Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 07-01-2003 . . . KL0 AGENDA REGUL.AR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - .J ul~' I, 2003 6:00 P.M. Members: Council Liaison: Staff: Dick Frie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. L10ydllilgart and David Rietveld Brian Stumpf Jefr O'NeilL Fred Patch. and Steve Grittman 1. C all to order. '") Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held June 3. 2003. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 5. Public I !caring - Consideration of a request for variance to the side yard setbacks f()!' a single family garage. Applicant: Tom l-lolthaus/Red Rooster Propel1ies. Inc. 6, Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for 10 root variance to the side yard setback to construct deck. Applicant: Virgil & 'Wanda Potter 7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for interim use/conditional use permit allowing outside storage. Applicant: Jay C. Morrell!JME of Monticello R. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request 1'01' a conditional use permit allowing concept stage PUD for 2. four unit tovvnhouse buildings; and Consideration of a request for a variance to the 30 foot front yard sethack in the R-2 District off Maple Street and variance to the 20 foot side yard setback off 3'01 Street. Applicant: Emerald Estates LLC 9. Continued Puhlic Hearing - Consideration or a request for development stage PUD and preliminary plat fl.)r Carlisle Village. a mixed residential project. Applicant: Shadow Creek Development ] O. Continued Public I !caring ~ Consideration to review current sign ordinance regarding monument and pylon signs in relation to height and square footage for possible amendment. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission ] 1. Continued Public Hearing ~ Consideration to review R- ] A. R- 1. R-2. and R-2A setback standards for the purpose of clarification of the regulations. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission 12. Adjourn -1- . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - June 3, 2()()3 6:00 P.M. Dick rrie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten, Lloyd I lilgart. David Rietveld and Council Liaison Brian Stumpf Fred Patch and Steve Grittman Deputy City Administrator .TetT (YNeill arrived at 7:50 p.m. Memhers Present: Staff: 1 . Call to order. Chair hie called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm and declared a quorum. noting the absence of Deputy City Administrator .IelT O'Neill. ') Approval orthe minutes of the reuular Planninu Commission meetine held ]\1av 6, 2003. " -) . 4. 5. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE TI-IE MINUTES or TI IE M.'\ Y 6. 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. LLOYD HILGART SI::CONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED lJN^NIMOUSLY. Consideration or addiIHl items to tht, aeenda. Steve Grittman. City Planner. achised that .TME has requested the Planning Commission to table his item to the next meeting as he is not prepared for the June meeting. Citizens comments"", None Public Hearin!.!. - Consideration of a request fell' a conditional use permit allowin!.! concept staee planned unit development for 2, four unit townhouse buildin!.!s: and Consideration of a request for a variance to the 30 foot front vard sethack in the R-2 district off Mallie Street and variance to the 20 foot side vard setback off 3rd Street. Applicant: Emerald Estates LLC Steve Grittman. City Planner. pro\'ided the stafT report. He hriefly summarized previous concepts that staff and Planning Commission had reviewed for this parcel and provided a site plan indicating the layout of the proposed project which includes an interior drive serving the four units. 2 drives from Maple St. and 2 from 3rd Street. Ramhler style units arc proposed and elevations and floor plans were provided. The proposed square footage is approx.1600 sq. 1'1. each. and complies with density for the R-2 district. The applicant is asking for flexibility on setbacks and therefore staff is processing the application as a PUD. He further advised that typically the building setbacks are viewed from the perimeter of the sites when looking at PUl)" s: the applicant is proposing 16 foot setbacks from both 3rd S1. and Maple, and wider to the west property line where there is an existing single family home. as well as 16 ft to the south. or church side of property. StafThas recommended that setbacks be looked at carefully due to location of the site. as there appears to be an opportunity to shift the units to the south. and potentially to the west as well. Staff is recommending that the buildings be shifted to meet required setbacks. Technically a variance would need to be granted and statT believes the layout of the site is reasonably setback. It also appears to statTthat the property - ] - Planning Commission Minlltes - 06/03/03 adjacent to the \\est vvould benefit from eventual incorporation into this development and theref(xe staff is asking that the applicant preserve for possible future expansion, if it becomes possihle. . John Simola, Public Works Director. clarified that side\.valk will be installed fl'om the Legion on Elm St. to Maple Street. as part of the city's core reconstruction. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Tom Johnson. applicant. addressed the commission stating after he received the staff report he addressed several of staff s concerns. He advised that the Design Team was able to revise the plan to coincide \.vith the 30 ft. setback on j'vlaple and 20 ft. on 3rd St.. but \vould still encroach on the \\'est. as the rear of the building \vould be setback approx. 26' to 27'. Johnson further stated he was led to believe that there could be t1exibility with the setbacks under the PUD. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There \vas discussion whether this proposal \vould be a superior project that \vould qualify for a PUD. It was advised that there had pre\'iously been 2 substandard homes on the site \vhich have been removed and the applicant is proposing 4 units. each with front porches facing the streets. He also noted the elosc \valking distance to the community center and shops. which he feels fits in with the older part of town as staff had requested. It was noted that the applicant no\\" appears to meet required setbacks and therefi.lre the only issue may he the possible request for 3 to 4- ft. variance to setbacks in the rear. Grittman concurred and noted that the code allows them to be ilexible under a PUD. It \\as noted that landscape plans will be required prior to development stage PU D appro\aL at which time the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review. Johnson stated he addressed the concern by staff with the drive on the west by adding a 6 foot bump-out so backing out \\as easier. He further stated that although the Design Team had reconfigurcd the site to meet setbacks, they also narro\',ed the drivev,'ays to ] 6 n. in the middle and 13 ft. on the i~lr west side. which could be widened in the future if they \vere able to build on the corner lot. Stumpf questioned garhage pick-up as well as the possible difficulty v,'ith emergency vehicles getting in and out with the narrow drives. . Mal1\" Ben!sten. ] 493 Jackson Street. Sl. Michael. addressed the commission statim! that he asslll~1ed g;rbage would be brought up to both 3rd Street and Maple Sl.. the same as '-it is being handled now. Johnson advised that there would he an association agreement in place and these would be for sale units only. Garbage would be required to be brought out to the streets under that agreement. Stumpf stated he still felt they need wider drives for emergency' vehicles, as well as city vehicles if there would be need for possible future utility work. Dragsten added that there is currently a paved area behind the church that an emergency vehicle could gain access through. although it does not extend the entire length of the parcel. Dragsten also felt stacking might be difficult, but Johnson felt that they had addressed that. although they would not be 2 cars deep. 1--1e questioned the possibility of encroaching into the il'ont setback. as this may help. Gritlman advised the Planning Commission to give the applicant adequate direction so they could proceed with concept stage. and the concerns would be addressed prior to development stage. Setback issues are the main concern at this time and Gritlman stated that if they have a . strong feeling one way or another. to dispose of the variance or table that request at this time. -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/03 Frie again noted that they could be flexible with a PUD, but \'iould also ask for a superior project to jLlstil~' granting a PtJD. The applicant \vas also asked the selling price oCthe homes and he stated approx. $200,000 to $230,000. There \vas further discussion on density and Hilgart felt it \vas too high and he was not convinced that this would be a superior project: he also doesn't see a hardship for variance approval. Dragsten felt comfortable with density. as well as the 3 to 4 ft. reduction in rear setbacks. but would like the required setbacks on the side to remain. Carlson felt that staff did not have adequate time to review the revised site plan as it was just submitted at the meeting, as well as having a concern with driveway width. Rietveld was comfortable with density, but suggested the driveways be shifted. Frie felt the concept tits with the neighborhood, and advised the applicant to meet with statT to resolw concerns "vith setbacks, drive"vays and elevations. Decision 1: Conccnt ClJP/PlJD A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE ACTION ON THE CONCEPT CUP/PUD APPROVAL TO THE JULY 1.2003 MEETING. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Dccision 2: Variance to FI"ont Yard Setback 30 foot setback off of Ma A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST rOR VARIANCE TO BOTH THE FRONT YARD AND SIDE Y ARl) SETBACKS. 'TO THE JUL Y 1,2003 MEETING. SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAl. INFORMATION. There was further discussion whether the Planning Commission had given the appl icant any indication of what they and staff \vould be comfortable with regarding setbacks. Frie saw only a concern with the possible request for a 3 ft. variance. They concurred that it \vould be more f~lVorable if the applicant could meet the requirement. howcver they would consider the 3 ft. variance request. THERE WAS NO FURrHER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for interim use/conditional use permit allowimr outside stora~e. Applicant: .Iav C. Morrell/JME of Monticello Steve Grittman advised that the applicant had requested this item to be tabled at this time. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO TABLE THE REQUEST AND CONTINUE TO THE JULY 1. 2003 MEETING. