Planning Commission Agenda 12-02-2003
.
.
.
~~<0~
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 2, 2003
6:00 p.m.
Members:
Dick Frie. Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart and David
Rietveld.
Brian Stumpf
Jeff O'Neill. Fred Patch and Steve Grittman
Council Liaison:
Staff:
I. Call to Order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held November 3.
2003.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for conditional use permits to allow 24
townhouse units in an R-2 District and a request for preliminary plat approval.
Applicant: Homestead Multi-Family Development Corp.
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision for 824 East River
Street. Applicant: KazlPingel
7. Public Hearing Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to allow for first
floor residential units in the CCD and concept stage approval for a PUD.
8. Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Downtown Revitalization Plan to allow
building setback to accommodate front yard parking on Block 52. Applicant: Steve
Johnson.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Comprehensive Plan to allow front yard
parking on Block 17. Applicant: Wells Fargo
10. Adjourn
OA"'"N'WORO'FORMSI'I.ANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday - November 3, 2003
6:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Lloyd Hilgart, Dave Reitveld, Rod Dragsten and Richard
Carlson.
Absent:
City Council Liaison, Bran Stumpf
Staff Present:
Jeff O'NeilL Steve Grittman
1. Call to Order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m and declared a quorum present noting the
absence of Council Liaison Stumpf.
2.
Approval of minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held October 7, 2003.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE OCTOBER 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Dick Frie requested that the Planning Commission discuss barricade of parking lot drive in the
private parking area adjacent to the Smith and Hayes law firm office.
Jeff O'Neill reported that the barricade restricting vehicle movement between properties was
recently installed. He noted that he has not talked to the property owner regarding the
installation but surmised that it was done to restrict traffic from entering the Smith and Hayes
parking area from the adjacent joint parking site tot he west. The parking lot to the west is a
shared parking lot installed by Barry Fluth in conjunction with the Amoco site redevelopment.
Although it is unfortunate that the access is cut-off due to the installation of the barricade, the
property owner is operating within his rights to eliminate this access.
4. Citizen Comments.
None.
L
Planning Minutes - 1113/03
.
5.
Public Hearinu - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for expansion of drive
through bankine facilitv and other site improvements. Applicant: Wells Fargo Bank.
Minnesota. N.A.
Steve Grittman reported that Wells Fargo Bank is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to allow for the expansion of its drive through banking facility and the construction of additional
parking on its parcel. The land occupied by the bank was recently expanded as a part of the library
location trade for the fonner Marquette Bank building.
Wells Fargo is seeking the approval of a site plan that includes a future building addition and
permanent parking lot design, as well as an interim project. The interim project includes the
expansion of the existing drive through area and a temporary driveway along the west side of the
existing building. Eventually, the temporary driveway would be replaced by the building addition.
and the applicant would construct a parking lot along Walnut Street. Staff makes the following
comments on the site plan proposed by the applicant:
1. The location of the parking lot along Walnut Street would violate the City" s Comprehensive
Plan direction to require a maximization of commercial building frontage on this street.
2. The interim improvements appear to be consistent with the concept plan previously reviewed .
by the City, and would not interfere with either the building addition or the future circulation
plan on the site.
3. The improvements for the parking lot on the former library site would interfere with the long
term objective to construct a commercial building on that corner.
4. The City has designated land for a parking lot on the southwest corner of this block. designed
to retain the existing trees on the site, and to permit the remainder of the block to be developed
with buildings.
5. With regard to the drive through facility, the use and circulation appear to meet the original
concept plan. and should be able to facilitate the future development of the site.
6. The drive through arrangement of the A TM location will require additional review by the City
Engineer to ensure that connections to 41h Street are properly located, and the turning radius
around the drive aisle can be accommodated by passenger vehicles.
The City's parking lot was designed to accommodate both overflow parking from the Towne
Centre project and public parking to be used by the commercial facilities on the Wells Fargo Block,
including the expansion ofthe Wells Fargo building. By approving the current plan, an excess of
parking would be present on this block, and the frontage along Walnut for this entire block length.
This would be counter to the direction of the Comprehensive Plan that calls for maximizing the .
building frontage along Walnut, and efforts to screen parking areas from Walnut Street exposure.
