.
Grittman further stated that on the positive side. the proposed single family units are the
predominant in this area which give this plan an advantage. hut also added that the
constraints of this site make it difficult to develop.
Chair Frie opened the puhlic hearing. Chris Shinnick, 612 W. 4111 Street. advised of his
.
14
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/03
.
conccrns \vith density and layout. lie felt this was being forced just to make it work. lie felt
although there are other to\mhomes in the area. they are somewhat separated. It appears that
this \vmild be an island of townhomes in the middle of the block and he would like to keep it
blending with the neighborhood. He also questioned the proposed square footages and the
requirements of the zoning ordinance. as well as a concern with drainage f()r this site. He
stated that the grade of the RR tracks is higher than the street. He was also concerned with
amount of ROWand the proposed width of the drivev,;ay. questioning if a fire truck could
get to the proposed 3'<1 unit.
Roger Mack. Street Dept. SupL provided a map of city utilities showing a 1 T watermain
running directly underneath the proposed units. as well as the need for a turnaround area.
Dan Blonigen. 405 Vine SL addressed the commission stating he was opposed to vacating
Vine Street and questioned the sale of the RR property. lIe did feel this concept plan would
meet setback requirements. Blonigen also provided information regarding his property.
which he stated was accurate infl.m11ation. Roger Mack further added that typically
easements are required for utilities on properties.
.
Richard Carlson. 532 W. Broadway. applicant. addressed the commission regarding the
concerns noted in the statl report. He stated that he is working with Mike Cyr as his bui Ider
and that the proposed homes would be somewhat similar to those that Cyr built nearby. lie
stated that initiall:y he came to city' staff with about 3 or 4 different site plans and the one
provided to the commissioners was the plan preferred by staff. lIe stated he was a bit
surprised with the concern regarding square footages stating the last time he spoke with staff
he \vas told that they preferred 1.100 sq. ft.. detached units.
Carlson further stated the uniqueness of this property and the requirement of Burlington
Northern fl.lr a 50 ft. setback. He addressed drainage concern. agreeing with the RR track
elevation. but that this piece of property is very flat and he doesn't anticipate any drainage
problem. He further stated that be is proposing full basements and with excavation. there
should be ample fill. Carlson responded to the watermain location concern that Roger Mack
referred to and stated that he had spoken to John Simola. Public Works Director, at least 3
times and never once \vas there talk of a watermain. He did however, discover this on his
own later. He advised that one of the reasons for one unit shown in the ROW was actually a
recommendation of city stail.
.
Carlson addressed the concern with driveway width and stated it is a private drive. further
stating that currently the extension of Vine St. is unimproved but has a blacktop surface and
is 14 ft. wide. His idea is that it could remain unimproved and appear to be a private drive.
Frie asked Grittman if that was possible and Grittman added that the PUD ordinance calls
for a minimum driveway width of 20 ft. with 2-way traffic. Carlson added that he would
prefer to sign it with Dprivate driveD so people are not confused or think it is a through street.
and felt this could be done with a nan-ower drive. He then addressed the concern with fire
trucks accessing the property and stated that the trucks do not exceed 8 ft. so he did not see
an issue with a proposed 16 ft. drive. Regarding garbage truck access, Carlson stated that
15
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/03
this \vould be a private drive and \\ould he accessed the same as any other private drive in
the city. Mr. Blonigen advised that currently the garbage truck backs onto Vine St. from .fIll
St. to pick up his garbage and then drives out. Chair Frie asked Carlson if the issue with the
watermain location would change his plans and Carlson stated he may have to reduce to 2
attached and onc singlc unit or all 3 units attached.
There was discussion on what was considered the front yard and Carlson stated he
considered the east side of the property to be the rcar and that this would have a 30ft.
setback. I-Ie further stated he has 62 n. of setback with the RR setback. Frie stated
irregardless of what is determined to be front or back, there seems to be ample space.
O'Neill questioned that if 3 units \vcre to be proposed, \\'here did Carlson feel would be the
most appropriate spot to put them, further adding that they are still presuming that Vine St.
will have to be vacated and that \vould be up to the City Council who may wish to retain this
for ROW. Frie asked Carlson ho\\ he would address Blonigen's home being in the ROW
and Carlson stated that according to the aerial it looks like the house extends into the ROW.
but in fact it is the concrete driveway that is shown in the ROW. Blonigen stated the
driveway is 1 tClot over the ROW. Carlson noted thc portion of Vine St. that he is asking to
be vacated is south ofBlonigen's property, not east of the I3lonigen residence.
Frie asked Council Liaison Brian Stumpf to comment. as a member of the fire dep1.. on the
drive width and Stumpf concurred \vith Carlson that the trucks are 8 ft. wide and he did not
feel access would be a concern. O'Neill advised that regarding the request for the vacation
of that portion of Vine SL if staff can come up with reasons why the city would not need to
keep it. or if there is supporting data tClr the need to keep it. would determine this. Stumpf
stated he would be opposed to vacating. Carlson stated one of his motivations fell' vacating
is that just one block from this parcel is another portion which was vacated not too long ago.
Carlson further added that he \vas encouraged to proceed with a PUD because he also
planned on living in one of the units and he would be working directly with the neighbors on
landscaping. He also advised that he \\as working with Cyr to put in traditional style homes
which would fit in with the neighborhood and that he went from 1 1/2 story units to
ramblers. Frie asked about selling price for these homes and Carlson stated with today's
market possibly $180.000 to $200,000. Carlson also stated he did not proceed with the
building plans, figuring that with concept stage they would be working with the site plan and
not building sizes. He again stated the homes would be similar to Cyr's units at Vine Place.
possibly a different layout with entries on garage side and patios or the like on the south
side.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There was discussion among the commissioners
that the applicant would need to come back to them with a new design due to the watermain
location. There was also a question as to if the applicant should proceed with request for
vacation of Vine S1.. retaining an easement and per O"Nei11. he felt it may not affect the site
plan as much as they initially thought. It was the intent of the applicant to have a
homeowners association in place. Roger Mack advised that the city would require 15 ft.
total for casements. 'fhey discussed snow plowing and storage. and Mack advised that
currently they push the snow to the end and pile it there. It was determined that Vine St.
lti
.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning COl1lmission Minutes - 05/06/03
will be vie\vcd as the front. Chair hie kIt the concerns brought up at this public hearing
could be resohcu \\ith direction from Planning Commission and staff.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AND TABLE ACTION ON TillS REQUEST TO THE JUNE 3. 2003 MEETING. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MO'rION. MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0 WITH
RICHARD CARLSON ABST AJNING.
11.
PublicJ~earing - C()}1sideratio!}..of a reque~t for devel()J2ment stagt; planned unit,.~jevelopmen!
and. preliminarv_plat approval. along with a requ~st for re-zoning from AgrLculture-Open
~~c:e to a combi!).ation of 8"~ 1. single!}l)11ilv residential. R-2. silude and twc!Jlll11ilv
residenti.al. I-I A. light industria!. and B~2Jimited business distric~, Applicant:.~Gold Nugl!et
Revelopm_~D! Inc.
Steve Grittman provided the staff report regarding Gold Nugget's proposed development
now known as Featherstone. He felt the developer had addressed many of the concerns
noted in previous comments, StatT recommends approval of various rezoning, development
stage PUD. and preliminary plat approval. O'Neill added that there have been some
problems with grading of ponds recently and the city will now be requiring a different
grading pattern with clay bottoms and vegetations. along with hWi maintenance plantings
around ponds. O'Neill further stated staff is hoping this plat will be the first example of
that. Dragsten asked if there would be turn lanes off of Edmonson and Grittman stated the
County would set those standards. Cirittman advised that trials go all the way through the
properties, including sidewalks throughout the project with park trail through the l11iddle. to
Edmonson. He also noted sidewalk on one side of the street. although there is one street that
vvould have sidewalk on both sides.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing, Horst Graser. Gold Nugget Development. stated he
had read staff s comments and advised that the site is not complex and basically a large
field. He further advised of their work on addressing all the areas including industrial.
commercial and residential. Regarding the new policy for wet ponds he stated he felt he
could work with staff to be consistent with their expectations. J-Ie further addressed the City
Engineer's comments regarding turnarounds and he felt perhaps a combination of loop in
and turnarounds would work for both emergency and fire vehicles. He stated that they arc
proposing maintenance hee vinyl fence posts to delineate from the park The rest of the
comments he felt were more a housekeeping matter and he could work with staff to resolve,
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing.