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration to review current sil!n ordinance reuardilw lTlonument and pylon sil!ns in relation to hei~ht and square fi)otal!e for possible amendment. Applicant: Monticello Planninl! Commission -3- Planning Commission 1\1inlltes - 06/03/03 Steve Grittman ad\'ised that Planning Commission and statThad pre\'iously discussed re\'iewing the sign ordinance relating to pylons and monuments after the I-/ome Depot application \\as submitted. There \n.Te concerns \vith proposals for higher sign heights that exceeded what is allowable by ordinance. This could assist stalTwhen looking at future sign requests. A draft ordinance \vas put together with an amendment to the existing code and Grittman clarified that this exception is carved out fiJr large users only. It \vas also noted that there might be othcr issues that Planning Commission might want to consider. Grittman advised that Home Depot had been concerned \vith visibil ity from the jj'ee\vay, and staff felt it was an inappropriate way to design the ordinance. Architectural enhancements were also discussed that they may want to review, and Grittman stated there \"'Cre other options to discuss. The drall is for a starting point only and staff is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission. It was noted that there had been no public response regarding the public hcaring. It was further discussed that the Planning Commission is looking for critc'ria so that they do not have to look at sign requests each time there is an application for retail/commercial development. Frie felt the height and size should be made clear. . Chair rrie opened the public hearing. and hearing no comments. the public hearing was closed. Rietveld asked for some clarifications in the draft ordinance and Grittman advised. noting that the 50 ft. max. height for pylons ultimately came from the Ilome Depot application. They further discussed fl'eeway \'isibility. noting that properties adjacent to freeways already pay a premium price fen their property to get exposure. It \"as stafes view thut they should have criteria written stating \,,'hat they are \villing to accept. and the current code is not appropriate to address this. Carlson asked if traffic speed was still taken into consideration and Grittman advised that it was. although the problem is that traffic speeds change. . They further discussed the possibility of looking for architectural enhancements to signs and Grittman stated that O'Neill had suggested this with the idea that they might be able to encourage the use of certain types of materials. making signs more an architectural componcnt. They felt monument signs were aesthetically more pleasing and Patch advised that they \\ill need to haw a definition of monument signs included in the ordinance. There was further discussion on building and site size criteria. and the amount of\.\'all signage allo\\'ed. Dragsten stated he was eomfortable with pylon signs no greater than 60 ft., and Frie concurred. Council liaison Stumpf also felt this needed to be clarified up-front. He was comfortable with the 60 f1. maximum height as well as the criteria points stated. Decision t: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance establishing a specific method for permitting shopping center 1i-eestanding signs. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT. WITH A 60 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT. BASED ON A FINDING THA T THE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS JUSTIFY FOR LARGER SIGNS DUE TO ISSUES or SCALE AND COMMUNICA TION TO STREET TRAFFIC OVER A GREA T DISTANCE. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. . -4- Planning CUll1ll1issiun Minutes - 06/03/03 . There was further discussion regarding monument signs with Cirittman (1chising there \\ould need to be further adjustments. He advised that this should he tabled to the July meeting at which time there would be more detail. TI-It:REFORL ROD DRAGSTEN RESCINDED HIS MOTION AND RECOMMENDED TABLINCi TO THE JULY 1.2003 MEETING. WITH TIlE EMPHASIS ON PYLON AND MONUMENT SIGNS. DA VF RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Public l-Iearinu _ Consideration of comprehensive plan amendment establishin~ ratio of sin~le bmilv homes to attached 1Ownhomes. Applicant: Monticello PI<:lI1ninQ Commission Steve Cirittman provided the staff report and asked the Planning Commission to discuss and review the number of single family homes and attached to\vnhomes. He noted that the City Council has been reviewing the long range land use plan "",ith discussions on density. due to the amount of development that has occurred and is expected to occur over the years. I Ie achised of options that the Planning Commission could discllss such as redefining low density. amend the future land use plan. amend zoning ordinance text to include specific ratios or percentages. and/or more strictly define what a tangible bene1it required for a PUD would be. noting that staff is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. and hearing no comments the public hearing was closed. Frie questioned if this was strictly for discussion at this time as Frie's preference would be that staff discuss ideas and propose them to the Planning Commission for review and input. He further stated that he' d I ike to get input from bui Iders. developers. and retailers for their feedback to be taken into consideration. frie advised or a number of comments on the overabundance of town homes. not only in Monticello. but in surrounding communities as well. and does not feci that .'market driven" should be used as an excuse. Carlson disagreed as he felt the more competition in townhomes. the better product they will have. in most cases. Also. attached units are a life style change. Grittman agreed and stated that he looks to what the town \vill be like in the future. lie further added that if they are going to change the way they look at units and density. they should be doing that 'with long range plans in mind. It was also noted that Monticello is considered part of the metro area and to dra\\ businesses in they need to keep up with the metro. The consenSLlS was to hold an open house and include invitations to developers. builders. and retailers. 'There was further discussion on calculating the number of units per acre: Dragsten was comf()rtable with 3 units and felt each one needed to be looked at individually. but Hilgart disagreed and feels the city is putting in homes that are not able to be moved up into. He also feels the need to bring more students into the community. Stumpf agreed with Cirittman regarding the proper zoning of land as it is annexed. which also could limit the number of townhomes allowable. Patch further advised of a possible change in the ordinance regarding the application process for proposed developments. Frie requested this information be lXo\'ided at the open house as well. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHAIR FRIE DIRECTINCi STAFF TO SET A DATE TO CONDUCT AN OPEN HOUSE. INCLUDING INVITATIONS TO BUILDERS. -5- DEVL:LOPERS. AND REAI.TORS. TO GA THf]{ INFORMArION AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO niE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING SINGLE FAMIL Y TO ATL1.CI-IED TO\VNI-IOUSE UNIT RATIOS. LLC)YD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Planning COlllmission Minutes - 06/03/03 '-) IJublic I-learin!.! - Consideration to revievv R-I A. .R-I. R-2. and R-2A setback standards for the purpose orelarification of the re!.!uJations. A) licant: Monticello Plannin!.! Commission . .fetl CfNeiJJ ad\ised that stafT had not had time to document and reviev,' possible changes to the residential standards at this time and requested the Planning Commission to continue the public hearing at the July meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE TI-IE PUBLIC HEARING TO 'rI-IE JUL Y 1.2003 MEETING. RELAtING TO REVIEW OF R- I A. R~ I. R- 2. AND R-2A SETBACK STANDARDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFICATION OF 'fHE REG LiLA lIONS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED 'tHE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. In. Continued Public Hearin!.! - Consideration of preliminarv plat alJlxova] of the Otter Creek Crossin!.! commercial subdivision. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC: Steve Grittman achised that staff had expressed to the applicant they feel the proposed de\'elopmcnt appears to fit \vith the site. However. the applicant has not yetfinalizec! acquisition of the land. The City Engineer also provided comments via a letter earlier today. which \\-as provided to the Planning Commission for their revie\v. . A MOTION VI'AS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO TABLE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIrvlINAR Y PLAT OF THE OTTER CREEK CROSSING COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION UNlIL THE LAND WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF TI IE PLAT ARE LiNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEVELOPER. DA VI--: RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. I I. Continued Public Hearin!.! ~ Consideration of xcIiminan )Iat and develo )ment staoe PUD a). roval orthc Carlisle Villa!.!e residential subdivision. Applicant: Shadovv Cree~ Comoration. Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided a brief summary noting a wide range of potential density for this project. The CounciJ"s review resulted in a decision that they would be comfortable with a unit range of 210 to 220. He noted the appl icant was to provide PUD documentation regarding tree preservation to justii}' their density request. and stated he had talked to Lucinda Gardner and it was her understanding that they would be allowed to increase density above 220 if they couIdjustif); tree prcsernltion. Grittman advised that information \vas not received in time to incorporate into the staff report. and therefore he could not provide feedback to the Planning Commission at this time. He further added that the City Engineer had stated the same in a letter submitted today. Staff still recommends tabling the development stage and preliminary plat. and asked that the Planning Commission give ICed back on what expectations they will have 1,)1' stalTwhen they do their review. . -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 06\)3/03 \-I i Igart asked what the highest density per acre would be for R-I A standards. with the same amenities as this parcel. and Grittman advised it to be 2.3 units per acre. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Gail'. MFRA. asked to address tree preseJ"\ation and his understanding Council had tabled development stage PUD approval and requested them to provide information regarding a tree preservation plan. Gail' proceeded to explain a tree preservation project they had completed in Eden Prairie. but Chair Frie requested Gail' to provide written information regarding the tree preservation plan for this project and not in other cities. Frie further advised that he was also at the City Council meeting where it was requested that this information be provided so that the Planning Commission could make their recommendation. Gail' stated he wanted to establish credibility and Frie advised that they do acknowledge their credibility. ho\vever he wanted a written plan. Gail' advised they had provided a plan. but Jeff O'Neill clarified that the plans were received around noon today. and therefore the Planning Commission did not receive this information. . CJair then clari fied some of the information that was incl uded in the plan and advised that contractors would be required to sign contracts prior to construction. acknO\vlcdging their compliance with the tree preservation plan. Builders are also informed and trees arc fenced and/or marked. All trees that are to be removed will be felled and someone will be available at all times to oversee tree preseJ"\ation. . Gail' stated that the city ordinance states credit is given for tree preservation and that the applicant has exceeded the standards \'.ith 620/rl of the trees 10 be saved in this project. Gail' stated that this is the reason they arc asking for the increased density and requesting that the Planning Commission view the project as a whole. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Fred Patch questioned enforcement of the tree preservation plan and Gail' again explained the process. Gardner advised that there would be a single bui IdeI' for this portion of the development and that she would be the enforcer during building process. She stated that the builder would be under contract with financial obligations and if trees were removed that were to be preserved. the developer would be required to replace the trees at twice the amount and at the city" s choice for placement. O'Neill advised that the city has a construction inspector as well and that they may wish to put a procedure in place with the developer for this purpose. Gardner advised that the builder had to show the trees that arc part of the preservation plan, on the building permit application, and therefore they would be noted on the survey. The building inspector could refer to that as well. O'Neill advised that from the City Council"s perspective. they were supportive of higher density if it was proven that the developer could accomplish the preservation plan. and that it is reviewed and signed off by the City Engineer. Gardner advised that they will grade and prepare the lots so they have control of all tree preservation. John Simola. Public Works Director. advised of concerns noted by the City Engineer with final planning stages such as placement ofjoint trench utilities and the minimum standards for street widths. Gail' concurred. but advised that they are at preliminary stage and there will need to be a much more detailed study. including information from the City Engineer and wetland people. Gail' stated there would be further loss of trees if they are required to dual . -7- Planning COlllmission 1\1illlltcs - O(J/03l03 trench. Simola stated that the city does joint trenching but it takes up room. and the proposed narrowing of the streets \\'jJJ a/lee! this as \\icll. Chair Frie stated that the Planning Coollllission needs to make a density dccision_ although there remain concerns \\-ith site plan. grading. draining and utilities. \\ihich Simola advised could change the density as well. Fric complimented the devcloper on their quality \V01"k with the tree preservation plan_ as well as their elforts to resolv-e City Council issue_ I Ie requested all inform at ion be completed and to staff by June 9'" Illl their review in orde,- fnr the PI anni n g Commission to make a decision at the July meeting. O'Neill stated from staffs standpoint they could not make a recommendation until they arc able to re\'iew the revised plans and clarified that the council agreed to a higher density than what the Planning Commission recommended for approval. Hilgart disagreed \vith the density and felt that 100 units should be the maximum: Frie's understanding was that the Council directed the developer to the 110 units. however Gair advised it \\ias their understandinQ that they advised 210 units ,and t/\)m . . L ~ there they would have to demonstrate tree preservation to j usti I)' additional uni ts. D('cision J: Development Stac(' pun for Carlisle ViJJace LLOYD HILGART MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TABLING ACTION ON TIlE DEVELOPMENT STAGE pun FOR CARLlSLE VILLAGE. SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF REVISED PLANS CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS DECISIONS AND APPROVED CONDITIONS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. There again was discussion \\'hether the approval should be contingent on staff and City Engineer approval. and Simola advised that the dcvcloper is still required to get County apprm'al regarding storn1\\ater. but that the City Engineer was in the process of setting up a meeting. Simola felt contingency should include County approval. Ciardner advised that their plan meets County requirements and stonmvater issues do not specifically rclate to this plan. Grittman advised that if a request is to be made by the Planning Commission for approval with conditions. they need to be specific. He further noted that the applicant"s plan is actually for 141. units but the council had advised a range of 110 to 110. There was no further discussion. MOTION CARRIED 4 TO I WITH ROD DRAGSTEN VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Decision 2: Preliminarv Plat for Carlisle ViJlace. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND T ABUNG ACTrON ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE, SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF REVISED PLANS CONSISTENT WITH TI-IE PREVIOUS DECISIONS AND APPROVED CONDITIONS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTrON CARRIED 4 TO 1 WITH ROD DRAGSTEN VOTING IN OPPOSITION. There Was fllrther di seussion hl' 0 - N ei II to possi b I)' eaf f lor a spec i almee. i I1g of the Plan l1i ng Commission prior to the second meeting of the City Council. as plans have now been Submitted. \\'hich staff feels would he sufficient. A iv10TION WAS MADE B't DICK FlUE TO CALL fOR ^ SPECIAL MEETrNG OF THE -R- . . . . 12~ . . Planning C0ll1l11issionl\1inlltcs - O()/03/03 PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDA Y. JUNE 2~. 2003 AT 5:30 P.M. RECiARDING CARLISLE VILLAGE. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED TI-IE MOTION. MOTIC)N CARRIL.D UNANIMOUSLY. Contjnued Public Hearinu _ Consideration of a request hn' a concept staQe planned unit deveIoomcnt in the R-2 District. ADplieant: Richard Carlson Richard Carlson. applicant. excused himself from the planning commission and \vas seated in the audience. Stew Grittman providecl the staff report fl,r a request to review a revised layout of a concept plan for development of a 3 unit attached townhouse project. He advised that \vithout the vacation of Vine St.. it is staffs recommendation fl))' the applicant to reduce to 2 units. \vhich is more so due to the shallo\\ density of the lots. It v,'as noted that City Council and staff \vere not in favor of street vacation. Cirittman advised of the possibility of a license agreement for potential use of the RO'v\'. however the City r~ngineer advised that this would not be a proper resolution. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Cyr. MLC Building & Remodeling. representing the applicant. addressed the Planning Commission advising that since the last meeting they have modified the plan which allows them to meet setback requirements. if looked at with Vine St. being the front. He also noted that this plan doesn't require the \'acation of Vine S1. The revised plan now shows adequate stacking for parking as well. Regarding staiTs concerns with the private street being narro\\er than city requirements. Cyr provided photos or a project that he had recently built in the area. with smal1er driveway widths. which had been approved by the city. He asked fl.Jr clarification on starfs comments regarding building mass and Crittman clarified that building mass is basically how large the structure is. adding that staffs concern is that because of the location and dimension of the property. the building is being placed in the rear yard of the site and might look out of scale or out or character. as this is typically private space. Cyr felt that this could be addressed with how it is constructed, such as adding gables to make it a more attractive design. The size of the property supports the units as well. Chair Frie stated he v;alked the property with Mr. Blonigan. resident adjacent to the applicant's. and agrees with the recommendation they do not vacate Vine St. Frie asked if 3 units could be placed on this site and still be in compliance and Cyr advised that there would be one setback not in compliance and it butts up to property that cannot be developed or used. There was discussion regarding the proposed cul-de-sac shown, and based on the City Engineer's information a 70 1'1. cui de sac could work. however SimoJa advised that it is smaller in diameter. hut they could still get the new garbage trucks through with a turn radius. Stumpf stated he saw no problem \vith emergency vehicles and there is also an existing fire hydrant in place. Cyr further advised of a landscaping screen that was requested hy staff. advising of a line of trees that arc cun-ently on the property on the north line. He also advised that they would only need access to Vine Street. no license agreement or vacation. Dan BJonigan. 405 Vine St.. stated he \I>,'as in agreement with the cul-de-sac. but still doesn't think there is adequate onsite parking and that he would not vv'ant to see cars parked in the cul- de-sac. Cirittman stated that each house would have a 2 car garage and any o\'ertlow parking -9- would be in the cuI de sac. although he didn't sec a demand for overtlmv othcr than special occasions. Blongian further advised that he did not object to this proposaL although he \vas concerned with having his backyard ill\'aded by somcone elsc's [I"ont yard. Thcre \\ere no further comments and the publ ic heari ng was closed. Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03103 There was discussion regarding the need for screening on the north side of the property. and Dragsten questioned if the cuI-de-sac \vas necessary. Simola clarified that it is part of the core city project and being bid at this time. . A MOTION \VAS MADE BY CHAIR FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PUO WITH THREE UNITS. TAKING NOTE OF ISSUES RAISED BY STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING FUTURE DESIGN AND A V AILABLE LAND AREAS. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MUrION. Grittman further clarified future design as a redefined development stage design. Stumpf also advised of a letter submitted by Chris Shinnick. neighboring resident to this site. advising that he \vas unable to attend the meeting but asked that the Planning Commission consider his comments. Chair hie advised that Mr. Shinnick's letter had been received by the Planning Commission and acknowledged. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND HIE MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 0 WITH RICHARD CARLSON ABSTAINING. 