2
Z-
Planning Minutes - ] 1/3/03
.
Moreover, as noted above, the parking lot as designed would preclude future building in that
location by placing storm sewer in the middle of the proposed parking lot. When the City
transferred this land to the bank, the City did not abandon its planning objectives. Wells Fargo's
original concept plan, reviewed and approved by the City. showed a new commercial building at
the corner of Walnut and 4th Street in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff believes that the better plan would be to try to convince Wells Fargo to leave the corner
location vacant until a commercial building is economically feasible. Parking dcmand can be
absorbed by the public parking lot on the corner adjacent to the railroad tracks that would provide
adequatc parking for Wells Fargo. and overflow for the future commercial and Towne Centre.
Unfortunately. it does not appear that Wclls Fargo can bc convinced that following the
Comprehensive Plan can be made to work.
Susie Wojchouski reported that the Design Advisory Committee concurs with the staff
recommendation and believes that placement of a parking lot on Walnut as proposed runs counter
to the comprehensive plan.
.
Harold Riche representing Wells Fargo indicated that it was his understanding that the City Council
waived aspects of the Comprehensive Plan when they exchanged the fanner !vlarquette Bank
property for the library site. In a letter from the City, Riche noted that the terms of sale indicated
that there would be to requirement to place a building on Walnut Street.
Jeff O'Neill indicated that the letter released the Wells Fargo from placing a building at the corner
as a specific term of sale. but he was not m:vare if it was the City Council's intention to release the
Wells Fargo from compliance with the Comprehensive Plan which does not allow parking along
Walnut.
Riche noted that Wells Fargo would not have made the trade if the deal did not include the use of
the property as currently proposed. It was his understanding that the terms of the Ictter freed Wells
Fargo to allow parking along Walnut. He also noted that the site could be modified by allowing
head-in parking along Walnut as noted and would also include ample landscaping along parking
lot boundary.
Dick Frie noted that it appeared to him that the terms of the letter has provided clear direction and
that it is difficult to make a recommendation contrary to the expectations outlined in the letter.
.
DICK FRIE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE EXPANSION AS PROPOSED,
INCLUDING THE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DRIVEWAY, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE PLAN FACILITATES THE EXPANSION OF THE BANK SITE AND
THAT EXPANSION WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE WITHIN THE DESIGN LIMITATIONS
NOTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE MOTION INCLUDES CALLING FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON MODIFICATIONS TO THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
3
--L
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
.
AS IT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
tvl0DIFICATION IS INTENDED TO IDENTIFY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES LIMITING
PREFERRED MAIN STREET DESIGN. DAVE REITVELD SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED WITH LLOYD HILGART VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for concept stal!e
planned unit development and consideration of a request for a conditional use permit and
variance for parking. Applicant: Walnut Plaza Partnership.
Steve Grittman reported that the applicants are seeking approval of a commercial project along
Walnut Street south of 3td Street The project would retain the existing James and Gruber
building. and construct a new building along Walnut Street v,:ithin the existing parking lot. The
existing building is approximately 4.750 square feet in area. and the new building would add
approximately 12.900 square
feet of new commercial space on two levels. a new total of 17,650 square feet on the project.
The building would have a main level and a lower level with window exposure at the sidewalk
level.
The project plans show a parking lot of 38 spaces, including parking that utilizes accesses in the .
alley area. Walnut Street is also shown with angled parking consistent with the City's Walnut
Street improvement plans.
The CCO District includes a clause that permits developers to reduce their parking supply to
60% of the standard requirement under certain conditions. These conditions include an
agreement that the parking lot will be made open and available to any vehicles (during
reasonable business hours). The applicants also have the opportunity. on approval of the City.
to pay into a public parking fund that is designed to accumulate funds for acquisition.
construction. and maintenance of centralized public parking at locations chosen by the City in
the downtown area. The theory behind this ordinance relies on the ability of different
commercial users to share parking on a single block. relying on differing peak use periods to
avoid congestion. When that congestion does occur. street parking should be available to
accommodate any overflow.
In this case, the required parking. according to the standard zoning regulations, \vould be
approximately 79 parking spaces. At 60% {assuming the parking lot is open to others. the
requirement would be 48 spaces. As noted, the site plan shows 38 spaces. a deficit of 10 spaces
from the City's reduced allowance.