Chair Frie asked Graser to respond to lot widths. and questioned him if he felt there would
be any problem getting approval from the County for access off of Co. Rd. 117 or from
MnDOT for Hwy 25. It was noted that they presume that this will not be a problem and
there is access right now. The County is currently reviewing Co. Rd. 117. Graser further
stated that the accesses were approved 4 years ago and he does not expect any problems at
this time. Frie then asked about restrictive covenants for the 6 lots that would be held
responsible for the cul-de-sacs. Karen Marty. Attorney for Gold Nugget. stated that this
17
Planning COll1ll1ission Minutes - 05/06/03
would he an undivided 1/6 interest \\hich takes the burden off of city stan to maintain. Fric .
asked about spurred driwways and Graser stated that most are less than 200 sq. ft. and the
City Engineer suggested either loop or turnaround. Ilis choice is to provide turnaround in
back for trash pickup and did not feci adding road systems to the hack \vould be a good idea.
which he will address \vith staff and City Engineer. Chair Frie askel statT about a
landscaping plan. noting that V\-hen industrial lots develop they will i.'quire a 50 f1. buffer
and plantings. frie asked if money would be escrowed for this. O'Neill stated it is the
responsibility of the industrial developers and \vhen residential lots are developed money is
held in escrow.
Frie further added that he felt they should look at the park again as he felt the lighting
technology these days is more sophisticated and feels this is a good spot for the park.
O'Neill advised that the Parks Department \vanted a larger land area and possibly a diJTerent
location. Chair Frie complemented both the developer and staff for their patience in getting
this project off the starting blocks and a proactive attitude. which hopefully brings this
proposal to fruition. He feels this will spur other development as well.
Decision I - Development Stage pun
A MUrlON WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT
STAGE PUD ALLOW]NG 20 ACRES OF THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SITE
TO BE UT]LIZED FOR TOWNHOMI': DEVELOPMENT. BASED ON A FINDING
THAT THt:: OVERALL DENSITY AND LAND USE PA TlERN IS CONSISTENT WITlI
THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. R]CHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
.
Decision 2 - Rezoning from AO to R-I, R-2, I-I, and B-2
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF
THE REZONING FROM A-O TO R-] fOR THE SINGLE FAMIL Y PORTION OF THE
SITE. R-2 FOR THE TOWNHOUSE PORTION OF THE SITE. I~] FOR TIlE
INDUSTRIAL PORTION OF TI IE SITE. AND B-2 FOR THE COMMERCIAL PORTION
OF THE SITE, BASED ON A FINDING Tl-IA T THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD
REfLECT THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
Decision 3 - Prelim Plat for Featherstone
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV At OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FEATHERSTONE. AND MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT. BASED ON A FINDING THAT TIlE LAND USE PATTERN IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I.
The developer verifies that all R-l single family lots meet the minimum gO foot lot
.
18
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/03
"..idth requirement. or that the averaging allowances of the district arc met.
I
Permission must be obtained from Wright County for the access points onto County
Road 1 1 7.
,.,
j.
Access approval must be granted by MnDOT for access off of Highv.'ay 25.
4.
Funds will he required for the reconstruction of both Edmonson and 85111 Street.
5.
Additional right-of-way may be needed for the realignment of the intersection of 85111
Street and Higl1\vay 25.
6.
Additional right-of...way may be needed near the intersections in the
Commercial/Industrial portion of the site to accommodate medians and turn lanes.
7.
The future Cedar Street extension in the Industrial/Commercial portion of the site
needs to be revised to include an 80 foot right-or-way and 40 foot street.
8.
Maintenance of the tvvo landscaped center islands located in the townhouse section
of the site is to he provided via the association
9.
A maintenance plan for the landscaped center island located in the R- I portion of the
site is to be suhmitted and approved by the City.
10. Townhouse building to building separation needs to be 74 feet.
I I. Need to add character to linear park areas.. including mounding and increased
landscaping.
12. Intermittent split rail fence sections arc to replace the white vinyl bollards to be used
to delineate the park from the rear yards.
13. The three landscaped center islands are to be platted as outlots.
14. The landscaped median in the R-1 district cuI-de-sac is to be owned by each of the
lots fronting on the cul-de-sac in equal undivided interests.
IS. Ponds need to have street exposure for aesthetic and access/maintenance reasons.
16. A portion of pond bottom to be lined so that it holds water. The balance planted \vith
plant materials that can tolerate periodic inundation.
17.
The southern park will need to be reviewed hy the Parks Commission as to whether
to require a small parking lot off of 851h Street.
19
20.
21.
77
7'
...._) .
Planning Commission Minutes - 05/06/03
I R.
.
The applicant is to look into adding windows or some other form of building
treatment to the side elevations of the four unit to\\nhouse buildings to add to the
character and visual appearance of the buildings.
]9.
As dneloped. the industrial lots are to pn1\ide their portion of landscaping in the
required 50 foot landscaped buffer between industrial and residential use.
Plans for the two proposed monument signs arc to be submitted and reviewed by
City Stair. Signs should not be located in a center island median.
The submitted grading plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
All utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
A revised set of preliminary plat drawings is prepared and submitted. demonstrating
compliance with the adopted plat conditions.
LLOYD HILCiART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
] 2.
Public L!earing~_ Consicieration of a rc;quest for amel]qment to a commercial planned unit
develoP.!l1ent aJ.lowing ~m exp~Hlsion ~o an auto sal~~ area. J\ppliem}!~ Monti~e1]o Ford/Dave
Peterson
.
Jeff (),Neill provided the staff report and stated the Planning Commission approved an
expansion for Ford previollsly in 2002. From a staff standpoint this will not slow dmvn
development of the site. Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not adding
additional use of space will set a bad precedent or deter the site from being developed
further. Also need to determine if it will negatively impact the area. O'Neill advised that
this would be valid through 9/3/05. He further stated that staff is requesting the applicant to
address the lights in the storage area be directed away from the residential area, which
Peterson stated he would address.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dave Peterson. applicant stated that last October he
received permission from the Planning Commission for the storage units. and at that time he
declined the display area. He stated things have changed and now he feels this is necessary.
He advised of new implementations of Ford and that their intention is not to display cars or
trucks in this area. He provided a photo of what would be displayed in this area. He stated
that his understanding is that in November of 2005 he will need to have a plan in place to
develop this property. He noted that he is working on getting another franchise on that site
and at that time he could justify further development. Frie asked the acreage and Peterson
stated 4.1 acres. and of that there is approx. 1 acre that he is authorized to use as storage.
further stating that there may be 2 0 acres that would remain empty. Peterson clarified that .
he is only asking for a display area in the front.
20
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes'~ 05/06/03
Th(:r(: was discussion as to who maintains Marvin Road and it was clarified that the city
maintains. Olson. of Olson E]ectric stated that they have been experiencing problems with
water running across their parking lot from the cul-de-sac that was put in and asked Peterson
that when there is snow removal that he keep it further back. Peterson had no problems with
this request. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
IllE ]UP AMENDMENT TO EXfEND THE AREA OF TEMPORARY AUTOMOBILE
DISPLA Y AS DESCRIBED IN THE SITE PLAN. MAINTAINING THE CURRENT
TIME LIMIT. SUBJECr TO 'filE PREVIOUS APPROVAL CONDITIONS RELATING
TO SITE GRADING. LIGHTING AND TREE PLANT"ING. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
] 3. Adjourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN TIlE MEETING AT
10:30 P.M. RIel lARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. M(yrION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Recorder
21
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda ...~ 06/03/03
5.
tLJ!?Ul: Hearing - (onsideration Of.~~.Tcquest for a con"~U!ional use per!:l.~"tt allowing
com'~p! stage plann~.lt__l)nit developm~_nt for 2, four unit !"(~~Y!lJlOuse buildjllg~;)lnQ.
Consideration of a rcgucst for a var'iance to the 30 foot front nlrd sethack in the R-2
'---=--"''''.""" .. ,"- "" . ........ .. "" ..,--,. ........,-"1 - ,
dlstrll:t~ff Maple St...._~~t and variance to the 20 foot side ~~~!.r_~__setback off 3 1_..B!!'cct.
Applic,?Int: Emerald E.~tates LLC (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROllND
Emerald Estates LLC is requesting approval of a conditional use permit allowing concept
stage planned unit development for two, four unit townhouse structures to be located on a
site vvithin the R-2. Single and two familv residential district. The subject site is .9~ acres
in size and is located southwest of the 3rJ and Maple Street intersection. just nol1h of the
old St. I Icnry's Church. Townhouses are alloy..-ed y..-ithin the R-2 district with appnwal of
a CUP/PUD.
Comprehen~~~'2. Plan: Monticello' s Comprehensive Plan designates this area for lo\v
density residential use.
((ming: The subject site is zoned R~2. single and two-family residential district. \\hich
allows townhouses with a Conditional Use Permit / Planned Unit Development.
CUP/PUD: A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in perfl.)rmance standards
with the understanding that the development will be held to higher standards of site and
building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the applicant's responsibility to
the benefits for allowing a CUP/PCD.
SiteJ)t;,.?iun & StandarQ.~ The following table illustrates the applicable performance
requirements for the proposed use in the R-2 district:
R-2
5.00OSfper unit
Proposed
5.\15 sf per unIt'
f.-----
I
..- I ..""
Lot Area Pcr I
Unit -----L-.
Front Setback I .-.--
- East Side
Side Setback-
North Side
Side Setback-
South Side
Rear Setback -
West Side
Roof Pitch ._r"
Usable Open ..