13. Consideration of an appeal of decisions bv the Monticello Desi!!n Advisorv Team (DATl reQardinQ si!!ns located at 211 HiQhwav 25 South. Almlicant: Flickers TV & Anpliance. . Fred Patch IJrovided the report and advised that Flicker's had erected a sign on the east sick of their building \\-here the original sign had been located. He undcrstood that the original sign was flat aQainst in the waIL but it \vas clarified that the siQn was on the awnin!!. Patch stated '- '- '- the existing sign was taken dov/n and a new one erected which is internally illuminated. further stating that he did not recall whether the original was ilIuminatcd. He advised that the Design Advisory Team (DAT) states that signs must not be internally illuminated: however the Downtown Revitalization Plan doesn't specifically state this. External illumination of signs is allowed and they have also allowed individually illuminated channel letters. DA T stated the sign could stay in place, however it is to be illuminated externally only. It was noted that if the Planning Commission concurs with the DA T's decision. the applicant has the right to appeal to the City Council. Jay Sieferle. o\vner/applicant. apologized that there was not a permit obtained and that he assumed that the sign company had gotten it. He did call city hall and was told to proceed with putting up the sign. also noting that the bui Iding across hom him has the exact same lighting on its sign. He had this sign designed narrOWer to \'.'hat the previous sign was. using the exact same lighting. Sieferlc did state however. that he did put up the sign on the west side and is willing to change the lighting of it to the type that is similar to the Loch Jewelers sign, if requested. He also noted that the sign he has is the design that is used by all of the storcs in this chain. . -10- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/03 Then: \\as further discussion on other signs in the downtown area and whether they were in compliance. Carlson commented that this particular sign seems to be more functional as it also lights up the doorway into the building. Sieferle stated he understands the request that signs be consistent \\ith those in the older part of the town, but he also feels that he has improved the entrance to his store. O'Neill advised the intent of the code \vas to stay mvay hom block type signage and this type of sign starts to hlll into that category. He further stated the Towne Center channel \ctters were a compromise and due in part to the speed of thvy. 25: and they also feel it is more aesthetically pleasing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHAIR FRIE TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN THE SIGN ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIS BUILDING AND TO COMPLY WITH TI IE SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE SIGN ON Tl-IE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Carlson asked for clarification regarding the lighting of the sign on the east side and could the applicant retain the existing lluorescent lighting. in addition to the external illumination. Patch stated that the applicant must eliminate the current internal lighting and install a type of goose- neck lighting. The applicant asked for a time frame to be in compliance and he was given 30 days. TI--IFRE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED tJNANIMOUSL Y. 14. Adjourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:25 P.M. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED TI IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. -,.,'-,.._.......----~,--~-'~- Recorder - I 1- . . . Planning Commission Agenda -- 07!O 1 /03 5. Public Hearinu __ Consideration of a sidcyard scthack variance in the R-l Zonin District for laraUe. Location: Lot 8 Block 2 Balboul Estates. A licant: Tom Holthaus/Red Rooster Properties, Inc. (FP) This Item has been withdrawn from the agenda as no variance will be required for the garage addition. . 6. . . Planning Commission Agenda - 07!O 1/03 Puhlic Hearing -- Consideration of a request for a ten (10) foot side yard setback yariance in the R-2 Zonin2; District for construction of a deck. Location: Lot S, Block 38, Original Plat. Apnlicant: Vir~il and 'Wanda Potter. (FP) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. And Mrs. Potter received a building permit on May 15. 2003 to add a deck to the side and front of their home at 211 Linn Street. The plan submitted did not show property lines or dimensions, No land survey was submitted or required by the City. Upon issuance of the building permit. the city inspector indicated that there is a 20 foot setback from property lines on Linn Street and a 30 foot setback from "Vest Third Street. (See attached copy) The dimensions \\Titten on the plan by the city inspector were misinterpreted by the Potters who have slated that tbey thought their property lines \\ere at the edge of the street. Potters started their deck project and called for inspections. Upon footing inspection. the inspector did not observe for setbacks but obser\'(~d tbe approved size of the deck and footing depths and locations only. On .luly 9. lOCH. the original inspector having issued tbe permit inspected the jj'aming of the deck and noticed the encroachment into the 20 j()ot side yard setback towards Linn Street. The deck project was stopped after the tloor joists were in place and before decking was installed. The Potters were intl,rmed that they must either remove the deck encroachment into the side yard setback fronting onto a public street or apply for a variance. The applicant \vas not encouraged ho\\ever to apply for a variance. Findings of unique conditions or hardships that may be made include: the deck is constructed within 18 inches of ad.iaeent grade. requires no guard railing e:\tending above the deck and is thereflwe not very obtrusive: the c1eck is sening as an entry landing for entries into the house: due to tbe location of the house to the rear of the lot. locating a deck to the rear or opposite side of the lot is impracticaL and. the deck construction creates a visual attachment bctvveen the detached garage and the house, The city inspector should have required a land survey. The Potters should have located their property lines and abided by the setback dimensions provided on the approved plan. The footing inspector should have noticed that the outermost Linn Street side fi)oting holes were located in the side yard setback area. Nevertheless. errors were made and the Planning Commission is requested to consider a variance to al1o\', tllr the deck to remain where constructed. Planning Commission Agenda - 07/0] /03 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: A. Motion to allow a variance, for a ten foot (10') reduction to the 20 foot side yard setback fronting on Linn Street subject to: ] no guard railing is to be installed on the deck: 2 no part of the deck may exceed 24 inches above adjacent grade: and, 3 shrubbery landscaping must be installed along the side of the deck toward Linn Street to visually buffer the edge of thc deck from the strect: finding that the variance is justified because: · the deck is constructed within] 8 inchcs of adjacent grade, requircs no guard railing. is made less obtrusive by requircd landscaping, creates a visual attachmcnt betwcen garage house, and serves as the main entry landing for the house: and, · alternate locations are impractical. B. Motion to deny the variance. A, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff makes no recommendation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A ~ Copy of Plan Submitted in Application for Permit Exhibit B - Location Map. . . . / .(~/(! Llntl 7-!- . . , ij"j{2 \~e\ w~ s,hou lel \Q(;Q\o\~ -\-0 . K~f .~ 6~CJ< ~~ClUS& WE:.- oj {'{2~':J \,QLJ "- 3/--1 0 ~- ,+ cio i') e . \ \...uC) 'ou'\ \~: f\CJ I Y\ S Fc"\af'S. c?i(~ \J ~ u,=>. i-~0 ..OK m ~o Q he<>--d QJ\d ~I\;sln ,-l. W~ oJ\~Q~~ DOLJ1~t '+\'-Q \ UrY\ ~ (' cu'"\d hau Q 0 U (( , L\ ~ G (j s, cULd doll cd'S I (\ \J e S +.~-,l ~ (\ .. 1: . 1vJ~ ~ \ W<<,-, oJ'e k, E'no\J~h C\ ~\ C. '" I ~ G ry\ L L (\ r\ St. W€ \-u\~d +0 ~ 1'\+,,'qhlaorS o.~~ .~"'~ ~\A0-t hQu,," o...Y\~ ?l'oV:,\QIr\S l,Ll\-\-h \-t W <2 0..'\ -Q -'-I'v". ~ foJ; {\ ':\ ~~ 100 K S o ~ (JU (L \"Om <<'- bj a-cIci, I\~ t-h& G~k'. . , Th.~.~:).:;?~ Depot # 2821 18011 ZANE ST NW, ELK RIVER, MN 55330 (763) 274-0543 Wed May 07 14:35:58 2003 The materials for this project will cost $3639.08 .IL POTIER , UNO LEVEL CEDAR DECK Deck Layout '''iandr:.dls sh3l' be piaced nut less than 3i: lilches nor more than 38 inches above the 'read nosing. They shall be continuo'us the lull length of the stairs and handrail shall ~xtend not less than 12 inches beyond the t.op and bottom risers. Ends shall be . I-.;iuliled or termin2te ir newel pCS~F' Guard raUing- 36" minimum lleighV 11OrlZontal 0:' vertbaf intermecf 10 have a meximum clear spac~: 18.$$ than 4. . ,~ MIlS" Ae ..?U~ ';-'4' ld '.'~" eLM 42& mln ~ equI ) bek:M' grade. o.ND (tJ#JCUff"'UI,1N . "'''1.~~8'' ..1.111'111. pt It ~,;zA'A/.J 7A/~T' tJ3p l\CSQ SUBJECT TO FtELD !t\!SPEC ION A...... p....."~,fr...~!R.'. '.-O....-...'.....Vf.. C..... ",' if",. . . ;;;;;.> ~$'" c' . . . . : ~~' [ ~~ . ~ c'I' . .' 1oftl'~ 5hIKl 30 1001 .s'T 1M' {~I!ft , f:pJD --. ,#"118. ....... l<- llS "'111 - . "f . --. r I . I~ - . !IIIIi 6'J 1 T ., ~ \mum frost hr . W~13q S1Ui1 ~ ~ ~ \:; l '" " .......... '!tf... . 'j. '-$:........s UTH 1J2~,2S . / ~'-{-,o--, '. /J"'r........ I L,*5 Bl~ ~6 . n_ . . . . 7. Continued Public Hearin!!: Consideration of a request for an Interim Usc Permit allowin!! Outside Stora!!e as a principal usc in an 1-2 zonin!! district. Applicant: .Jav IVlorrcll/JME of Monticello. (NAC/JO) ;'This item is again being continued as the applicant has not submitted the requested information. A meeting W~lS held on Wednesday, June 11,2003 with Jay Morrell, Brad Larson, Matt Brokl and Steve Grittman to discuss the required information necessary to proceed with the request. No information has been submitted. . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 07/01/03 8. Puhlic Hearing: Consideration of a request for" a Concept Stage pun and Front Yard Sl'thack \'adance allowin2 an ei2ht-unit townhouse pnljcct. Applicant: Emerald Estates LLC. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROllND The applicants for this Concept Stage PUD have revised their site plan follO\ving meetings with City staff. The? revisions han: retained the based layout of the pre?