Moreover, the applicant has located the parking lot adjacent to the neighboring parcel. with no
setback as is typically required. This design can be accommodated by the PUD process. and the
neighboring property owner. Ace Hardware. has indicated that he will allow cross easement .
parking thus enabling the zero setback along the border between the two parking The concern
4
--L
Planning Minutes - 1113/03
.
with the proposed layout. however. is that no connection to the adjoining Ace Hardware site is
provided with this plan. Planning stafr would recommend at least one connection to the Ace
Hardware lot to justify the concept of open use of the parking area. This will likely reduce the
available parking on the proposed plan by two or three more spaces.
The question becomes whether the City wishes to grant a variance or consider a reduction in the
number of required spaces and accept a parking fund contribution. It should be noted that future
expansion on the other two lots (Ace Hanhvarc and Napa Auto Parts) could be affected by any
deficit approved on the Walnut Plaza site.
The City has previously discussed the latter concept. given the availability of parking in Walnut
Street. The funds received from the applicants for their parking deficit (for 12 or 13 spaces
based on a final site plan) would be able to be applied to Walnut Street improvements that
would provide as many as 18 on-street spaces in this block. As a result, there should be
adequate parking in the area. provided that the buildings are designed to accept entrance from
the Walnut Street side as well as the parking side.
.
Rod Dragsten asked if there will be enough parking space left over for the other stores on the
block to expand if the proposed expansion occurs. Jeff O'Neill noted that each property owner
will have the capacity for expansion if they provide public parking.
Dick Frie noted that the variance to the parking standards is not needed if the parking fee is
provided which would fund parking on Walnut. Are the applicants aware of this requirement?
Jeff O'Neill noted that the applicant is aware of this situation.
Fred Patch reminded the Planning Commission that the building design is conception and will
likely to be modified, however not to the extent that concept PUD approval will need to be
readdressed.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PARKING LOT
DESIGN WITH A ZERO SETBACK, WITH THE CONDITION THAT A CONNECTION TO
THE ADJOINING PARCEL IS PROVIDED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PUD
FACILITATES JOINT PARKING USE WHICH REDUCES THE OVERALL NEED FOR
PARKING FACILITIES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST ALLOWING THE
DEFICIENCY IN PARKING STALLS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
SHORTFALL WILL BE ACCOMMODATED VIA CONTRIBUTION TO THE PARKING
FUND AS OUTLINED ABOVE. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5
l
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance from the requirements of the zonim!
ordinance restricting signs from being placed in public riQht ofwav. Applicant: Jeff Sell/West .
Metro Pontiac Buick GMC.
Steve Grittman reported that the applicants are seeking a variance from the City's sign
ordinance and right of way ordinance that require all pri vate signs to be located upon the
property of the ov.-ner. and according to the required setback regulations of the zoning district.
In this case. the proposed signs have already been erected. and are on the right of way of
Sandberg Road. There are three such signs for which the applicant is requesting this variance.
The site is zoned B-3. Higlm:ay Commercial. and currently has other signage (both wull-
mounted and freestanding) that identify the applicant's business to traffic along 1-94 and Trunk
Highway 25.
Variance requests are to be reviewed as whether a unique physical hardship exists that interferes
with putting the property to reasonable use. In this case, the applicant has highly visible
property and is seeking an advantage in sign display that is denied to other commercial
concerns. The applicant has occupied the property for some time. and there does not appear to
be any unique property conditions that make the use of the property unreasonable or
uneconomical.
Moreover. private advertising signs within the right of way could interfere with traffic visibility
and street maintenance operations, creating and unsafe condition. Because there is no specific .
hardship to support a variance in this case. the granting of such a variance could lead to
concerns of precedent and how other requests might be reviewed. The City is obligated to apply
its zoning regulations equitably among the various properties in the zoning district, and could
have trouble denying future requests for similar signs.
Jeff Sell noted that the sign along Chelsea is important to providing direction to Customers. He
noted that Chelsea road Boulevard seems exceptionally wide at this location and it did not
appear that he location of the private sign interferes with the public use of the boulevard. He
requested that he be allowed to leave it there until the City can prove that it needs the boulevard.