Space
3/12
50b sf of usable open sp'~1ce
per dwelling unit or a
minimum of 30% green
space (the greater of the two)
= 12.276 sf
5/12 and 6/12
] 4.209 sf
I 6 feet
30 feet
2C - feet
] 6 feet
>---------
] 0 feet
] 6 feet
30 feet
35 feet
1
Planning COlllmission Agenda - 06/03/03
:\s shO\\ll in the table. the proposed project does not meet the required 1I'0I1t setback of 30
feet off of Maple Street or the required 20 foot setback off of 31d Street to the north.
Section 20-2 [N11 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that both front and side yard
setbacks at the periphery of a PUD meet the minimum requirements of their respective
districts. As such. variances are necessary.
.
In order to grant a variance. the applicant must show a hardship. unique to the site. of
\vhich v..ithout a variance \yould cause undue hardship. ^fter reviewing the proposaL
planning staff makes the following suggestions and/or comments:
· The site could be shifted to the south four feel. thereby eliminating one of the variances.
. In order to grant a variance, the applicant must prove a hardship. unique to the property.
of "...hich without variance the applicant would not have reasonable use of the property.
Planning stafT believes that the archikcture of the units and the site layout fit the
neighborhood. and would result in an attractive project. I-Io\ve\'er. the variance standard
is a rigorous one. Physical hardship is necessary to find that the standard regulations
don't allO\v reasonable use. If the City belien:s that the project is appropriate it)]" this
site. there should be other methods used to accommodate the project. Otherwise. we
would be concerned that the rationale It)!. the use of variances (and requiring adherence to
the Ordinance) would be eroded. The PUD section of the zoning ordinance permits
llexibility to the rear yard setback. Planning stafl has been supportive of building
placement that minimizes setbacks to the south property line. in order to comply as nearly
as possible with the street-side setbacks of the R-2 District.
.
· Due to the flexibility ofperftlrlllancc standards. a pun is required to be held to higher
standards of design and site amenities. ^s such. granting variances to perJt)J'J11ance
standards that arc outside of the allotted 1lexibility of a PUD can raise issues related to
the justification f{)r the PUD.
Access / Circulation: Unit A and Unit B within the eastern most townhouse will access
Maple Street directly via ajoint driveway. Two additional driveways are located ofT of
31d Street to serve the remaining six units. Planning Staff has the following concerns with
regards to the access and circulation \vithin the subject site:
. It appears that it will bc difficult for a Vehicle parked in the driveway of Unit D to
maneuver out of the driveway. A parking elbow should be located at the southwest
corner of the proposed driveway to enhance maneuverability.
· The elbow turnaround located at the southern portion of the eastern driveway access
otTo1'3nl Street is currently shown at 12 feet in length (north/south) and is shown to
be paved from building to building. The purpose of the elbow is to provide necessary
room f()]" a vehicle to turnaround. 6 feet of paved turnaround area should be sufficient
to serve this purpose. A 13 foot green space area should be located in front of both .
Unit D and Unit B in place of the un-needed impervious surface.
2
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 06/03/03
· ^s an additional consideration, staff \\ auld encourage that applicant to consider the
eno:ntual incorporation oCthe property to the \vest into this project. ^lthough it is
acknowledged that the neighboring property is not a part of this de\elopmenL it
vvould appear that the logical future development on that parcel \vould be to utilize
the proposed driveway on this site. The City and the developer should plan for this
possibility.
. With regard to pedestrian circulation, planning staff would recommend the addition
of sidewalk along yu Street as a part of this PUD development.
Landscaping: ^s shown in the previous table, the proposed project has complied with
the 12.176 square feet ofrequired usable open space by providing 14,209 square feet. A
landscaping plan. meeting the requirements of Section 3-2 of the Zoning Ordinancc, must
bc submitted and approved by the City Council prior to final PliO approval.
!iuildiJlg Design: 'rhe applicant is proposing two. four unit townhouse buildings. Staff
has some concerns as to its appearance fitting in with the small lot single family
structures that surround it. The applicant has submitted elevation and floor plans for the
proposed buildings. The elevation plans should be revised to illustrate building material.
Lightin~: A photometric plan displaying any exterior lighting should be submitted.
.
B.
ALTERATIVE ACTIONS
!!_~~ision 1: Concept CliP/PliO
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Plan for Emerald Estates, based
on a finding that the project is consistent \vith the goals of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
J
Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Plan. based on a finding that the
project is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Decision 2: _'-y.~!"iance to, Front Yard Setback (30 foot setback off of Maple Street)
1. Motion to approve the request for a 14 foot variance to the 30 foot front
yard setback requirement based on a finding that without the approval of
the variance the applicant does not have reasonable use of the property.
J Motion to deny the request for a 14 foot variance to the front yard setback
hased on a finding that the applicant has reasonable use of the site and
that no hardship exists.
.
..,
~) .
Motion to table the request subject to additional information.
3
Planning Commission Agcnda- 06103/03
Decision ~___Yariance to 20J:Q(~t~i~!~ 'y~nl setback requirement. (northern lot line
nl
off of 3 Stree,t)
.
1.
Motion to approve the request for a 4 foot variance to the 20 foot side yard
setback requirement front yard based on a finding that without the
approval of the variance the applicant does not have reasonable use of
the property.
')
.:...
Motion to deny the request for a 4 foot variance to the side yard setback
based on a finding that the applicant has reasonable use of the site and
that no hardship exists.
"
-, .
Motion to table the request subject to additional information.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The concept plan review is the Planning Commission and City Council"s opportunity to
provide feedback to the developer regarding a vvide variety of issues prior to the
preparation of a detai led development proposal. I ssues may include more detailed design
concerns that the City may believe are critical to further consideration of the project. or
may also be related to more general land use and development planning. including the
staging or direction of future City grO\vth. Staff believes that the general building style
and density is reasonable f()J' the site. The minimal exposure of.joint parking and garage
areas gives the' project the impression of a more traditional site design. and emphasizes
the residential character of the use. rather than the automobile functions.
.
However. staff cannot recommend approval of requests for front and side yard setback
variances as proposed. No hardship is evident for allowing these variances. While stafT
believes that the architecture proposed for the buildings is attractive and would tit
reasonably well with the area. the intent of the zoning ordinance is to adhere to the front
perimeter setbacks of the zoning district. The applicant should redesign the layout of the
proposed structures to elill1inate or minimize the need for a variance to the street setback
requirements and/or lessen the density or size of the buildings to better fit the subject site.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Site location map
Site Plan
Building Elevation
Floor Plan
.
4
en ~dH:::~ ~r~
= ~~.~~.!i~::: i..
tzJ .... ':~1>i~~ i~~
::E f.o !Ph~'" q
.... Z'tl~!~'i3 !~~1.
<(~<(f~~,,,~ -,,):
....JO_.....~zw t~.
" -.t5"i'it~ .,.
..... =5--q",~~ ~~~
00 <( i~.\!ir15 mO.
o :t !. . ~h ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
.dh".!'i .d
!;lIe; I e:lJ2: (Oi:C) ,l!.\).~ l.1'.i1 ?Ij(l (O?,G) "aU04d
l,QCtll" NN '~Jlld il'lIUM. l.pl10S i1m.lil^V 410i ",I)
N'71oJ 3"19
-- If
II;
rC\ I ~j----
'---~) Q IU ~
"'I~~
5....5..-
. ,__t_ f."
. n CJ n SlSIIBpadS u61seO eWOH
I: ~g~!!?l~a
. ;>
X3ld v
931'11930l'1<S3W3
'"
~
~
:3
W
>
{l:
o
1
I
I
I
--_._.~~,~,. ,.~~--,_.
- I-
I
I
..
W~
:t:~
I- ~.;
WCl
a:L~
<(r::c
en ~~.
(!) _.I
Z:~.
-u
s;r
<(.....
a:r
of-
u.J ".
enr
UJI:
:I: .-
I-f:
..11:
~II
,L <(:"S91
:3 "5(,,S0oLC: "r
.1-
:>!:JV'g13S ,,91
()
,
~
.-
,
a liNn
l
(
!
,
<
I
I
<...
!
(
'"
~ -<
.- r
r
>
!.
-.\l
r
\1 11 Nn
ill
61
(\\
I ~ OJ --
L1)~
I !!l .
I NC
\S,) .,
1\1 ("
z
!U ()
I<{ .J.. \1m3^I~a ,
-.\l Q
'f I (0 '"
I
I LLI
(j)
f !\S,) ~
~
I
""C' .--- "1
'(. ,
, I _'^.'
""j- '.";
.~, ~. '~':'
-7~ ~ }'J
();,.:....
;(1 "1
~) ~.::~
tit -,. ,..
(;) 0>>'"
-.1,,;::""
~~
q:;n
-, ~~
-~
~
~-n
J>/U
rO
!!'Z
~----I
.......
~m
,,' I
-m
,. <
~p.
.