\ious site plans. however dimensions have been altered to better fit the de\e1opment on the subject site. As a result. the plan requires a single ,",1riance- a reduction in the "front yard" setback from Maple Strcct to 20 feet from the required 30 feet. It is noted that the recessed garages result in a 30 /()ot sctback and drivewa: length. The 20 /()ot setback from ]rd Street is in conj(mnance \vith thc side yard setback standards, as is the 10 j()()t side setback from the south property line and the ""rear"" setback of 32 feet to the adjacent single family property. The interior driveway serving four units provided backing space and adequate room to park vehicles in Cront of the garages when necessary. In addition. thc applicant has sho\\n the 20 f()()t driveway \vith curb that will protect landscaping and pro\'ided adequate circulation space. ()n the west side. a 16 foot driveway could he cxpanded if the adjoining property is ever developed in a silnilar Llshion. We' \yould note that a condition of the Concept Stage PlJD approval is an agreement vvith this developer that would accommodate cross access for a simi lar townhouse redevelopment project on the adjacent lot. For this reason. an outsilk curb has not been required along the westernmost driveway. The applicant has provided building plans. and a sketch plan for landscaping of the site. At the time of the De\elopment Stage PUD application. planning staff will recommend more extensive landscape planting and details. \Vith regard to the front yard setback variance, the City is required to make a finding that a unique hardship exists on the propeliy that interferes with the applicant efforts to put the property to "reasonable use"". Due to the size of the property and the surrounding land uses, planning staff believes that the proposal makes reasonable use of the property. and is superior to other designs that may result in excessive garage exposure to the public street. With the proposed design. livable building frontage is emphasized, rather than garage doors. Moreover. many buildings at corner street frontages in the neighborhood have a 20 foot setback, as this is the required site setback for corner lots. As a result. planning staff supports this variance. Moreover. even though much of the project hides the garage exposure. the access to the majority of units is directly from the public street resulting in a layoUl that is consistent with much of the surrounding neighborhood design. Planning Commission Agenda - 07/01/03 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS . Decision I: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Emerald Estates. I. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUD. based on a finding that the use of PUD results in a superior design to that ,\hich \volild be permitted under the existing zoning. with the condition that the appl icant agree to accommodate cross access from the adjoining parcel to the 'vest if that parcel is redeveloped in a style similar to the Emerald Estates project. 2. rvlotion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD. based on a finding that the site is developed too densely and that the l1exibility of the PU D is not justified by the design. Decision 2: Variance from the front yard setback for Emerald Estates. 1. Motion to approve the variance to the hont yard setback for Emerald Estates. based on a finding that the shape and size of the site. combined \\ith the character of the neighborhood. justify the variance from the setback standard. ! Motion to deny the variance. based on a finding that no hardship is present. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Concept Stage PUD and the variance. The redesign of both the site plan and the buildings has resulted in a project that tits well on the site. and should be a positive enhancement to the neighborhood. SUPPORTING DATA Revised Site Plan Building Floor Plan Building Elevation Drawing Concept L"andscaping Plan . ') --- - rn ItJ~'."'~"~II~M'~~ii ~ PI;,-... (0'.) ,n, L'O'--'" (02.' ,"u'qd r.:l ~ r I ~ 1'1 J! 1111; .i.I; ; LPCP' N" ....d .".. q,n.. .n...y q'OI ...0 ..... i .,. ~ ~~ .~.2!l E-o i~'~ ~ g.. .2>- -. Z H ~ i ~,,~ : J S l~ n; t ; 0 t::I 0 BlSllepedS u61sea eWOH . <l.~. ""',"" "_PI non :) ~H~!~i~~~H:iHfh ~ttll N~ISla ;ltlt~E~~Jd~IHhJ Ot:::lO -~-~.1 Ih't..hl5d.'!:;;lHH.. N';l',cI 3~1<; - It![~ I ~J_H~I ~ ~ - - - ~ w ... ... !~~,.J ~ ~ '" Q.. l::!15 15 .~ :J" ,i a I ~ I X31d Y S3.l.'V .l.S3 Cl'V;:>o,i3W3 IL~"~91 3 115r1lS0.Lc N (p , '<I- 1"-- ~-- - ---- -- I I I ;,-, I I I --~--"-~-'--9~n? -----+-----... I ~ I !::! ~ ~ ~ ,1.-- .ail- ,q r- .q: 3 ill ). (l o ~ ---__...1 ., ., NOR ~..---------- '" U .I _I <J) 'UJ OL ~J () <( ::r I-- z ::3 <J) () UJ I-- o 1_ ----1z <( ~ ' (l I JJ "t I::: 1.L1 --.'.".---..... ---."".--. --------- ---- L 11 Nn __=~~~~~~ ,,!) r ~ ;n '" q lINn "- .J ~ ({ , fl €I '" lJ C) " .ail- , P 11 );:. -u -; DJ--;C) mz:o::c --<:r::OZOoom r-I'T1:o-<m -ocn );:.C/lmc::OPrnm ~m"2);:':O::oCJ . -0::0)> r- rT1 -l :J:J ~OCO-o-<p 20~O::DC)~ c.n C ~ -,'] ,~ -TI _ en ~.~ ~..,..~,'~ I~.i; =;=! ~ -0 C) i~j CJ ~ ~ ;:;; en :rJ ;:;:~ f. , -r.: fn 0 )> OaC--.J~om::O ::I:-nCr-cocnm 0; "'>-<c;-l - m:: z:r: -l . ,." rn -f C ~ s: Jl 11 ) r- ,. 0 I, 0 ..- IU 1i -. .. -0 '- r . 1> ~ z c Z - ---f tV . .1 l\ it .lItCZl",'lIX ,"'-..'~ ~ 9lt:€ 110n::l tQl!lxt.t. ~~g :. ~~: .s: ~~~ ~ .~ "' ~ ~ it ~~e .. '0- 05 It '", ~~~ f " '" lQ) () 0 ril ~ c 0 Z lQ) =i ~ x~2 '" ~~~ ~ it ~ ...~~ t ~ :r: .~&: ~ (J\ ~~g x p '.~:r: t -n ::..:;~ :-f .~;: '" ------, I I I I I I I ll'. I x I ~. : ~. i I I I I I "I ;;:; 013 ,ml> I':! 0 (J\ X ~-f - Om ~ ~ill 01 =m '-0 ;~ ~~ I':! '" FL.AT _ ~_ ~tl~AL RAt6EO CEIL.ING. G1 ~IO xm _Z "! ~ 2.~'-'I' L.V\... OJDH ~22"-2w ~ ,..~ "'~!.)<II' " ..., ~ :~l> ~x~ f;f ..., o \Jl ~ ~ Q~ j.\/ y\ I~ ~ ~o \Jlz ~~ ~ G- "!~ o>::j 00 ~I: ~z ~ I \; I / ',.,.. ".. ."._-- I 1'--- I I (', .. ..1r~,J]J.,...,.__L, ~,.-_.I U!< li-Z: OPTIONAl. .....'&eo 0 (j'\ ... _" __ ... C~Il...IN4_ _ __ _ ~ -x' _ ____ ... ~iAr- CEIL.ING 0\ 0, "3 ('J.J"!1r.z"6j=>LAM6 CUOH .)116 -}W E ~.~'-~'/8. rn i fi~~",FI P3P ~i! to:l';Jj~~~h~H~Hi. _...l!i'~l!<5i. .e~.~ E- t. "J ~ ~ '" ~ . H ~ a. h Z""'. .,,,,,t6"-li~-'1iI- y ~,~-~ W ~~UOuti-. , <Rji~'--'OE2'.-il_~_!- } -' ~.-. OZZ," "'I --. !c. - -1:-ti.o:f<;S"5~6l 'I. C:Z::j-'5:::~:<o,~gR~.1l .~ <( j".'" 'l'l"ll 6 ~"U1t ~ i'H~!~~~~_i;:!]!!! 11'$i~i~o,,~;.,g..~ Qlljil-.aga (O~C) :XV,.( Ll';I-~'ii~ (oac) :",\JQ~'d L9C9~ N" ')f.H'd A"IAM, qlnos ~i"IlJ",,^,V ~lOl (.(1 p ~ -- II!: D- o- ... S< 2 ill Srl( ~ ~ I~~" ~6~! ~ ~" . I~ '" ,3__1' NV,d ;>;OO1~ D t::1 D SlSIIBpads u6rsaa eWOH gQ~~l~S~Q X3ld P' 931'\11'83 Ol'\1~3W3 P---,-----.-.------------.------- ---.._---- -:<'...---------------"---------------------------9- -- -==:~-1-.:==::.:=:::::=:::... :-==:===-.==::=:.--f..::=:.:~==---====..-..-.... :::"'" --.::=:=::=:=:r.--.-.-=-.~.;~- .11I-.. .1II-.11M . C:UD~":::~~ ~~~~~-rv: .&'I':_~~'.~ ..-~~'-"~ )i[,"'-eo\to' )(!t'-~\i,' ill'TI[-.U'tJ'<l!u '!I1II(."~f(Ht::l1'r;1 ~._ I[J) ..~~ ~ia ~ :I . ..~ ga lLJI ~ ~~- ii~ I :~~ ~: It:1~__ ill !!! 0- X ':!1 Q 1: .:. ;i.lx-., el.JPI-lJU,., . *O.I'_J\,- H 1\'..-'.... -'=:::~===cr= I._.'~~-~:~'" ....~, IIt(lIJ..J\.' )(..-..... J,:rk~ 1.'IIIl-J-L'\I\..6 ~"""'9.1I1'rtJ t"'III"1'a.~AH6 ,,~,.~,.t 11;:1] ~ ~!. ...- ~ ~i; .. ~~ Jr- ~ ~~. :r - ~ ai! --. [[~ . .. . ~ ~~ ~ a~n ~~ ~"' --- ~ ~~ ~'!"~"'1~ '!1N1j'i:;J- O~I~1'f"NOIl.iiO CNI'1I:;r;;11....'1II -- - - -~1ii;;l-- O~J~1'r'Hi7t~ ~~~..I,II,"T......., I CJL..:J~ " I "- : "__'___.',I__:Jy) I _ ~ I ~ k " .~ A~; ~~ ~~ ~ k ".~ :I~f!i ~~: 0- IL n__--, , I I I I , I I I , I I I I eel r- I , , I I ~~ I I ~ I I a <t; I I "l- I .; 2 , , . ~ 1c.~)(~ ~I-l'n.. 11II(1.'.-1"10' loil....~'i,. 'f' I I- - Z ::::J Z -<[ ---1 (l r- (l !:' " 0 II 0 ---1 l lL u: l.1 J~ 2 0- IL I a "l- x .. I , I I --~ ___, ___1 I I I I L _ _ _ _ _ ,._ _ _ -.".------,--.-----,.--,.,-,....,.,.- _.,.,..,-- --..----. -. .-, - - -. -- -'-1 r- I I I I 0- I I IL I I , I I Q Q , I , I I ~i J~ I I 1 ~ I I , , x I I .. I ~ I I I I I I , I , I I ~....,------- .tII-.4t "',.1 , n _. ~. _.. _ _ _ .~l '.. ~~~g 11r->~ 0- IL ~ 'll . ~ -".,., (:40101]"'" I! 1IlC,)'-2't. x &'.fl''i,. u,','!' "'-" ,. =~.~.~- .".'~'--'l---~::-~"~:;:~"~l'~' - ==+==-- . "_.,,, ""'" ,,,..... II ..... 1'----..-.' ---,-- ;~.,,--==:.~- ~,IIo::!"': ~i .. 2 . :::j 1. ~ ~ q I I I I 11 I .... I L_ .""'-,'II)t; ,"/:'.11; 0". ."U'H~ ~Kt-t I' ~ m III aDI-I JlU.-.)IIl1! !I(.O't'"t~. )(!f....". I1JJ ,-.'-t,'L""-& m '':';t: i'i -n 6 :S~ ~~ iI.~~ q ~ <(;.:~ ~ 1Q1 - \ 1: ) .- -' :" , -":"1 -~ -~' .! , .......j __oj - :S2 s ~ ;;1 '!-i ( -- ~,]: l~ 'J. ) --1 rn ! rn a . CJ 1 rn O:J en ~ - -< G) - - z ...... "I rn :S2 1 ~ ~ )> ., ~ ~ @ .... 3: .J! ~ III ~ m":lIlJ'~"""" n''1!fl'Qr-l.N16 ~~ ';t,~~=-i~ un _u nu_ n ~t,.:l.'= ~~ :'-m~~~~~'~' I ~"..~ ) I "- / I ~ - ~~ "IIIK,-t l ,'.-," ,""'-.t:'a1II ..(.tt: l"Iart:;II -~~.. n,'..' r-- ,- ,.",----1---------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L__. " .... - - - - .... - - - --, _------I--, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _J ~I q ~i q l\. ~ !) 'T1 -) r ~O II 0 ., IU ~ "----0 r -l> ~ z c Z -t IJ1 I ~ ._ '.::'::;:-=",-,::-:=--~..,_ ,_ T -------; I I .. . 1. 2 ~ ~i q 11 .... ."-GI'-,~ lit _'rot".t:'UIII i.tUH~ ~xt-t :S2 ~h . ~ II [] f] [11 [~] \0 Ctl\ .....~.L".. "i ~~ q r -.-. I [-"," lri] h. l:,...1I! it~. mo!~ h. t::;;"1III! j :~~ ~ "'I .. ::I q ~ X .... ~ m ~ III ,,,,".-."" ... ."f-.Il'OlII ijI.lU HaT.) l)'-~' ---~"~ .. . 2' i 11 .... m i 'ij.1i~ O~liJ!-;-i5'Oi.i IUC.H-2:gZ (oem) :Jl.1I'd J..l'iil-~~~ (02C) :.:IouoQd UJ I.i ~ "il ~ ~ ~ ~ 'i ...! fi I! L9Cg~ N" ')I!.l'fd ;illl." Q1n,oS ~nuuv tHO l .ua tzJ ;ji;oo"ioil! I e~ ~ h. i -i'Dl'>.~~5i";;..".~ .~ E-o .,,~ ~ $ w ti < 6' - ~ 0 ~ " InftA III . Z] I ~.- } i ~ j !"~ ~ ~~ ~ i tl c:t tl SJSIIBI"'""S uulsea ElWOH i ~J:li~~~HHnn~il ngg ~ttll N~IS1Q -< gf;;o.~~.5~.~~ij!~J tl~~ _~_~.L :t "6.L~ ~ ~ - ~ ~.~ f . ~ ti ~ : 11, ftii? ,. Hi _ ,,~;;,< . ,,~... ,,? '~~ ~~ l...JUr] [IIJDD [][]DD ~ DODD .n DDDL] ~ []DDD DDD[] ~ r-l r-, f--'" I f --', nl ~I II!: !: '" ...... ~ )l UI ; ; I~ .~ I" .. I ~ 6 eS .1 . 2 3 .. SNOI.L'tA313 X31d P' '031'7 1'03 al'7~3W3 >~ a:ti C(~ Zt) i~ ..I a: W~ fi ~ r U) FF1' .. [:~D-'- ".-.. .: ~ ">t I ~~~-.' . t.=f-_ ....J.......I. BJ ill r Z ::::J Z () 1-. '<t~ >~ W. -1~ W;l\ D~ Will O<i ill~ _ ~ H___ 'H__' .~ ~ ~ ~ U) ----I /U III nl ----I STREET 1-------?~-'-0~---- 41'.0' I I -------- 40'-0' 41'-0' f f --~-~-'. S 2lo0'3"0l" W ItO~.3l' - . DRiVEWAY V> ~ (;:) .'. ...i ............. - -UNIT 3====--- I 6'-0' '" I ~1' w ~ - w Z I ~ I DRiVEWAY --' (fl I ~ m (;:) '" --I .~ G" I (;:) LU t1> "-.) - ~ :.- 0 I 1> CJ Ul "-! CURB (I -OJ (;:) I ^ _U.J I LD ..:;..'~-'. rn ITI =< I ~ m (- Al 1 .- 1 I Z)>- --. r I ---I D -----t ) () m = (fJ .~ lS' '" UNIT 6 '" \)1 ~ . . . Plallning Commission Agcndn - 07/0 I/O I 9. Public Hem"in!!: Consideration of a request for Development Stage pun ~md PreliminarT Plat for Carlisle \'iIIage, a mixed residential project. Applicant: Shadow Creek Development. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND At the I'v1ay mceting of the Planning Commission. the Commission considered a Rezoning. COllcept Stage PUD. Development Stage PUD. and Prelilninary Plat for this project. The Rezoning and Concept Plan Stage PUD were passed on to the City Council in May and \\ere appron'c], The Planning Commission had sent the Development Stage PUD on the south R- 1 A area on to the Council as well. but had tabled action on the Development Stage pun for the north and the Preliminary Plat fell' the entire project. The City Council approved the Concept Stage PlIO. but sent the Oe\'elopment Stage PUO back to the Planning Commission for further study (and to keep it in process with the plat consideration). At the June meL'ting of the Planning Commission. the Commission considered the Dcwlopment Stage PU)) and Preliminary Plat but tabled the requests due to a number of concerns including. but not limited to. grading/drainage and tree preservation. Since the June meeting. the applicam has supplied staff with a revised site plan that attempts to respond to the \arious concerns of staff and City Officials. Like the previous plan. the 1'C\ised site plan includes a total of ~40 units. Density, The development proposal calls for a total of ~40 chvelling units upon 81.3 acres of land.lhis results in a development density of 4.1 units per gross acre and 3.0 units per net acre. In prc\ious consideration. the City Council determined the proposed number or dwelling units (and resulting development density) \\ere acceptable. pending the provision of an adequate tree preservation ell()rt. Tree Presenation. <1'he applicant pre\'iously submitted a tree survey \vhich identified trees to be removed and those to be preserved. Generally speaking. many trees within ne\\ developments arc lost to unmanaged building construction. In previous discussions. the applicant had given verbal assurances that the developer would put forth a significant effort to preserve trees in the project. Indeed. the unit count in the project is directly dependent upon the ability to ensure that a significant number of trees arc being preserved in the existing \voodland areas. Without such assurances. the PUD request would be unjustified. It \vas subsequently determined that planning staff would determine a specific tree preservation process for the developer to follow. Attached to this report is a process that has been used successfully in other areas \\'here tree preservation \vas a priority. Adherence to this prou.'ss. as identified in attached Exhibit Z. should be made a condition of PUD approval. Planning COllllllission Agenda- 07/0 I 10 I . Streets. The street layout in the central portion of the development has been reconfigured to eliminate the "'Street D" cui-de-sac and improve area traffic nO\\. Generally speaking. such modifications arc considered positi\'e. -rhe developer has submitted a late revision that eliminates one of the previous access points onto Street ""A"". Planning staff would recommend one additional modification to align the northern-most street from the townhouse area \~-ith Street "e' and eliminate this off-set intersection. The proposed 50 foot right of way \\'idths and 28 foot street widths are less than City Standards. As a condition of PUD approvaL justification for City flexibility in this area should be provided. In this regard. it should be demonstrated to the City that such street and right-of-wny w'idths will result in the preservation of trees that would otherwise be lost. Rear Yards. Some concern exists in regard to the usability of several rear yard areas. Of particular concern are lots 0-11, Block 3 that provide little if any level or '"usable"" rear yard area. As a condition of PUD approvaL rear yards should have not less than 30 feet of reasonably level usable space. A slope or no less than 8: 1 would be recommended for this area. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. Pondinu. As previously recommended by the City Engineer. five lots along the site's southern property line (previously designated as Lots 1-5. Block 7) have been eliminated. Such modification provides for a consolidation of\\etlands and is considered appositi\C mod iti cati on. . Townhome L)rivewavs. Within the townhome area of the previous preliminary plat. several drive\\ay conflicts existed. As a condition of PUD approvaL the site plan should be modified to illustrate proposed dri\e\\ays in a manner that will not result in vehicular conilicts. As a part of this revision. the developer will need to show how visitor parking can be handled in the ncighborhood. Due to the number of dri\'eways onto the street. on-street parking areas will be limited. The City has used a visitor parking requirement of one space pcr 3 units in such areas. Gradinu and Drainaue. Issues related to site grading and drainage should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Development Stage PUD for Carlisle Village I. Motion to recommcnd approval or the Development Stage PU D ten Carlisle Village. based on the comments from the staff report for the .I uly I, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. I . . Planning Commission Agenda - 07/0 I!O I ! Motion to recommend denial of the Ikvelopment Stage PUD f{lr Carlisle Village based on J. finding that the plans which have heen submitted to date are inconsistent with the Conce;1t Plan apprO\al. 3. Motion to table action on the Development Stage Pl.JD I{)r Carlisle Village. subject to submission of rcvised plans consistent \'vith previous decisions and approved conditions. Dccision 2: Preliminary Plat for Carlisle Village. I. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat f()r Carlisle Village. based on the comments li'om the stafl' report for the July 1.2003 Planning Commission meeting. ! Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat I())" Carlisle Village based on a finding that the plans \\hich have been submitted to date arc inconsistent with the Concept Plan approval. 3. tvlotion to tahle action on the Preliminary Plat for Carlisle Village. suhject to submission of re\ised plans consistent with prC\iolls decisions and approved conditions. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding revie\\ and the City COllncil"s determination that the proposed de\elopment density is acceptable. Stall' recommends apprlwal of the Development Stage PCID and the Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit 7. Due to the number of conditions supporting this recommendation. and the engineering considerations still necessary to finalize the plan. staff\\ould recommend that revised plans consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation be submitted for revie\\' prior to submission to City Council. SUPPOHTING DATA Exhibit Z City Engineer's memo of June 26. 2003 Revised Preliminary Site Plans . .., ) . . . EXHIBIT Z Conditions I. The follO\ving tree preservation proccss is made a part of the development agreement. and a security provision making the developer responsible for performance under this process is established. As a part of this process. the developer shall provide an escrow account to cover the City" s administrative costs in review and enforcement of the tree preservation plan: A. Developer's forestry consultant v, ill prepare individual tree preservation plans for each lot. including tree survey. tree conditions. and recommendations for house siting. grading, tree removal. pruning. and protection measures. Each plan shall be prepared specifically for the unique lot conditions and house design, and shall specifically emphasize the prescrvation of front yard and side yard trees. B. Developer will prepare a cover sheet lor the building permit packet which notifies the permittee of the critical nature of the tree preservation effort in the project. C. The City \vill review the proposed plan. site by site. lor conformance to the project's tree preservation objectives. D. A copy of the individual tree preservation plan \vill be attached to the building permit. and will be binding on the builder's construction cre\vs. contractors. and subcontractors performing any work on the sileo E. The builder's surveyor will stake the site for both grading and tree protection. including site traffic and staging area control. All site control measures will be required to be maintained until a final C/O is issued by the building official. F. The City will conduct a pre-construction inspection of the property to verify staking and tree protection measures are installed in accordance with the plan. A surcharge for this additional inspection shall be added to the building permit fee. G. The building permit will be issued. including excavation and grading, after approval by the City and the pre-construction inspection. No additional security will be posted for tree preservation at this time. H. During construction. the City will have the authority to inspect the tree protection measures. and may stop construction and/or order additional protection measures to ensure compliance with the tree preservation plan. tY-hib\t L . 1. Upon completion of the house, but prior to remlAal of staking and tree protection markings. the building official \vill inspect the site for compliance with the tree preservation plan. as well as routine building inspection issues. No C/O may be issued until the building official certifies compliance, J. In the event that the plan has not been complied with, correction measures may be ordered. Uncorrectable faults shall be remedied by the replacement of any lost trees with a tree of similar species of at least 6" to g" in diameter in the same location. and an additional planting of trees of at least T' in diameter in locations directed by the City. The total tree replacement requirement 1(:)1' such faults shall be two times the caliper inch diameter of the lost tree. and replacement of the additional tree(s) may be directed to other locations within the City such as parks, boulevards. or other public land, 11' a stop- work order is issued in connection with such a fault. no permit to continue \vork shall be issued until the building permit holder either (]) completes the replacement planting. or (2) posts a security adequate to cover the cost of the replacement. ') Streets shall maintain the City's standard right of way and paving width requirements. With the t1exibility offered by the new zoning setback standards, it would not appear to be necessary to vary the street \vidths for tree preservation efforts. .., .J. Rear yards have not less than 10 feet of reasonably level usable space. This issue should be subject to further COlllment by the City Engineer. . 4. The townhome area of the plat be revised to illustrate unit driveways. Such driveways shall be located such that vehicular conflicts between dv,elling units do not result. 5. A front ta<;:ade to front ta<;:ade separation of not less than 96 feet between buildings be provided. 6. The applicant demonstrate how all utilities (including sanitary sewer. storm sewer. water. gas. electric. phone. and cable TV) can be accommodated in the narrower right of way. 7. Street connections to the east. south, and west be confirmed to determine whether they are located in spots that can accommodate reasonable future development layouts. 8. Landscaped medians in the terminal cui-de-sacs be platted as out]ots, to be owned and maintained in equal. lIndi\'ided interest by the lots around the cui-de-sac. 9. A park dedication fee be paid as determined by the Parks Commission and approved by City Council. . ~mlbi+ G . . . 10. The City evaluates the extension of sanitary sewer to the south. 