Rich Carlson felt that the signs were not in locations where they would create a problem relating
to public use of the right of way.
Dick Frie asked how long the signs had been there. Fred Patch indicated that they had been
there a while.
Jeff O'Neill noted that allowing signs in the right of way would set a significant precedent and
open the door to similar requests in many other commercial areas. He also noted that use of the
public right of way for private signs would require execution of a lease agreement between the
City and property owner
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE. BASED ON A FINDING THAT.
NO HARDSHIP EXISTS, AND THAT PLACEMENT OF THE SIGNS AS PROPOSED
6
L
.
.
.
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
COULD RESULT IN A SAFETY HAZARD TO TRAFFIC IN THE AREA AND ALLOWING
SUCH SIGN WOULD SET A SIGNIFICANT PRECEDENT MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO
REFUSE SUCH REQUESTS BY OTHERS. DAVE REITVELD SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH DICK FRIE AND RICHARD CARLSON VOTING
IN OPPOSITION.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to zoninf:! ordinance to allow sandwich board
signs in the right of \Va\" in the CCO (Central Communit\" District),
Steve Grittman reported that staff has prepared a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which would
make an allowance for a sandwich board as portable signs \vithin the City.
The attached amendment would make a special allowance for small portable signs (which includes
sandwich boards) within the City subject to the following requirements:
1. The signs shall be allowed only within the CCD, Central Community Zoning
District.
2.
The signs shall occupy the public or private sidewalk area within five (5) feet of the
entryway of the business it serves.
3. The placement ofthe signs shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle circulation. If on
the public sidewalk. such signs shall be placed so that no less than six feet of
sidewalk is available for passing of pedestrians.
4. The signs shall display messages oriented toward pedestrians.
5. The signs shall not have electrical connections, nor included any lighted or moving
component.
6. The display of such signs shall be limited to the hours of the business it serves.
7. The signs shall be constructed of wood or other materials determined acceptable by
the City. Color and design shall meet the design guidelines for the CCD zoning
district. and shall not be composed of fluorescent colors.
The maximum size of such signs shall be no greater than five (4) feet in height and six (6) square
feet in area, and must comply with all other regulations of this ordinance.
Any sign placed under this section shall infer an indemnification of the City of Monticello by the
owner of the sign for any liability or claim made involving the sign or sign location.
7
1-
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
.
No sign shall be permitted to be attached to any public structure or facility.
O'Neill noted that the Design Advisory Committee supports the development of sandwich
board signs as being consistent with the redevelopment plan.
Dick Frie asked why we are not allowing such signs in other districts.
Al Loch noted that the other businesses in other districts have greater building setbacks which
provides space in front for display of Pylons. and temporary signs. They also have a better angle
for viewing wall signs from the right of \....ay. Sandwich board signs are intended for temporary
placement on the boulevard in areas where pedestrians frequent. Such signs are not necessary
in Highway Commercial areas.
Dave Reitveld suggested that the ordinance be amendment to include one sign per business.
DAVE REITVELD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT, BASED
ON A FINDING THAT SUCH SIGNS ARE CONSISTENT \VITH THE INTENT OF THE
DOWNTOWN AREA AND WITH THE RECOMMENDA nONS OF THE REVITALIZATION
PLAN. MOTION INCLUDES AN AMENDMENT TO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE LIMITING .
SIGNS TO ONE SIGN PER BUSINESS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
9. Consideration of a request for a concept stal;e planned unit development approval for residential
and industrial uses. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC.
JefT O' Neill reported that this item had been withdrawn at the applicant's request.
10. Consideration of a request to amend the Citv's Comprehensive Plan relating to the development
of Block 52 (Highwav 25 and Broadwav). Applicant: Steve Johnson
The applicant represents a development interest on Block 52. and is the owner of a portion of the
property on this block. The site in question is the northwest corner of Highway 25 and Broadway,
bounded by Walnut Street on the west and River Street on the north. The Comprehensivc Plan calls
for a traditional downtown development pattern throughout the downtown area, including a sct of
design standards that encourage and/or require a zero setback for building locations and parking
areas that are placed behind the primary commercial buildings they serve.