~(j)
J>\J
~m
~m
\;31
'"
"m
:. <
" P.
~----I
o
Z
c
Z
----I
I
OJ
w
p.
r ~ ~.,
;tj: ~ ,n ~ , ,(.1
l) ",'II
-.J "!"I'r
.n~"
0,:1
"I\'r
. . ;.'.....
C"""II
Co:' "~
';j;'. ,""
(J" "'~ ill
-I t;:t...
:U~
CP-
o:x1
6<
~.,
~-
~f!
~o
!'!1o
~IU
.:' --0
--.:\
~l>
.Z
;;
"
..,010',' )(
."",' -0><
;! ..t:l:( Hon':)
~)u:-t
~~~ :.
ell': \11 ~'f.~
~~! ~
E
'"
II'
~ ~
"
;~~ ;
~~~ ~
.~
'"
1
I
I
I
I
I ....
I ~r
I
". I ~1>
)( I ~~
, I
It" I '-111
i I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ll-~) ~\/
0/''\
F"""
:z
"r
G 1> (C)
- (fI
X -t
~ ~~
i
",Ill
~l
IDl
8
G'
~ lQ]
~ ~~2
~ i
11 f'i
;-l 'J!
'"
.
~~~ i
;Z\'l
.,,,-
~
"'..
~
~\g
Xlz
iJ
~
Of'PTIOolAl... IIlAIMO
C!!L~",_ _
FLAT CE 11..1N6
iii<
~~
- -X- -
-~
~~
Planning. Commission Agenda - 06/03/03
.
6.
Pul?Jjc Hearing:_ Consi(!~ration oJ ~l reqll.est for .~!! Interim Usc Per!!!!!
aJlo~\'ing Outside Stonlgc"~s a prin~ipal use in an I::-.~ zoning .!.!t~trict .
Applicant: .J~l\' Morrcl!l..JME otMonticelJ2.' (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
~.',..~- .~,..'..
The applicant is seeking approval of an Interim Usc Permit to utilize a parcel in
the 1<2 zoning district for outside storage. There are no buildings on the property.
and thc only activity would be the storage of equipment and materials. No
structures of any kind are proposed by the appl icant. according to the site plan
submitted \vith the application. This use is allowed in the district only as an
Interim Cse. with a specific date to be established for the expiration of the permit.
and the termination of the use.
For this type of permit. the zoning ordinance sets several requirements.
1. A specified termination date is documented.
J The applicable requirements of Chapter 3. Section 2. General Building and
Performance Requirements arc met.
. "
.J.
4.
5.
The permit prohibits parking of automobiles.
The permit specifics a gravel surface. suitable for parking of trucks.
The permit specifics that the intensity of visual screening shall be related
to the location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim
use.
6. The permit specifics that appropriate setback of necessary fencing and/or
setback of storage shall be related to the location and nature of the storage
and the duration of the interim use.
With regard to the termination date. planning staff would recommend an initial
term of five years, after which period the applicant would need to discontinue the
use. receive a new permit in accordance with the zoning requirements in place at
that time.
Chapter 3, Section 2 provides for the following requirements:
3-2 [E]: Provides for the submission of drainage plans to the City Engineer. and a
requirement for written approval.
.
3~2 [F]: Provides for regulation of fencing where required or proposed.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06103/03
3-~ [CiI1-13: Provides f(lr minimum landscaping requirements.
.
3-1 rei] 1: Provides for the required suhmission of landscaping plans.
3-~ [Gl 3: Provides for the clements of an acceptahle landscaping plan.
3-2 lei] 11: Provides for a bond securing the installation and survival of required
landscaping.
3-2 [Ill: Provides for prohibition of Glare caused by lighting on the subject
property.
3-2 In Provides for regulation of dust created by activities on the site.
3-2 [K]: Provides for regulation of noise created by activities on the site.
3-~ [Ml: Provides for prohibition of junk. including inoperable or unlicensed
trucks.
The requirements of Chapter 3. Section 2 are to he complied with in order for the
City to consider an Interim Use Permit under the zoning regulations. Other
generally applicable zoning requirements include 3-3 [G] which provides for
required buffer yards bet\veen the use and neighboring incompatible land uses.
There arc several other general performance standards that would apply.
depending on the applicant's anticipated use and de\"Clopment of the site. It is the
intent of this report that all applicable general standards are incorporated into any
permit that may be approved.
.
AL TERNA rIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of an Interim Use Permit f()!" Jay Morrell/JME of
Monticello for outdoor storage.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit, subject to
compliance with the specific and general standards of the zoning
ordinance, including a term of five years documented by a signed
agrecment between the City and the applicant.
! Motion to recommend denial of the Interim Use Permit. based on a finding
that the applicant has not complicd with all of the subn1ission
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
.
1.
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 06/03/03
ST AFF RECOMMENDA TJON
.
Staff recommends approval of the Interim Use Permit. only with the stipulation
that the applicant meets each oi'the requirements of the zoning ordinance
applying to the use and to the property. This property owner has operated on this
site without a permit for some time. The rationale for granting this permit is to
encourage the applicant" s compliance with the zoning regulations of the City of
Monticello.
SUPPORTING DATA
Site Plan as provided by applicant
Photos
.
.
..,
-,
w
.
.
.
5ik. VlOJ\ C6 SwmiH--eJ
~ - ----- - ~ ------ - - ~ - -......- - - ---- - - -........ - - ~ --
C'l
~
DUNDAS ROAD
l5
EAST
360. 00
\ "
Ul ,i. I T'J" l45l"'Nl
s
- ~ - ~ ~. - ~' ~ -~ - -- - - ~ ~ ~ - - -
-- .--04(H.
~:;:J. 1::: l ()
9l~ 11),0 , .q()-l t~ U TOol OOTl().l.
j..
---~ --_._,..~"'--- ---- -.-- -. --.---. ,.~,", -,_._._~' ~---'--.'--~'~----
/
/
~
~
~~
I~
I
I
"
0'1
~ /
ti
~
3
5
6
I ~
/tARO SURFACE
I R[UCLfD CQNCRU[
\ . /
i!:
~
5. 43 ACRES
~
~
/
\
J
/
I
'.
..,_ __~ '....0+1-
/
PCH)INC ,o\Rl~
L.~..___._.____~.M-_
I
---
6FT HIOh BU~ .....'-
_ ~ .......-CLD BAAa wIRf. r[NQ.
_ .r - - - UTI,iTrEASl~hl~ - - -L- - - - - - - ~r
_ N 89021' 11" W 360.02
~ ""-h" t'o- ----.&. - 6- -to ~ ...... -;;.- ----L. --'. .....e.-..-....----" -- ........ - --tr -- ........ - ...... - --- _.'- ....
". - ----.... -6' PRlvA(;Y F~NC(
loA
.
.
.
(y6
.
.
.
/yO
.
.
.
Planning COll1mission Agenda - 06/03/03
7.
Puhlic 1::I~~~!'111~: Consideration (~Lan amendment to tJIY Cih' Si~!l rc~ulations~Telatin~ to
monument a_I1_~Jlylg_n si~ns. ApplicaIl!.: City of Montic~HQ. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City has been presented with numerous requests for pylons signs that are larger in both
area and height than the ordinance would allow. The most recent request was made by Home
Depot. and raised concerns related to the rationale that vvould be applied when considering
larger-than-standard pylon signage. In that case. the City chose to approve the sign plan based
on its consideration of two primary factors. First of the two permissible signs, the applicants
were willing to downsize one of them and construct it as a monument-style freestanding sign.
rather than a pylon. Second. the development encompassed several acres and included more
than 200.000 square feet of building space.
This sign was approved under the umbrella of the site's Planned Unit Development request.
llowevcr. it was felt that an amendment to the sign regulations codifying this concept would
be a preferable method for future sign requests. As such, planning stafT has prepared the
attached amendment f(H the City's consideration.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision J: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance establishing a specific method for
permitting shopping center freestanding signs.
I. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment. based on a finding that the larger
developments justify larger signs due to issues of scale and communication to street tramc
over a greater distance.
/
Motion to recommend denial of the amendment. based on a finding that the sign ordinance
provides an adequate method of commercial communication as currently written.
.5.I~FF RECOMMENDATION
If the City believes that additional sign allowances are appropriate for larger project. staff
recommends an amendment to this section of the Ordinance. Relying on a POD analysis
makes it diflicult to justify variations in business signage, and particularly impacts the City's
interest in maintaining consistent sign regulations between competing commercial properties.
At this time. the attached draft is provided as a starting point for discussion, and is not
intended to be presented as the final draft. Other considerations may be of interest to the
Planning Commission, including freeway visibility. and architectural enhancements to sign
construction that may facilitate more attractive freestanding sign construction.
SUPPORTING DATA
Draft Ordinance Amendment
.
.
.
City of Monticello, Minnesota
Ordinance
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-9 [E] E. (b) OF THE MONTICELLO
ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR REGULATION OF FREESTANDING
SIGNS ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OF MORE THAN TWENTY FIVE ACRES.