11. The number of driveways off of cLll-de~sac turn-around areas not exceed five. 12. A pathway along County Road 18 be included on the plat. 13. Architecture for R-2 and R-2A units be reviewed and approved by the City. 14. The applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. ExYtlb It Z Memorandum . To: Jell 0 'Neill, Deputy Ci~r Administrator Ci(r of Monticello From: Bret A. Weiss, P.E. CiO' Engineer Date: June 26, 2003 Carlisle Village Ci~r of Monticello Planning Project No. 2003-12 WSB Project No. 1160-23 Re: This memo is intended to address recent modifications to the preliminary plat site plan and tree preservation plan for the above-referenced project. The primary issues reviewed as a pm1 or Ih is memo i nel ude the Iree preservati on plan. s i tc plan. and storm water issues. A description of these issues is as follov-;s: Site Plan Staff requested several modifications to the plan which have been addressed as follovvs: . Stub Street Townhomes: The short stub street back-to-back tovvnhomes create fire protection and circulation issues for the Cit)'. The developer has addressed these issues by redesigning to a circular public street, which has eliminated those issues. The northerly-most connecting street to Street A should be moved over to the Street C intersection. Lots 1 and 1. Block 27 should be eliminated. . . Rolling Woods Wetlands: In an effOli to create additional ponding and to preserve and consolidate wetlands. the layout in this area was redesigned to work with the Rolling Woods development. This redesign also saved a heavily treed area in Block 7 that was planned as a pond. The size of this area is still being evaluated with regard to stormwater needs. Lot 1, Block 8 is jammed into this area and does not appear to be an acceptable lot. . Street D: This street was not modified as was requested. The cul-de-sac should be shortened by at least one 60-foot lot on each side of the street to create more distance from the existing wetland located in the northwest corner. Further. three lots containing two existing homes and one existing garage are still proposed to remain. These situations have not been well received on other recent plats and do not fit the character of the new neighborhood. . Block 1: We requested that Lots 21 and 22 on the northeast quadrant of Street C/ Street D be removed to protect the existing wetland, provide access to the pond and create a visual opening. This has not been completed. . ( Il"I.\'! l( III \ f'I. \ IJ' 0(,:(0113_1(1,1/11, q Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator June 16, ]003 Page] 01'3 There may he other lots that require modification once the grading plan is reviewed. . Stormwater Issues The stann water analysis for this site is complicated and is not yet complete. The final result could involve an increased pond requirement which could reduce density. This work is ongoing and will require review by the Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District. The preliminary plat must better address the individual lot drainage along with the maintenance of offsite pass-through runoff Preliminarv Plat Documents We have not had the opportunity to review street. utility. or grading plans for the proposed concept. A review of these documents is necessary prior to approval by the City Engineer. Once the site plan is acceptable. the engineer can proceed with the remaining documents. TrcePrcsen'ation Plan The deve/oper has requested narrower streets and right-ol'wa) in an efj(m to preserve trees. The developer identified 77 trees that would be impacted by the expansion of the right-Of-way to 60 feet and the street to 32 feet to contemll to City standards. The lollowing is a summary of our review of those 77 trees and the potential impact to those trees 1I-om utilizing City street design standards: . . Nineteen (19) of the trees are shown on the Current tree preservation plan as not being saved. These trees should be removed from the total. . Eighteen (18) trees are shown behind house pads and were assumed to be impacted by moving house pads. These trees should not he affected since only one pad is proposed to be moved. The Planning Department has allowed varied setbacks \vhich addresses this issue. . Ten (10) trees don't appear to be impacted by the plan at all. . Sixteen (16) trees have elevations ranging from I foot to 4 leet ahove the Proposed street elevation and are located outside of the 50-foot right-of-way. These will require some work to save, but shouldn't be impacted by the City standard street right-of-\\ay width. . Fourteen (14) trees have elevations ranging from I foot to 8 feet below the proposed street elevation and are located olltside of the 50-fcwt right-of-way. These will require some work to save. but shouldn.t he impacted by the City standard street right~of.-way ,,,idth. . (' IIf\/J(!/I\ /l,,\//'II(I,.'I./I.'_I",dl!. . . . Jeff O'Neill. Deputy City Administrator June 26. 2003 Page 3 of 3 As is apparent. 19 trees were improperly identified as saved and 28 trees should not be impacted at all. The remaining 30 trees will require some dIort to save considering the elevation of the trees relative to the proposed curb line. It docs not appear that the street width and right-of-way widths have any affect on the number of trees removed. for that reason. v..e are recommending that the City standards remain in place. The biggest impact to trees within the right-of-\vay is likely sidewalk and private utility construction. Staff is '0.i !ling to construct the sidewalk within the right-of-way bet\veen the curb line and the edge of the drainage and utility casement. The casement would also need to he classified as right-of-way easement. This alignment can be determined once the street is constructed. ^ secondary impact is the location of the private uti lity trenches on each side of the street. These trenches should he kept a uniform distance from the curb and the location can also be determined once the street is installed. The developer has moved a pond and rearranged a lot to save several significant trecs with thc nc\V design. We are still concerned though that thc total tree impact is not identified in regard to location to house pads and drainage swales. If the developer stays \'v'ith the proposed plan. the City can expect that a number of proposed saved trees will be removed. Summarv The developer has made a significant eHort to make positive changes to tbis development. While the density may not be reduced as much as was requested. the plat changes have improved the quality ofthe development. The preliminary plat documents should be revised to address the items contained herein. I am available to address any questions at (763) 287-7190. cc: Steve Grittman. NAC John Simola. City of Monticello Lucinda Gardner. Shadow Creek Corporation Mike Gair. MFRA Dave Nash. MFRA sh ( JU,\JI( ill" II. \//' 11(,_'(,11 \-1" ,{," ",___ ~~/~ 1- EJ'~" i\~ "/ rt I 1 ~~i ,,~,_.~,~j;-;-i;J-,; i'~i:jr-"l S rtz: ~ {j ~g [../; _t:! ~"I - I ,', ~.. ,y II'~' ~//~ ~-~.... -il-:'>I" \ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~.. - ' - l'Mit/:fr c' .- ~ N r: ' .~ I 5' II . "'-, \0' 1". \zll ,}~ ::Ellf~~ 1 "/l'-Y,ry. i '? ~' ", ..I!!: '~~;~~~,,='-,' ).~ . '~~ ~~"~- ~~r\ .:;fPf"~i" \ -1;~"J\ 1 - ~ ..~I-lC~1 ~_. ,-::J' \, ~' l"L ,II ~ "" I ; ~!X I' 'I ~ ' ,~mrjm rr'i.q I' "'8"......j1' '~ + r-.~ ,. 'f:::-;:N "B',:]} ~"'S',-= I l;j ., -.,' ; \ N .'IA" -l1l1l1......1.1 :'- 11-' --/1- , \~, N I V t!j ~ ''J g' ,;;) ~ I ,1/1.\ - ~ . ..... I ~ \~~~~ I ~ ~N ~ ~01 ~;. 9_,~2,B' ~ \ rt==i'> -' - J~ --'-~-, _~ 1~ ....~~.- / ~~/lli' ~.. ~,f~" ,;, I~ -;;, ':':',;, Il':.'r V(It=" ~n; ..,.~ ~ ~ ,.,.,.,.,~" . ~ 'I~ ~~ . 'W'""'" . liT Go ,c.., - ....,.. \ ~. ......~~1,~ : ,~.. ~ (J4 "v.J \:. 'I I ~i,~~"' ~ 'if "q:: "';. II.,,,, ~ ~ r: I.~,- '. tt: 1- ~\c:''::'" y.'1~' ~\ 1,r_j!;~1~:':;' :: '~N ,-+ - ~~rr-~ + i fl~'~1 >< ~ ~"J. i'l'\, ,....,.-uJ\I\ ,ll, =fI _ L'J~ 1. ' vI 'C~ </' ~., ~ ~?\ln ::';..\ ~Y' hljt\ \ ,('.;, ~ Yi",;, ~m II~ - 7"-" /~ P ;~ ~ ''f:f1:f'' ~ ,~>, ~ - 1"':::\..;..--'"'1 ~ U1 1- '" - lJ'.. ~ T (. '1l ~/ ~ __ ",. ~'- '1.~ 'f~t ' :rl _'~.l~ N>~ l;I: ( I'l\ ~~j, ..... 4: ...... .~ i -- ~,' ~~ ,'.. '" '" ~ . I i' ~.' ~~,~\,,:,:::~' . - .,:,:; / - ,,-' ",'--..,:::::.",..,.." ';"j" .~~:;/ ,,9 ~ ~.}~:v/I1~~_ ~t~ \,:';f'i?~l~~ ~ ~ j3"' . 1<,,<;. "'/L~ 'j /~ ,,. U1' ""~1, "'(,:C; '0 ,,~~~' ''''~, l..\liil'~ii~ 'reV I~~' ~ r-l ~ ':' ~:tr]gJ/J':jb ({e .\';;"~}-- li~ ......I?> \\ '\-",~ :" > - J '~":rr..,i~l" ", I"' ;l~'''' 1" , " ~, , .:f"tl .;) \.~ . ,~- <. l\'>'" r\.:: "i'l ". ~ ' po; " '" ':'/;1: - U It - . ".''l':l / ";Y . 'J:lfj' t.' ~'+, . ~fI)! ~~'--~~"" .~.. "'- -'4 , l ~~ j h - -=: l' , ' ~ .Il if: '-' 'e :V)~ J 11 J~~ ~~~ 1./, l' ~ - .,.1" -/V:~ ' .- - C~, ---- . 1'(Jo ..... . :" ~~,/ ~ I, 0 !', ~~... "'~ ". il' rll~ ~\t.. ":111':\ J "j.. .To... "~ f; l' '. \ ~ J.,.dl<~" ,-I' ~"'-0 Q'~;;-'1<- . I.l ~~, II!' ~ 1,1',j'- ~Ir:r-::: -.." " ;.:,-..xl':' ~.. -r'\~. /,>1 '1l ,Y..~: ',. t :,~;!li:".", ~. :,~ .. I, 1,\ ~. lJ,O I: 'I~"]'~ ~ I~ . _ ~~ ~ .;~~ ~l,:-\g'~~ -~' "'~", ,.", ;,.......r!J./JIi~ ~,\ ;.:~~~ III \:-. ~,,'~~ ~(nu) \~<~l . ,~~\i ' " ,~ .~~. .. ~ Jt:il.~\.,J,... ,~., ?f': '- -', I..f '~$W~ I ~ ~ ->, N'/ I 'I ~ I \ ::l::"'II""'-,-- , \' r I ~:" ,." , ,y,' ""^" (e ~"L' -" '"i'D .,_" 0 "" I ' ~LJ 'r " ,J. '? ~ t 'I Ol I'" ,A' "v ,~ .~ " (Xl ';" : ,I ~'I H' , . J~ ~ernR.; "i/~ ' ~.;:...,"" ~" ;;p.""il~~' ~, .~ ':: ~.."; I '" .~. e.", 'J' \ ~ ,j' _' i,f;' ;'J."~O' ","' ~~'tlr' ilo" -',. .~, \j '~') ",.:~ ~<9'.- a, . .,:t....,.::' ~ I';~ '" ~AI ~I\ . ,..... ", r>, "0 .r;,,' '-" .~7~~ <;>,;;f '/2i ~ Ii ,0'\ CJ1 A-1 c 'o;;t-'I '~.~ ~p~ ." ;'~'.~~'~~', " "~~" ; ~:'~O("'~'" ~ ~~~/\\N '00 \~ ~ Ir~ ; ? ~fi;~, "", ~~'l 'r.l{tI::~...> '~,', '~~"'. <;." "" ,: ":' ,,! '" . \'~' ,~'1-"' ' - . r- ~ ~ I, ~ ." ..' '1'10-. \ :~\ (~ " ., , ;'P-" . ... " ,J ...., Y ~.. "'.,':;r . I. " 'l,n "iI' , "li.,' , ~ [....::;-.. L , '''l ", "I';;,.; ~ '~ ~.y\. V n ,,"', ,~~~ " ~~ 'f~ J ~ ~ ~..rl '"'""::tl ,.,.'~ '" .,~~.-. L"f'~' .. ~~ "', ~"iJ5' ,'. .~" ',' ~ --~ - . '1"'/,:::' : ," ~.r ~~"'~ ,r:, .;:JJ.. '''fi!'", .-. , --..' "', fi' .'-\-':~ ,., (1' , · ,11<-:-- '1 ../' ,'~' "~ "-t.' , ~~'" ,@\,' \ """\ ^I,I . \ .~.. " , - .... -'--~. /- ... ?~;:;; ':'rIj' ,,~\\~~~~:. "~' ~". :,1 : '~'" ," .\. ,-- - -" :~ __~J.'f!l,/'~'/r~' ~A,;,~,~;,~:'~',,'"' ~' " ";~, " ~~~,..2? . . -, ~J i ~ (',\ ;.1 ~.j~ . ! '/ ...')~ '",fi\;-; .....", j:~J7 I ~ I ~..-i! "1'1 ~ . r. e,~ I v,,,'" ~ ,'~Af' "i 0 '%-" " .:'. '.' ~" .~~ .\. /.....;:,; ~~.. '0 II'" 'il ~ -.j \ ~~:, : ~,' .,. :-.. .~ il ~ 4';'"., '-\I' ,.j' .'iI.' I/':'If " -. !1;~" f 'j "n ',~~B ~ ,I' 'l''il" - -l' ,'<-'V ~t:#.' "? ~, .",' " ,,/' ------~~~:J1. I <l ~ ~ i ,)':., -, " ',~I' "" I- Gl , ,',"'-~__ ~ 1 .J ;I"~ f'" ~'~,r:' ""~'.,~~ ~~. ;S~ J ' , @I'A9(~l'l.'t- 0; -" r.-=: ~ 1/1 tlJ e '.1'"'"_,,':., I.. -:".., I? 0" ,~. '.. ~~"., _, ." ,/...-::z\l&6e r ';:' -;';~-~~!3~':" ..... 1 . ,- .....:.u."'" "--, , '.'ii~' ,;;; . ~:, ',./ 'l; .. ~ "\ '" ~ , " I( ~ " '-, 0 i r; I {',iJJ --.:::...j, I, ~ IA ..' i ' ~ ~ r:"Q C'~.. ~ ~ ~ "".If. '/; -" ,/ .J~-' ' ",.' . .. . , I.. \" 1St: ~!'2 ., t'" .I2...t,., J(f ( \ ", e \ ~_____.,.J_..:< ' i;;lO '? 'i4i \ '':# ' ..... \;Ji'''' (,,'('t ':' ".....:> - ~ " ,'IJ' <I: / ; -':1?- \fif'i 11;\(' . .,.___.0-' ".. _"~) '* ,.... )J,:" O'l --" I " ,"' -~:;:I H,..:. ,', \1l ~ ~ ~~'\.~ \ ....._...-'\ V'\ ',"~..CJ~'" l '",.F' '.r.\''t: I l;-Y:. ~~. -JIo \il , . ' 1", Gl r';, -"u :~i;';&~: 1 t.; I :", hl." i ~.,') " ~ ' ~~ L J ~ 'l" t!" l 11 . _ ~~ _~ '11S! j m1 ~~;'\;::.rn ~ .nf\ ,",' jJ: .......... 1;) ''t.>' . 11 --' 4... - k ,.&' ,/,,"'~, ._' '_.' " ' (,} . .) 'iJ 0,.. .~: ;~ (+ 'b4r ~" ~~~ _~"",' __ .~_~ ~"'~~ '!", ;,~'?'-".(',?, 51)- --... ~. -ji' [lI; -~ ; -J t ~''i: .......~~..'.~....;jf.l..fir...,' '."/l!f'W~:~.' .~.. L~s il. '~..-:.;!.LL. ..-...,e"jt~. i1..~~.' ~~ ~.~m'. ~- ~~' ,~~.~~~.'i. I . "~'~.j)';'" I[:l"~t- /~ \ .;;. : b i'fhf -r:Q~t i ~i 'GP? ~~ L~6 ~~~>,.. i!t~t>~ -, ~ . ,".@1LI/'t~ 1"<l,,,r'~1 '" l.l:l,....~~ IT.!. ~8 ~ 012 :AI ,JJ'tr,'\ ~~0 j _ VI "~' '''''. ~. ,:~_ ii' .....~..I~~ jc,\,. T .~.~d:.,--. ....~~.. .... ). .::......