The proposed development would consist of the removal of most of the buildings along Broadway
and River Street (retaining the one building at the corner of Broadway and Walnut), and elimination
of the public parking lot along River Street. In the place of the current uses, the applicant proposes
.
8
~
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
.
a Walgreen's Pharmacy that would have parking and driveways on all sides. and a row of
residential units along River Street.
An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary due to the proposed site plan for the
Walgreen's facility. The layout relies on a suburban model that includes parking along the primary
exposures to Highway 25 and Broad\'vay. in direct opposition to the traditional development pattern
and the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has suggested that they would be
willing to construct an ornamental structure along these frontage areas to regain a sense of the zero
setback building required by the planning policies, as well as use building architecture that would
be more traditional in nature.
.
However. the site plan shortcomings of this proposal are dramatic. Particularly at the prime
intersection of the downtown area, a suburban style development \vould be contrary to foundation
on which the Plan is built. and on which the City has spent considerable amounts of funds to help
achieve. Although the applicants argue that their tenant will accept no other design due to
economic requirements of their business. several other development projects have been completed
or are proposed throughout the downtown area that reflects the objectives of the Plan. Among these
include the Towne Centre project Landmark Square, and the Walnut Plaza project currently under
consideration.
In addition. the City has a significant area zoned for the style of project proposed by the
developers. The B-J and B-4 zoned areas south ofInterstate 94 permit this type of commercial site
planning. and various projects of this type are under way in those areas. The introduction of this
type of site development in the core of the downtown would not be consistent with the City's
planning process. nor with the large public and private investments that have been made throughout
the downtown area.
The applicant is approaching the Planning Commission with an informal request at this time. If the
Planning Commission believes that the proposal has potential merit, a public hearing should be
called for formal consideration of the request at the December meeting.
Steve Johnson noted that in recent years he has been making every attempt to attract users to the
site. He noted that retailers generally have not been supportive of the zero setback requirements
as defined in the redevelopment plan. To make the site attractive to retailers it may be necessary
to allow parking along the edge instead of building. The appearance of available parking is a
desired component of most retail developments. This is why Walgreen desires parking availability
on at least three sides of the building.
.
It was noted by Susie Wojchouski that the Pine Street (Highway 25) edge is very inhospitable to
pedestrian traffic and that it might make sense to allow parking along this edge and design the site
so that the pedestrian traffic is buffered from the road edge. She noted that during sloppy road
conditions it is impossible to walk on the sidewalk without getting splashed.
9
'2-
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
.
It was noted by Johnson that the plan could include screening of vehicles with a corner monument,
perhaps iron fencing or other landscaping to enhance the corner. The site designer noted that the
site plan calls for parking equal or greater to City Code.
O'Neill noted that the placement ofa building in the center of the block as proposed would appear
out of place and at odds with the plan. However. moving it to the Broadway edge with setback for
parking on Highway 25 might be an option that \vould be somewhat consistent with the plan.
Either way. it would be appropriate to call for a public hearing on an amendment to the
comprehensive plan.
Rod Dragsten asked if the site was being limited to a single use. Steve Johnson said no it is not
limited to a single use.
RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELA TING TO BLOCK 52 AND REQUIRED BUILDING
SETBACKS ALONG PINE STREET AND BROADW A Y. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
11.
Consideration of a request to permit a re-use of an existing non-conforming building. Applicant: .
Beth Austin. (NAC)
Steve Grittman reported that the former Grimsmo funeral chapel at 530 West Broadway is
located within a residential zoning district. The city permitted occupation of the building for
office use following the relocation of the funeral chapel facility to the former City Hall site.
based on a finding that the office did not expand the non-confornling use of the property (a
requirement of the zoning ordinance for non-conformities). The o\vner of the property made
various improvements to the property, including the installation of parking lot paving that
violated the five foot setback and eliminating the opportunity to screen parking from
neighboring residential parcels.
The upper level of the building \vas previously used for residential purposes. This use would be
nominally consistent with the parcel's zoning. An applicant is seeking to re-use the upper level
for yoga classes. The applicant proposes evening and morning classes with occasional weekend
use as well. The question for the City is whether this would constitute an expansion of non-
conforming uses in the building.