The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains:
Section 1.
Chapter 3, Sect. 9 [E] 3. (b) is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(b)
In the case of a building where there are two (2) or more
uses and which, by generally understood and accepted
definitions, is considered to be a shopping center or
shopping mall, a conditional use permit shall may be
granted to the entire building in accordance to an
overall site plan indicating the size, location, and
height of all signs presented to the Planning Commission.
A maximum of five percent (5%) of the gross floor area of
the front silhouette shall apply to the principal
building~ where the aggregate allowable sign area is
equitably distributed among the several businesses. In
the case of applying this conditional use permit to a
building, the building may have one (1) pylon or
freestanding sign identifying the building which is in
conformance with this ordinance. For purposes of
determining the gross area of the silhouette of the
principal building~, the silhouette shall be defined as
that area within the outline drawing of the principal
building~ as viewed from the front lot line or from the
related public street(s).
For shopping centers of greater than one hundred fifty
thousand (150,000) square feet of aggregate building
square footage and greater than twenty (20) acres in site
area, two freestanding signs may be permitted under ..~hi~
section. The applicant may construct two pylon-style
signs in conformance with this ordinance, or in the
alternative, may construct one pylon-style and one
monument-slYle sign. When this latter option is chosen,
~he_~onument sign shall be no greater than eighteen (18)
feet~n height no n:!ore than one h~~ndred (100) squal~e feet
in a~ea, and the pylon may be nO_...9reater ~~an fifty (50) .
feet in height and four hundred (400) square feet In
area.
Section 2.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and
after its passage and publication.
Bruce Thielen, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dawn Grossinger, City Clerk
.
AYES;
NAYS:
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/03/03
.
8. Public H~_~'rjl!g - <;;~~HlsideratiQI1~oL<:(~!llpl'eh~!,si\'C pl~!!! amendment establishing ratio
of sing~~r~,mily homes to attachedJg~~:.nh~~'!!!"~:.......AImlic~mt: Monticello 1~lanning
Co,!!~.i.~5ion (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
lhe City has long defined 1m\' density residential development as three units per gross acre
and/or four units per net acre. Although this definition may in essence be what the City has
in mind when considering low density residential development recent development
proposals have shown how this definition may be construed in a manner that produces
developments ditferent from the City's vision of\vhat low density is. Recent development
proposals have sh()\vn how using a PU D overlay covering a large site area planned for low
density development can be designed in a manner as to produce a significant portion of the
site in medium to high density attached housing. lhis is done by utilizing a large area of the
site for large lot development. which in turn lowers the lot per acre average granted as
flexibility \vithin the PUD. allowing the applicant to utilize a portion of the site for attached.
higher density development.
.
The Planning Commission has asked that City staff look into possibilities for handling such
situations that rnay give the city more authority in directing such developments and help
accomplish the overall vision of the Comprehensive Plan. These possibilities may include
any or a number of the f()llowing methods; redefining what low density residential
development means to the community. amending the future land use plan. amend the zoning
ordinance to illc lude ratio' s or percentages of attached housing allowed. or better define
what a tangible benefit is in the PUD section of the zoning ordinance. All of these
possibilities arc discussed within this report. hovvever the following two things should be
gi\en son1e thought prior to continuing this analysis; the City is not obligated to approve a
PUD because it meets a general definition of the underlying density of the planned district.
and the market has been leaning towards attached housing and may for an extended period
of time. If PU D development proposals are presented that do not mesh with the City's
vision of \vhat low density development is f(x that area, it is not obligated to approve. The
second statement is to keep in mind while developing better definitions or policies that may
limit attached housing. we need to be cognizant of the market.
As described in a recent article in the Star Tribune. "Multi-family housing trend keeps
building. monthly figures show". published May] 3,2003. the trend towards attached
housing has risen and is expected to continue for a period of time. The reasoning behind
this trend is both the rising prices in housing and the age of the baby boomers. Entry level
buyers are attracted to the affordability and empty-nesters are attracted to its low
maintenance.
.
"rhe following tables are an attempt to show how Monticello compares to cities of varying
size around the state in terms of its percentage of attached vs. detached housing. The
information was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and is a data set of the ':2000 census.
Plannin!.! COlllmission A!.!cnda .-. 06/03/03
'-'---'---"--"--"--.C- - ==r-_...._'-'_._._-':;......._-~___..m_'..___-_._-
MONTICELLO
- Numbcr ..---- Percent
I
.--...-.-.'"
i
.
- Total Housing Lj~i~.~_-l- ~'~~ 100.0
3.005
58.9 -~',._~,~
1 unit detached: 1.771
'"~. Attached .. 34.0
1.024
Mobi Ie I~TC)jlle - -
210 7
~---~i=
Note: attached includes anything from a townhouse to a 20 or lllore L1nit apaI1111cnt.
=i- S1. M'ichael .. ,.,
N umber Percent
Totall-loLlsin!.! Units! 3.043 ]00.0
-. w .... I -.
1 unit detachcd I 2,657 87.3
Attachet! I 381 ]2.5
Mobile HOI~ 5 0.2
I
I
Total HOUSill!.!.'-~~
I Lln it d;taclledl
-'Attached I
Mohi Ie Ilom~J=
Mendota Hcights
N Ulll ber--~---
4,243
3.178
] .065
o
Percent
100.0
74.9
~~~--
25.1
o
___..J
1==".--
Shakopee
N lllll bel'
7.790
4.716
3.031
43
Percent
100.0
i 60.5
~._-~~,~,--
38.9
.6
_.~~,._~ ._~,~~_.,~_ u~.
.
ToiarHousi~JL~jnits I
I un it d:E:~Jle~J
Attached:
MobiIeU~)ll~_~J
- I Maple Grove
~~._~ I
Number Percent
-. TotallloLlsing Units- ----,----
17.738 100.0
1 un it detached 12,832 72.3
Attached 4.894 27.6
Mobile 'Home 12 .1
~-',.
Buffalo City
N Ulll bel' Percent
Total Housing Units 3,872 100.0
1 un it detached 2.389 61.7
Attached 1, 174 30.3
Mobile Home 309 8.0
Big Lake City
N um bel' Percent
Total Housing Units 2.]94 100.0
1 un it detached .. 1,766 - 80.5
L_ AttachCdi= 309 ]4.1
5.4
Mobile H(:.~~~ ------j 19 ~"__,__~~L.....
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda. 06/03/03
.
As seen from the previous tables. the percentage of attached housing in Monticello as
compared to a sampling of cities in Minnesota is relatively average if not a little high. The
city can use this information to develop policies that limit attached housing. or the city may
consider itself developing and growing \vith the market trend. ]n other words. should the
City playa more active roll in the type of future development. or should the City allow the
market to determine the types of development \ve get?
Should the City decide to intervene and playa larger a roll in determining the makeup of
future developments in terms of attached vs. detached housing. the following are a listing of
several ideas or options that should be discussed:
. Redefine \V'hat low density development is to the community. For instance 2.5 units per
gross acre and 3 units net acre.
. Amend the future land use plan. This may include separating areas designated for low
density development (in particular R-I A) from areas that the City would allow attached
housing.
. Amend the Zoning Ordinance text dealing with density within districts to include specific
ratios or percentages of allowed attached housing f()r larger developments. For instance one
. per e\ery three units in a low density residential district is allO\'ved to be attached.
. More strictly define \vhat a tangible henefit required for a PliO is. For instance a low
density residential development utilizing the PUO overlay must include at least 20 percent
open space. sidewalks on both sides of the street etc...
This memo is simply meant for discussion purposes. There is no recommendation or
alternative action to be taken at this time.
.
3
.
.
.
Planning. Commission Agenda - 06/03/03
9.
Public Hear"ing - Consideration to review H.-lA, R-I, R-2, and R-2A setback
standards for" the purposc of clarification of thc rc!!ulations. (.TO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Staff requests that Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the next meeting
of the Planning Commission as we have not had the opportunity to fully document and
review possible housekeeping changes to the residential standards.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to continue public hearing relating to review of R~ 1 A R-] " R-2. and R-2A
setback standards for purpose of clarification of the regulations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StafTrecommends alternative]. We hope to have a report in time for the next meeting of
the Planning Commission.
.
.
.
l!1
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/03/03
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of preliminan' plat approval of thc Otter
CI'cek Crossin!! commercial subdivision. Applicant: Ottcr Creek LLC (.10)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROllND
The developer (Chadwick) and City do not at this point have control over the land necessary
for the proposed roadway. therefore the preliminary plat can not be approved at this time.
The plat shows a roadway alignment that falls on the Denny Hecker property and there docs
not appear to be an alternative route for serving the site that would avoid Hecker land. John
Chadwick is currently negotiating with Hecker on this matter.
The roadway alignment as proposed is consistent with the approved Planned Unit
Development and is important to the future development of the Chelsea West area. City
staff is continuing in its effort to facilitate site control but it has not yet been achieved.