~._.mL..,,} ::, ,J,iji, j~']' '~$ :::. ,,'.rf~' _ " /~~R.~ e ~ OJ ' --f'( N ,,'" -.' '~., ..,J "l ,)Jl:::,-.:..:... il'a. .l t. .... ll. ,. 'l):J'" "-J/ "I!(n".. Gr:::' 1'l " ~/ "'''':> '>t'ii; 'l',-L'~"".." ~. <.0. " r,~ ( "j, i';J (eG1 '. \: ",/ J ,{ ..!Ii ":r. ,:::' l'. -.. '\}. -- J':) It,; ie, / .... . 0'\ J' ,/ ' 1; . / I I :' 9 , 1 . t") .. ~ ~ ,.... ~l [~]C] U. [__J \-:--1 [-.:J [:1' (- ~ . ;_~.11Ii ..; th , " ill ." ~ .1'1 '"I II. I', .1. ,~~ S~, , .lI ~,fi~' -r , \ \,., \ . J. ...............\~ I I ~! - I ' 1'<-i ----1 ) ~ - ~ -I' \, 'Y. ~ 7, ~ -:, ---:. -y. "3 \ 7) (v \~t " I i '" ... '--' '!'= t,) 'i i Ii ~ ... .0 l q , i , , ~ . . . Planning Commission Agenda -- 07/01/03 10. Public Hearin!!: Considcnltion CUlTent sil!n ordinanec I"c!!ardinl! monumcnt and pylon sil!ns in relation to hei!!ht and square footagc for possible amendment. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Attached is a revised Sign Ordinance amendment, based on the previous draft but with two changes. The first alters the allowable height of the pylon to 60 feel. based on Planning Commission discussion. The second change adds language that attempts to define pylon and monument signs, terms used within the ordinance. The definitions arc not precise. but should provide a basis for distinctions \vhen reviewed as a part of a PUD shopping centcr. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment to the Sign Ordinance scction of the Zoning Ordinancc. based on a finding that large shopping ccnter arcas require separate options {LX sign communication. J Motion to recommend denial of thc amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the amendments. The language will help to distinguish between large shopping centers and small-site development and should minimize sign clutter in busy commercial corridors. SUPPORTING DATA Sign Ordinance Amendment . . . City of Monticello, Minnesota Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3 - 9 [E] E. (b) AND SECTION 2 - 2 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR SIGN DEFINITIONS AND 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 sfiad~ mqY 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 buildingJ"~ 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 buildingJ_~_L the silhouette shall be defined as that area within the outline drawing of the principal buildingJ~l as viewed from the front lot line or from the related public street (s) . For shoppinq centers of qreater th0n one hundred fifty thousand (15~0) square feet of aqqreqate buildiQ9: square f90taqe and Greater than twenty (20) qcres in site area, two freestandinG siGns may be.----12.Srmitted under this section. The applicant may construct two pylon-style siqns in conformance with this ordinance, or in the alternative. may construct one pylon-style and one monument-style siqn. When this latter option is chopen, the monument siGn shall be no~ater than eiqhteen .~ ~~et in heiGht no more than one hund~ed (100) squar~ feet in area, and the pylon may be no qreater than sixty ~ teet in heiqht apd four hundred (40~quare feet in area. JO Section 2. Chapter 2, Section 2-2 shall be amended by adding the following: [SC.l] SIGN, PYLON: A Pylon Sign is a type of freestanding sign that relies on one or more support poles (typically narrower than the message portion of the sign) which hold the message portion of the sign above ground. [SC.2] SIGN, MONUMENT: A Monument Sign is a type of freestanding sign in which the message portion of the sign is enclosed or supported by a structure that is massive and solid from the ground to the sign message, commonly constructed of building materials similar to commercial bUildings such as brick and stone. Section 3. 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: . . . . 11. . . Planning Commission Agenda -. 07/0 I /03 Public He:Hin2;: Considenltion to review H.-I A, R-l, R-2, and R-2A sctbaek stand:u<ds for the purpose of clarification of the l'c2;ulations. Applicant: City of Monticello (fP/NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROLJND Attached are pages of the Zoning Ordinance that identif) proposed clarifying amendments to the language relating to the setback standards in the residential districts. When the R~1, R-IA. and R-1A Districts were developed (or amended) last year. an extensive set of changes \.vas made relating to varied setbacks and other regulations. The proposed changes are technical in nature. not intended to change the meaning of the regulations. Most of the changes add the words ""minimum" or '-at least'" to ensure that it is understood that the sethack standards listed are the lowest threshold. Sethack may be made greater than these numbers. as they do not represent a specific prescriptive requirement. The other change sets the minimum total side yard distance at 10 feet. rather than 11. The 10 foot requirement is essentially the previous standard to which many R-] lots have been built. The 11 foot standard evolved from an intention to add flexibility to the scthacks hy going to a five foot garage side allowance. latcr changed to six feel to coincide with the City's utility easement size. AL TERNA TIVEACTlONS Motion to recommend apprm'al of the Zoning Ordinancc amendment relating to setback regulations. based on a finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's historical appl ication of setback requirements. and rellects the intent of the City in previous decisions. Motion to rccommend denial of the amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendments. ~rhe changes are intended to clarify the City's previous Ordinance amendments relating to zoning and setback standards. StlPPORTING DATA Revised Ordinance Text ." ." -, - ., : YARD REQUIREMENTS: [A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard spaces and areas to be provided for in each zoning district. . No IOL yard. or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimension so as to make such lot yard. or open space less than the minimum required by this ordinance: and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required. it shall not be further reduced. No required open space provided around any building or structure shall be included as a part of any open space required for another structure. [B] [(1 All setback distances as listed in the table below shall be measured fI.'om the appropriate lot line and shall be requircd minimum distances. . A-O R-l * R-l A * R-2* R-2A * R-3 R-4 PZR PZM B-1 B~2 B-3 13-4 I-I 1-2 1-1 A P-S Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 50 30 SO 30 ~ 30* 35 * 30* 30 10* 30 15 6* 20* 30 20 30 30 30 30 See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. 30 15 20 30 10 20 30 10 30 o 0 0 40 30 40 50 30 50 50 30 40 See Chapter 1913 for specific regulations. * See Section 3-3[ C1 3. below for special side yard setbacks in the R-l and R- 2 Districts. (#298.10/13/97) (#259.10/10/94) (#352, 8/14/00) (#377,4/8/02) 1. In R-l, R-2. B~ 1. and B-2 districts where adjacent structures, excluding accessory buildings within same block. have front yard setbacks different from those required. the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only one (1) adjacent structure. the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of the adjacent structure. In no case shall the minimum front yard setback exceed thirty (30) feel. except as provided in subsection [F] below. ! . MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE In R-l. R-2. B-1. and B-2 districts, if lot is a corner lot, the side yard setback shall be not less than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting I { 3/20 the street right-of-vvay line. 3. Side yard setbacks for single family homes on lots of record \vith a lot width 66 feet or less in the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello which are zoned R-l or R-1 shall be at least six (6) feel. subject to the corner lot . prov'isions of Section 3-3/C]2. Above. (#352. 8114/00) 4. R-I District: Setbacks: front yard. 30 leet average.** For any subdivision in an R-] District no house may be placed closer than 15 fect minimum to any street right ofv\'ay. and no fewcr than 40% of all individual houses shall have front setbacks of 30 feet or more. Side yards, interior: 6 feet minimum on thc attached garage side. total minimum setback widths for the two side yards of H 20 feet. Side yards. corner lots: 20 leet minimum on the street side and no less than six feet minimum on the interior side. Rear yards. 30 feet minimum usab]c. The rcar yard shal] include a spacc of at least 30 feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands. ponds. or slopes greater than 12 percent. **Averaging orIot area. lot width. or setback dimensions shall be considered to be the arithll/ctic /IIean. not the mediun, For example. lot widths in a five lot subdivision could be 70 feel. 70 feel. 7:' feet. 80 feet. and 105 teet: (70-'-70-75--1\0+105 = 400 feel. divided by 5 = 80 teet average lot. with 4000 of the lots (2 of 5) 80 feet or more in \vidth) R-l A District: front yard. 35 fcet average. * For any subdivision in an Roo! A District. no house may be placed closer than 25 feet to any street right of way. . and no fewcr than 40% of all individual houses sha]1 have front setbacks of 35 feet or more Side yards. interior: 6 feet minimum on the attached garagc side. total setback \vidths for the two side yards of 20 feet minimum. Side yards. corner lots: 20 feet minimum on the street side. and no less than 6 feet on the interior side. Rear yards, 30 fect minimum usable. The rear yard shall include a space of at least 30 feet in dcpth across the entire width of the lot that is cxclusive of wetlands, ponds. or slopes greater than !2 percent. **Average of lot area. lot width. or setback dimensions shall be considered to be the arithmetic mean. not the median For example. lot widths in a five lot subdivision could be 80 feet 80 feel. 85 teet. 90 feet and 115 feet: (80 "'80+85+90~ 115 =c 450 feet. divided by 5 ~ 90 feet average lot. with 400'0 of the lots (1 of 5) 90 feet or more in width) R-2A District: Front yard. 15 feet minimum. Side yards. interior: 6 feet minimum. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE . 3121 It . . . [DJ Side yards. corner lots: 20 feet minimum on the street side. and no less than 6 feet on the interior side. Rear yards. 20 feet minimum usable. The rear yard shall include a space of at least 20 feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands. ponds or slopes greater than ] 2 percent. The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard sethack requirements: ]. Chimneys. flues. belt courses. leaders, silL pilaster. lintels. ornamental features, cornices, caves. gutters. and the like, provided they do not project morc than two (2) feet into a yard. 2. Terraces, steps. or similar features, provided they do not extend above the height of the ground tloor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than two (2) feet from any lot line. 3. In rear yards: recreational and laundry drying equipment arbors and trellises, halconies. breezeways. open porches, detached outdoor living rooms. garages. and air conditioning or heating equipment. 4. Solar systems. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/22 I (