Planning staff s position is that the use is not allowed in the residential zoning district. and that
an expansion of this type of activity would be considered prohibited by the ordinance.
Moreover, even though the previous use of the building was commercial in nature. that use was
discontinued several years ago. extinguishing any ""grand fathered" use rights it may have
carried.
.
10
7-
.
.
.
Planning Minutes - 11/3/03
Beth Austin was present to provide additional information regarding her use of the site. She
noted that students would be coming on week nights.
Richard Carlson speaking as a neighbor noted that the use of the site has grown since the
original approval to use the site for office use. It was his understanding the site was limited and
that such expansions were not going to be allowed. He believes that use of the upper level as
proposed would constitute an expansion of a lawful non-confornling use.
After discussion it was the consensus of the group that the use represents an expansion to a
lawful non conforming use and that the applicant will need to apply for a zoning district
amendment in order to use the property as proposed. The zoning district amendment should
request changing the district designation from R-2 to PZM. The application should also include
a signature from the property owner to the east. Including the property to the east is needed to
create a contiguous PZM district.
12. Adiourn.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Recording Secretary
II
1-
....'
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
.
5.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a reQuest for Conditional Use
Permits to allow six four-unit townhouse buildings and a Preliminary
Plat for 7 townhouse lots in an R-2 District. Applicant: Mike
Schneider - Homestead Multi-Familv Development Corp. (NAC)
A. Reference and Background.
The applicant is seeking a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit to allow
the construction of six four-unit townhouse buildings on property along West
Prairie Road, south of the Timber Ridge Townhouse project. The plat is a replat
of four single family lots owned by the City and "The Brothers" plat, a single
family plat that has existed for some time with no homes.
Zoning and Density. The area is zoned R-2, and four-unit townhouse structures
are Conditional Uses in the district. The zoning ordinance permits townhouses at
a density of one unit per 5,000 square feet of lot area. Each of the proposed lots
exceeds 20,000 square feet, and as such, the density requirement is met. All
units would face public streets, including Prairie Road and a new cul-de-sac
extending south from Prairie Road.
.
Preliminary Plat. The plat itself shows 7 total lots - 2 are located on City land
north of Prairie, and five located to the south. Lot 5 of the southern group does
not show a building. Due to the plat configuration, it does not appear that a
building could be located on it to meet setbacks. This lot should be eliminated
and absorbed into the adjoining parcel, as the Subdivision Ordinance does not
permit remnant parcels.
The applicant has inquired about the possibility of "simple subdivision" instead of
a full plat. The Subdivision Ordinance requires a plat in all but a few cases.
Those cases include lot combinations, and situations where one platted lot is
being split into two new parcels. This project clearly does not meet those
situations. Moreover, if subdivided without a plat, a complicated "metes and
bound" description of the various lots would be necessary, resulting in legal
descriptions that are unlikely to be accepted by the County Recorder. In short,
the proposed simple subdivision request would meet neither City nor County
requirements.
.
As noted, the design of the plat utilizes a cul-de-sac. The Subdivision Ordinance
position on cul-de-sacs is to avoid them where possible. In this case, there does
not appear to be a reasonable way to develop the plat without one, due to the
shape of the existing property. Where used, the preferred design in an
"oversized" cul-de-sac with a landscaped center island (maintained by the
homeowner's association). There would appear to be adequate room to
accommodate this concept due to the elimination of Lot 5 as discussed above.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
The redesign of the cul-de-sac would also benefit the driveway design for the
townhouse units on Lot 4. This building relies on sharply turning driveways .
which are often difficult to negotiate. It would also increase the rear yard setback
for that lot - currently shown at 20 feet along the east lot line. This should be
increased to 30 feet to meet the R-2 zoning standards.
The City Engineer will review street design, grading and drainage, as well as
utility plans for the plat.
Conditional Use Permit. As noted, the four-unit buildings are allowed by CUP in
this district. The density easily meets the zoning minimum due to significant
oversizing of three of the parcels. The general layout of the units is reasonable,
and the existence of all public streets in the project is the preferred design. The
following issues are noted with the project:
a. The center two units of each structure share a wide driveway. This design
does not meet the zoning maximum of 24 feet wide driveways at the
street. Planning staff recommends a landscaped island that divides
the driveways to meet the maximum width standard.
b. The project is set up for a single four-unit building on each parcel. No
plans are provided for separate sale or ownership, nor are any
association proposals provided with the application. The applicant
should clearly describe the proposal for the association and common
area maintenance.