Therefore. at this point in time it is again recommended that the item be tabled to the next
meeting of the Planning Commission.
In a related matter. a 60 acre portion of the Chadwick property is being reviewed for
potential annexation at the July 14 meeting of the City Council.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Table approval until the land within the boundaries of the plat arc under the control
of the developer.
') Deny approval of the preliminary plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative 1 above.
SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of preliminary plat
.:4~ ~ j
',")~':.:: <;::,
'~'~ ~ f
0~ ':;:: ~.
;{/~~
~
~
(')jz
~~
~~
~~;
,.--'.....,:1
_..1
"-r"
r
/ );' / I, "J",/ / \ \ ~ t."
(, \ \ '4.,_// C-=', / /~t/ \ \
'..I ') "'___ \ \._/ / /~. ~.' ii' \
-.".--, J / ~~ -, l
'J.__ ,,- - / ; ~ )
) i)...,
/ (~I',
nn! _n~
I
I
'\
\,
".
------
1'"\\",\
"r
.;;~
\6..j"ffi"r----
.. .[AST lINf.
or THf ~ 1'/ _ <:,w Y,
'.ift; H) r \2\ j:l :t~
SO()"20"6 'E ;:'
7322,03
......-----'-~-
".
"1)0
~~ .iJ
'"
"-
\
'.' \
\ '"
........... r ~~
'\,.\
/
/
/
r
'"-
\
'%,
")> ',.
^
'\ '
I
\ R~~I I
-' ~
'-7 0," I
, I"!':::; /
j I 0" ../ ./
_.- ",JI'~r ~
- I.....-/.~_/ vj
,;// /' l
/;/~.. // 1(///
.,; '-/ / //
/ \,,<?l ,,0(\ '0-:1.)/ ,,,/ /'{,/
~r." (\~ r,f v' / /
.. -"...._ "'11'? ~0. ,,'-;,. cf V/ "/' ,//
-~-- .#. \.- ,? \.-~ '/
/"' t. rc'~' . '.~. /1/'1
/' ')" "1,.' / I
',/ I '- / '
J(~ ,...,.
/. I<'~ ~ (") '"
/)/: ;; ~'* '
//7/' -~ ~~... "". 'y
s ....-<. . 0
'i..( : :0
/0 / - ';' c.,
, / .
/ .. ~L "y
I / '-.,
'/ /0 -<.
/~ "y
..~ 0
'~.,
~
';:"
\
e
t:
-'I: l,
:~ "
-il:.r-." '-
51) 0 '''\'''" .'.-.,..
3 _
'"-I
~",
<:;(
I ~"')
!
/
,
'x
/
/
/
/
/
/
\1
\JV)
1..,,"
I\l~
~~
C).~.
a"'~
I'i
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
.s>
,/
o
.;r 0100;)'''' oI"~"o"!""s!Da()-"I\P" a ~~r..~ ~0':~~~ 01"'0<0;;"'" 0 0 i 0 ~.
II N II II 1I II M M ~ . I I II MM. . n II II II II " ~ R II ~ II II ~ H II . M II
" 1)
~ <
o.
~ :::
~
~ ~ . · · · A ,PI '" ~ II I ~ 1! " ! ~ " ~ ~ , p ~ p ~ ~ i" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Ii: ., ~
:;: :;: a ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ !I ~ Q i I ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ \I ~ t ~~ ..
i i ~ ~ :; n ~ ~:;l ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ! ~ ~~ ~
; ~ i I!i ~ ~ ~ i 0 ~ ~ ~ P z i I:: l--l :iJ ~ ~ f ;I: ~ M ~ ~ ~ r4 ~i ~
f ~ " ~ ~. ~ j' ~ I i ~ .. i ~ ~ f ~ ~ 1'l i : ~ z" z
~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . 0; ~
~ ~ i ~ z. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~
~ ~ ~:ii ~ ~ ~i ~
~ ~ .
~ ~
V> 0
~
,.,
f;i --<I~) --
G) z :5
rn
z
0
;;J ~
!:l
.
.
.
11.
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 06/03/03
PuJJlic i:Iear_ing: ~~onsi~I.~I.ation__Q.f a r~.!l.!!!st for Dev~~l!Ient Stage PUp and
Prelin!i_~'Plat f(~I. C::!.rlisle Village, ::~_ mi~e(l r~sidential ,J!!:Qject. ,Applic::tnt:
Sha~ow Cree,k Denlopmc.nt. (NAC)
.!{EF';:RENCE_AND JJAC~_~ROlJND
In May. the Planning Commission considered Rezoning. Concept Stage PUD.
Development Stage PUD. and Preliminary Plat for this project. The Rezonings to R-1 A.
R-2A. and R-2 were approved by the City Council in May. as was the Concept Stage
pun (v,:ith conditions) for both the north and south portions of the project. The Planning
Commission had sent the Development Stage pun on the south R~ I A area on to the
Council as well. but had tabled action on the Development Stage PUD for the north. also
tahling the Preliminary Plat for the entire project. The City Council approved the
Concept Stage PUD. but sent the Development Stage PUD back to the Planning
Commission for further study. and to keep it in process with the plat consideration.
The applicant met with staffa number of times prior to the City Council meeting in
discussions that were to lead to the resolution of the conditions prior to the Council
meeting, Several changes were made to the site plan however. there are a number of
outstanding issues related to the use of PUD and the specific conditions that were not
resolved by the revisions.
Included in this list is the use of the PUD for the south R-1 A area. The applicant has
given verbal assurances that the developer and building would put forth a significant
effort to preserve trees in the project. and that the narrov,'ing of the street right of way is
important to achieving that goal. Staff has asked for a written description of this process
that demonstrates how the tree preservation would be ensured. This has not been
submitted as of yet.
The City Council" s decision relating to density suggested a unit count for the overall
project in the range of 21 0 to 220 units. using the relative sizes of the bare land and treed
land to calculate total density. This is slightly more than approved by the Planning
Commission. however Council noted that the developer can achieve higher density only
if it is demonstrated that the plan and tree preservation process will result in protection of
trees. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not this has been
achieved. This is 25 to 35 fewer units than shown on the original concept plan.
Although the applicarit has submitted a new site plan, it is only a general line drawing,
and is not consistent with the Concept Plan approved by the City Council. Moreover.
grading. drainage. and utility issues will be affected by the density decision on this site,
and will need to be submitted for review and consideration prior to Planning Commission
recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/03/03
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision): DC\cJ~)()mc-,)t Stag,~ PUD for C~!rlislc VH!age
.
1. Motion to recommcnd approval of the Developmcnt Stage PUD for Carlisle
Village. hascd on the comments from the staJlreport for the May 6. 2003
Planning Commission meeting and the City Council decision on density.
7 Motion to recommend denial of the Development Stage PUD for Carlisle Village
hased on a finding that the plans which have heen suhmitted to date are
inconsistent \vith the Concept Plan approval.
3. Motion to table action on the Development Stagc PUD for Carlisle Village.
subject to suhmission of rcvised plans consistent with previous decisions and
approved conditions.
Decision 2: Prelimin,arv Plat for Carlisle Villag~.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat fiJr Carlisle Village. based on
the commcnts ham the statl'rep0l1 for the May 6. 2003 Planning Commission
mecting and the City COLlncil decision on density,
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat for Carlisle Village based on a
finding that the plans which have been suhmitted to date are inconsistent \\ith the
Concept Plan approval.
.
3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat for Carlisle Village. subject to
submission of revised plans consistent with previoLls decisions and approved
conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends tabling of both the Development Stage PUD and the Preliminary Plat
at this time. The applicant has submitted some additional information but still lacks data
necessary for consideration of the PUD. as well as plans that accurately reflect the
decision of the City Council on the Concept PUD and density question. The applicant
should be notified of an extension of time to consider the Development Stage PLJD. For
the July Planning Commission agenda. the normal submission date for new agenda
material would be Monday. June 9, 2003.
SUPPORTING DATA
None
.
2
-.
12.
-
.
'.
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 06/03/03
Puh~Hc~lring: C()nsjdcration__Q!A.!~~st for Con"~!.l~UD~Yic'y of a 3-unit
!ownh~~use~ryicct in the R-:~jstt".jct. APJili.cant~~jc~anl Carl~on. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGRQlJND
The applicant is seeking concept revie'vv of a revised layout for development of a parcel
adjacent to the Burlington Northern railroad at the end of Vine Street. The applicant had
preyiously prepared a concept plan that provided for detached units - the current proposal
would be for a row of three attached units.
The units arc 1.240 square [(wt "bungalow" units each with an attached garage on the
side. The buildings are set back from the rear property lines of the neighboring property
to the north. however. the common private street would be just five feet behind the
property line. The common private street appears to be approximately 14 feet in width.
The project relies on the vacation of or license agreement allowing for use of Vine Street.
Additional visitor parking is shown in the Vine St. ROW.
The site is zoned R-2. in which single and two-family homes are permitted uses. Three-
plexes such as this require a Conditional Use Permit. Staff had raised the following
issues with this proposed layout:
1.
The common private street is narrower than the City's requirements for two-way
circulation. The zoning ordinance establishes 20 feet of width as the lowest
threshold for this type of road. The only roadways approved at less than this
standard have been for one-way circulation.
')
Statl does not recommend the vacation of Vine Street. The right of way contains
a major City utility line. and is a potential street connection in the future. Ifuse of
Vine Street is to be allov.ed it should be handled via license agreement.
..,
.J.
Although the area is zoned R-2. planning staff is concerned with the building
massing in what would essentially be the rear yards of a single family residential
block. Planning staff believes that two units in this area would be adequate. and
would create a building mass that is more in keeping with the context of the
neighborhood. Detached units would be best. although two attached units could
be designed in such a way that they should not be a concern for the neighborhood.
4.
Planning staff would recommend that any development include a moderate
landscape screen along the common propel1y line with the neighboring single
family lots. The development parcel in question has historically been considered
un-developable. and many residents seck privacy in their rear yards. The
introduction of housing units in this location is a change to the long-standing
development pattern of the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/03/03
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for a three unit to\',nhouse
project.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUD with three units.
taking note of issues raised by the staff and Planning Commission with regard to
future design and available land areas.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage pun. based on a finding that
the land in question is ill-suited for residential development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StafT recommends approval of only a two-unit design. with the understanding that the
vacation of Vine Street is not recommended. but a more limited use via license agreement
may be acceptable. By limiting the project to two units. the building area can be moved
farther to the cast ",-here the parcel is wider, and can accommodate better private street
width and preserve more open space on the lot. As noted in the report. landscaping
should be used to help butfer this new development from the rear yards of the single
family neighborhood to the north. As a final comment. it should be noted that the
improvcment of Vine Street will still be an issue. and the Council's decision in this
regard may have additional impacts on the viability of this project.
SlJPPORTING DATA
Site Plan
floor Plan
.2
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C)
q
<
<~
(-)
ill
',{)
~~
rom
~
:.<
;;u
i~)
:T
-'-I
o
or,
<~.
l'
.<
.
.1
()
()
:3
{T
:i
(])
(,).,
~j'
vI'
"'..1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~Q
OJ
(\>
,-t
;;rJ
o
I
I
I
I
1--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
S-
g
W
<D
~,)
"-..I
en
'11
.':,'
",-'
01
01
f',l
Cl
ljl
.1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
"
}J,:!,
t :ti
t 'j",
.,\i;.
~' f
.:: ,:~
i~ )!
':! .~
<
:>>
o
- p-
-1
rn
Cl
<
Z
m
;;U
G:i
:1:
_oj
o
.J
<;
"'-'.
)>.
~<
l...--- J'
______n"__
-- -,-------
. r--
l
'-T
'I'
--z
~
"7
ifi
Ul
--i
::.u
rn
rn
""I
~~
."
~
i',1
D
~}
rii
Q'f
0,
CIl
m.
58
1e~
o
o
CIl
\, m. ;' soee "': ,;"
" ''',:/
en
2'
Q,
'<
B<<~
\
\
...........
1"~-:::'".'':'-::7".'=7,.n
..-/......
" I
'~
~.-~
""V..'............:
r ,~l_ '''''_r~ "_~ ._'.. :~_.. ~;::l~=:~~~:.~~~~~~..:-: .~:~~~~..._..~
I
;1
CD
CD
0-
S
3
r-
:5"
CD
::)
_/~.. s
... .::.,;-:;.: ~-:';..:.'::,~'
I
N '
&;~
)(. ~
~(j)
~m
F~-=-..----<._=']
~: C<',
~.,~-=.:.:.=~ ~=~~1
CD
(1)
s: r"--.~~.
:
{i,F:<:
1.u.~..\1 n
f '"I.;.:: ~<
,'(
JOlla
~
I;
I,
I;
I:
, ,
I:
Ii
I;
,1.i
Ii i
I!
/:
I
I'
'i
I!
i;
i i
! :
r-
<'
S'
co
3068', I
,,/ I
,18681
'." J !i
'I II
~ -'.~ _J" II
~,
_.....J.I
;/"
/""'-
//
('\
'\ /'toOJ
~.'":;" !ll iil
" III
,,~-, ;:
!!l.
'1",.")
"T1
or
"0
or
2
".,,)
i i I
i i i
t.:.:~_:::"':'::::':"':':;~,,:; ! n_. ~__, ~,__~~I_
-.-----.1("
"
-'"
l:'"
c/
n
/:::7
, CD
::)
..
~
'r.;
,..,.....,.
"
201la
'fl'U
";: "1 0
i )( ;0
, to! (')
~I
1
o
:i"
S"
co
..
i
Il844
.
.
.
B.
Planning Commission Agenda - Ofl/(f
Co_nsideratiQ!! oran tlJlIlC.!.Lof decisions mtldc ,~!lJhcM~~nti.ccl!Q.J)('s~X~dYiso~,Te
IDA ~l!~~I'din~ S~~~Ctlt('(t at~LLtI~ 25. South~A.1!l}licant~FlickersTY~
~l!IlJiance (FP)
Background
-'''~'- "'-,-
Planning Commission is the Appeals Board for the Design Advisory Committee [DA Tl.
"'licker's TV & Appliance is appealing decisions made on Ma.y 6. 1003 by the [DAIl to
prohibit internal illumination of signs erected at Flicker's TV & Appliance store. Nev., sig
were erected on both the east and west sides of the building ,,,'ithout required sign permits.
In upholding the Monticello Dmmtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan. the DA T has
consistently discouraged back lit. translucent. plastic front signs in the Broadway and
Walnut subdistricts of the Central Community District [CCD]. The DAT has encouraged
signs to be externally illuminated in order to bring historic building and sign details back
into the downtown districts.
Flicker's has erected an internally illuminated shallow plastic awning-like sign on the
east/lhvy 25 side of the building. According to Flicker's the sign is of the same size and is
wired hom the same circuit as the original Flicker's sign. StafT has observed that with the
~ . ~
exception of wiring. the sign is entirely new. On the west wall. Flicker's has erected a
smaller but similar sign that is also internally illuminated.
The DA T recommended that Flickers:
1. Should light the sign on the west side of the building by "gooseneck" [type light
fixtures) or some external Source of lighting and not use an internal light Source: and
2. That the awning/sign on the l-Iwy #15 side of the building should not be internally Iii
during evening hours.
The DAT cited several previous occasions when signs in the downtown area have been
recommended to be externally illuminated only.
Flicker's has since applied f(Jr a sign permit. No sign permit has been issued by the City.
pending this appeal.
Alternatives:
I. Motion to: Uphold the recommendations of the DA T. requiring external
illumination on the west side sign and prohibiting internal illumination of the east
side sign during evening hours. both as conditions to issuance of a sign permit.
2.
Motion to: Overturn the DA T recommendation and allow internal illumination of
both the east and west side signs.
Planning COlllmission Agenda - 06'03/03
3.
Motion to: (Take some other course of action to be determined by the
Commission. )
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Alternative 1 above.
Attachments:
Copy of the Appeal Application from Flicker's TV & Appliance
Copy of the DAT Minutes of May 6, 2003.
Photographs of the subject signs
Copy of the Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan
:2
.
.
~.
.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
S05Walnut Street, Suite I
Monticello, MN 55362
(763) 295-271 J
Plilllllill!
Case #
PUBLIC HEARING APPLlCA TlON
Check Requl'sted Action:
- CONDITIONAL USE - $ 125 + all necessary consulting expenses*
-- ZONING MAP/ TEXT AMENDMENT - $250 + necessary consulting expenses*
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - $125
- SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING _ $350
- SUBDIVISION PLA T - $300 + $ IOO/acre up to 10 acres; $25/acre
after /0 acres + expenses. City will refund excess of per-acre deposit.
- yARIANCE REQUEST - $50 for setback/$125 for others + nec_ consult. expenses*
LaTHER - Fee $
-;, NOTE: Necessary consulting fees include cost to have City Planner analyze variance, rezoning, & conditional use per
requests at the rate of $75/I~he nee~ f~r City Planner assistance is det,ermined solely by City staff.
Applicant Namc -jA<..;. ~-~ r Ie.. I c I1A rs, 'T U C\.- .,<\
\-fCr-cl j '::2((' S. ./VIC0-1-. [c I
Address: --> c , _ , {/
Phone(Home) tL_____________ Business: Fax: 79<7- 627(;
Property Address:
Legal Description of Property:
. Lot: Block:
Other:
Current Zoning:
: Subdivision:
: Describe Request;
S I.~'V; ~(~C
C 11~r..) e7f
-LUL f /.:c
kpiVcS;
.NCl{
Informmion provided by the applicant on this form is true and correct.
J~j
G2..-
'/z.-/.AL.JG[0 ~ ~
.
/ cD, c~ ,,--'-*
. -
O,...J 4-1.-..e.. ') /!
~ "'!,/fu(
~ c.e00/'<y.
C"I:::U J( f
Date
Property Owner Signature
,5 (/si oj.
Date
Ap
.
(CONTINUE ON BACK...)
,;
PhiJpp.han: 10.0 1'0:2
Date Received/ Al1louJ1j Paid:
Receipt Number: ~
Public l-IciJring Date:
1~ {
.
.
612~835~3:~2
~c:; ~ J~~~T2N k22:Gl..~,=<
JUN 12 'S7 10:54
127 P07
.
MOnticello Downtown ilnd Riverfront Revitaliucion PLm
DeSitn GuIdeline.
Page 6
employees from parking on downtown streets.
. Creare prefen:ntiaJ parking 20nes in neighborboods, if necessary.
3.4 Develop each site to facilitate traffic movement and reduce conflict points.
. Provide full ilCCess to sites using cross streets; limit access to sites on Pine SlrC"...et to right in/out...
. Allow lirnit.ed parking iot access from Walnut and River Street.
· Allow parking lot circulation !It ends of parking aisJes 10 utilize cross streets. jf ncce.s:~ary.
3.5 Establish continuity in 'he pattems of site development to maintain coherency and
cohesi veness in downtown.
. Establish a common palette of materials for sites in downtown (lighting, paving, landscape, signs, etc.)
. Require that parking lots be 25 ~ent shaded by trees within J 0 years of development.
· Use landscaping or ornamenral fencing to block view of bumpers and grills of cars parked in 10ls :u::!jaam to
any public Streel
· Use indigenous or proven native p13nt materials. fOCUSing on species related 10 t"ie river Or !iannnn
envu ems.
ncourage signs to b~ a part of t1e buiidi.!1g r.;:ther tl::an me site; aDo',:..' pylon ~igns for dev~lop::nent or. Pine
Stn:et and between Seventh Street and 1-94 only.
4.0 The Design of BUildings
4.1 Develop a unified character for all built elements of downtown to yield the sense of a true
downtown district.
. Formula and "COrporate" arcbitecOlte. franchise patterns and buildings that are designed as sigm: shall be
prohibited; building desi~n shall n:ly on "found"' cha..'<lcte,; mtlle:r thM introduced Cblacrer.
. New development shall be compatibJe with the intentions of the guideline! for each di~tr.cr, <lchi:wing
compatibility though similar scale, ma.ossing. bulk and derail.
· BUildings shalJ be organized with axes perpendicular to strcet~ .
. Each building shall be encou~ed to explore some level of individual expre:;:>ion in crd~ to ref] eet the sel1S~
of a downtown district rather than a strip center.
. Gene.."'3.lJy, commercial bUildings (r.:raiJ and office u!\es) in the Rjverfront. Broadway ~"DownlowI'" :md
VY8Jnut Districts shaD have fll:U roofs.
No buiJding shall exceed a height greater than three stories plus the roof. exce;:>t that builci:og~ in the
civic/institutional district may have eJemen!.$ thac exceed three !ttories.
. Awni.ngs shall be allowed to be continuous only "storefronts" occupied by 3. ~ingle tetlant; awnings siJQ.ll
noc be :oJlowed te extend across the face of more than one building, even if the buildings are occupied by the
same tenant.
· Detail shall be incegnl to the bUiJding, not elements that are npplied [0 a stand<lrd ouildir.g ~hell (:;uch a.:; &
dock tow~ or dormers with no wahle space behind).
4.2 Require the use of quality building materi~ls and methods to create an enduring 3tock of
dowmown buildings.
. Materials shall be durabJe, easily m;tintalnc1. ~~trilctive at close distances (for people walking on liJewll.!b;
or driving slowly on the lo:treel. for ~am?le); materials shall be scaled to pedesrriar.s when Str'lll'lur...!. Are
within 10 feet of a ?ubhc righC.{1f-wR)' or a walkway that is intenck~ for pU,",li:: u:,e (lvoidjj]~ !.he u~e of
''jumbo'' tJrick in these circumst!l.Oces).
. B riel. stone, u:ooo, EIFS or high q~ity precnst Concrete ;J.[e acceptable finistl materials; high q;;.ali:y metal
I~~
Montlcello Dowfjcown and ;Uverfror,t Revj~aliution Pl:ln
Design Guileilne~
Ps.gc 7
(matte finish preferred) or synthetic siding may be accepable ~f u~ed in combinadon with otber acceptable
macerials; ......ood frame or m.asonry consrrtlction is <lcceptable.
· T:-ansparenl glass sball be used atlhe majority of slr:-=: level ......indows~ mirrored glass at stree" level is not
acceptab Ie,
. Canvas awnings or extension of the roof material for awnings is encour3ged; nylon awnings or oL;..er
synthetic materi:l.ls, n.s well as those awning str'Jctures meant to be illumin:tted frolD within, llfe not
ac c e;J tub Ie.
4.3 Develop buildings i.hat relate to people at all publicly visible sides; eli...'11inate a "back ooor"
appearance for service are3.S a...""d rear entrances from parking lots.
. Facades facing streets or public walkways shall be <:.rticulated witb. windows and door:; resulting in a
minimum of 4.0 percent window or door ~a at street level (sidewalk to 12 feet high); wi'1dows shall have ..
generally vertical orj~.aa1ion.
· Ent:ies shall be the highlight of the building.
· Mec~anica1 systems shall be integrated into the desigr. of the building.
. Trash stol1l.ge areas shall be completely encIo:;.:d and incorporated as a part of the build.i.r:g.
. Only ~ose enL'<1.'1ces L"tat are uI'Jocked during regular bU5lness hour. mAY ~ considered public er.ttJDces.
· Sigr:s shall be incorporated into the building f:lc:lde, wim.iuw! or awning. up to a ma.xl.:num_?f 1 ~wflIe foot,
of sign area per liue<lr foot of sl!'~~ facw:: (at th~ front yard); signs:hat ex~nd mnr"etptl.~L~;t. beyond1Zrl!:
pJQ.n~ of tile buildin,g :r":.~~e OrsiplS t.'1at txt~nti beyond ~ nxlrli~~~-no:t.~)I?.Y:~~'.'~~I:~E~.~f$jin~ -~-~t:.
"'prb Sbc Co ;';::1- ifie-s id eo walk are ill oVo: cd uptc'~ -rr,a;: I iriiJiTI."sTie'6f-Sri sq uare-feet (marq ui~~.!=.:<-c:E.P.ted): signs iliat
.are wi:E.inor'a--pan-cif'a-wiildciw -;ii-u!i'CiTiaIhtEil-'70perc-e"n:-i:Te-ii'aieilri thest2'iic'; of the windOw; one slg:n
will ce allowed for each usable public ent:: (signs that are a part of an awtll.!1g or witbn or part of :!.
wi,;;icw an: encouraged and shall not be counted in determini.!lg the number of sign!. Eliowed).
· Tenattt signage for ::::wti.tenant buiiciings sncUl occupy an area no la.:ger than 3 ~q\lare feet per tc.."'lant at each
public entrance,
. Nor..ill~min::l.t<,d ~r:lporary ;lgnage SGs.lJ be perrnltted for any tenant of a building up to () squRr'e fe:~t or
sign ra.=e per te.n;;.nt. T~rr,pora."}' sign age shall not be at"'.acncd ro the building and, i: p!aced in a pub',;.:
ri;:.!-cf-way, s::all maintain a minimum of 6 fe~t dear-anee for pedestrians. Suer. temporai] signage sh.lll
be pla;;:ed only dun:'1g operating hours.
. TcmForary si:;naie may be attached to the iI'~<:ide face of any window at street level. pro','ided that sucb
signa);;c does not obscure more than 50 percent of the rota! wincow area and dces not re.:n&.in in ploce longer
t.,ao 1! days (ieasing or for sale sif;IlS exempt from time limit.a.lions).
· .tJ.1 buildings muS't be identified at each pubUc entrance with its full street addr~s. in numbers and ktT::fS; no
smaller than 2 inche:l in hei&-~t and no larger than 4 inches in height. n,i~ signage shall not be :nc1udcj in
the toW signnge allowed.
5.0 The Re-use of Buildings
5.1 The DepartInent of Interior "Sl3..ndards for Rehabilitation." which are universally recQgn~zed
OS guic.cs for the conservation and. preservation of the heritage of a piaa. shall appiy w the
fe-use of any structure wi&..:.n the downtov.n area. The re-use and rehabilitation of a ~tr:Jcture
shall be measured for appropriateness by means of the following tests, and may apply
equally to the development of ne".',' buildings in downtown:
. Use: A property should be used for It; hiS:.Dri.:: purposes.. or u re-use which requiresminilTllll ,n:uli;C to tb
ch..s-,'":l..,t~r defin..ing elements.
. Ch3!"a.::ter: Historic character s~ould he f'r~:>ervw by rCt;l.i:lll1g hi$1Mic m.:hitectur.u features. ruti-.er [1:)<;0
altering '.lr replacing them,
EXHIB IT B
.
.
.