.
c. The landscaping plan shows a row of trees along the freeway, and front
yard trees at the ratio of one tree per unit. At least two trees are
typically required to be planted, and no provision has been shown for
foundation plantings around the buildings. Planning staff would
recommend that any approval include a condition for additional tree
and foundation plantings.
d. As noted in the plat discussion, the cul-de-sac should be designed to be
over-sized (according to the template provided by the City Engineer's
office) with a center island to be landscaped by the developer and
maintained by the association. The revised landscape plan should
include this element.
e. The City required that the developers of the townhouses in "Sunset
Ponds" provide a landscaped berm along the interstate. The design of
the berm is to include reasonable slopes with a height of 8 feet above
the ground floor elevation of the adjoining structure. The purpose of
the berm is to provide some sound attenuation from the adjoining
freeway. This requirement should also be applied for this project.
Planning staff is concerned that housing adjacent to the freeway would .
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
have significant negative impacts from freeway noise. Such berms are
commonly employed in other communities where housing adjoins the
freeway, and the application of such a berm in this development would
be consistent with the requirements made in the Sunset Ponds project.
On the berm, a planting of intensive vegetation should be provided,
including native grasses and wildflowers on the slope to minimize the
need for mowing and maintenance.
f. The project should include sidewalk on one side of Prairie Road that
connects to the pathway in Timber Ridge. A future project would be
necessary to extend the sidewalk to the east through the existing
neighborhood.
g. As with Timber Ridge, an intensive landscape buffer should be provided
along the edge of the project shared with the single family
neighborhood to the east and north. The current landscape plan
shows no plantings in those areas.
B. Alternative Actions.
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for six four-unit Townhouse buildings.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on a finding that the
zoning supports the use, and the proposal meets the density
requirements for the area, subject to the conditions found in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a finding the existing
single family plat is the most appropriate land use for the area, and the
neighboring single family area would be negatively impacted by a
townhouse project in this location.
Decision: Preliminary Plat for six four-unit townhouse lots.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the plat, based on a finding that the plat
is consistent with the zoning requirements, subject to the conditions
listed in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the plat, based on a finding that the re-plat
changes the nature of the surrounding neighborhood.
1
i
1
c.
Staff Recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
Staff recommends approval of the CUP and plat, but only with the conditions
found in Exhibit Z. The City has seen several townhouse projects in recent
months. This proposal does not show the level of development amenities
(mostly landscaping) that is present in the other projects the City has reviewed.
Particularly because of the location of this project adjacent to the freeway,
special care should be taken to ensure that negative impacts are mitigated.
When a poor residential environment dominates a neighborhood, building quality
and property values will suffer. As such, the changes recommended in Exhibit Z
are designed to minimize those impacts, and bring this project in line with others
recently approved.
D. Supportinq Data
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Site Location Map
Preliminary Plat
Grading and Drainage Plan
Utility Plan
Landscape Plan
Building Elevations
Building Floor Plans
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
.
Exhibit Z
1. Elimination of the remnant lot (Lot 7 Block 2) to meet Subdivision
Ordinance requirements.
2. Submission of a final plat and execution of a development contract
prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Revision of the plat to show an over-sized cul-de-sac consistent with
the City Engineer's template design.
4. Establishment of an association to maintain common areas, including
the cul-de-sac island landscaping.
5. Elimination of sharply turning driveways.
6. Separation of combined driveways to meet City curb-cut width
maximums.
7. Redesign to meet 30 foot rear setback standards.
.
8.
Increase number of boulevard trees per City standards and this report.
9. Provide landscaping plans for foundation plantings.
10. Provide a landscaped berm along the freeway per this report,
consistent with the requirement for Sunset Ponds.
11. Provide sidewalk along Prairie Road to connect to Timber Ridge.
12. Provide landscaped buffer along the east and north boundaries of the
project consistent with Timber Ridge and this report.
13. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations on grading,
drainage, utilities, and street construction.
14. Compliance with City Public Works direction for mailbox locations,
garbage collection locations, street lighting, and other requirements.
.
5
...,..
~
--e-.
.
6,
~
s
..........
JIt.c.~W
".0101"
..=rott~
.looI'':'C:,
~~~
Ie"
141
~
&~l
~al
~
,~
r I~ ~ q
(1) . 'I
o &~
~a
~
= llll~
:-~~
() g
6 :(
. 03
;;: i
~
)(
0: ~
."""-
iII).4'c)C::.
&H
~~l
. 'I
&~
~a
~
.--
.......t),(;._
....
~7~ ()
;:~~ t
~ r ,~t ,;,
~b II ~
h8 h ~
r n ,
I
...1....
"'OQ/f'tr~
. )4'10,1:;.
~ if"~~! '.' J
~ ~ 2 ..~
~ " Ii' J~
. i:~ -',
Jl,.-------~ -., ---;i &
).. ---""' ~
~ ~
~
:-'
~.~~
~ II.' ~
~i~
______________l_____
....
~7: ~
',~ ;1l
~Ij ~l ~
~u ~J ~
~
s
I
~
~ tl
-~ .I~
W
0,.;,
-%'
"'_ Gi~
~ ~ 2
!-UUUl ~uJ_ i1
ii1 . t
~
:-'
~e~
iil
~
~::.~~
I~ 8 ,~
9 ~ U
!!J
c"_I'H'" c~" I'
...
.. :x
~ ~ r~"l
)( i. -.
~ m
= 0l11J lj!
--i~~:)~- ---~-- -f----------
00 li';~~
o:~ ~~~l' 0
;I "I.
tH
~al
~
."""-
.iIr4' 0(;
I
~7~
l.~
I~
r
i ----r;I
~a I
tli-l>>M1 ~
'f"',(: :. ,,~.
.....\0'1'"
;;: Olllil
~~~
~ 8
o -,
--'5....--- -
. 03
;;: :x
- ~
:. ~
~ ~
&~l
~a
~
.--
.~'",c;;,
.--
.)4' OG,
;
Hl
)
~ J ~I J
~ J
~
./ "t
II ,.
ii "I
:1 III
" ~,
;Ii ~
m ~!
h 11
III
9 ,
....
j ... :
. ~ I
I'
.' 'I
ii ll' i
:!
II
m
g
~
g
g
~
-<t
~ ~
~
; ~
I
I
! EEE3
i EEEE
11m
g
-
BIim
mm
tJ\
JJJJJ'I ~~
i ,
~JJ!!I ~ ~ ~
I,ll Il ! l
l'ltlll!
,.,HI
'1'1'"
!;Hlll
''1 J, 'I~
"'!jil
I !il'~"HI'
I 1,'1'
II!!!'I
,,'1'111
, .1-
t' H;:hH
1'11;111
,j,l!jjj
--------------------
'-'"
~
-e--
.
~
~
2
.....",.,
"'-0_ tiIc) lrr
...,...
J~ ~ ~I~ ~
r I~ g Ii
i5 8
\1~ 6 ~(
l'l "I . ,3
&~ ---
lit
& 6;it.t1' Q,C_
.--
.jJol.' OC;.
U~~
Ie"
i~~
~
~ i
"". ~
q iiI
tH
~tl
.$.
.--
.M' c),C;,
. 'I
&"
lit
.$.
..,
J ()
,~~ ~
~,.
~i "t ~
l, zl ~
~u ~~ ~
r~.
I I
S r.~ I
~ " .~""
p '(I/~~
I .),IIIO.~.
. ",,' \J '
=::::. ./\~... i:ii z I
-11 ~ .:. '\ "'''.' 1>>' 2 ,
--t "" .. "
~~---'~ --~~---~--
""'" !l! I 0 0 ,
o ,.. 0 ,
. ~ ~
I I
,
,
~ ~~~ l ~~
Ii; "
. ~AI "'.
~-------~:I ---~
~ ~
~
:-I
''''''-
.)01' oc.
~T"G
e~~~
~6"~
~r
----------____l_____
..,
~ J ()
47~ ~
~~~ "t "~
~h z~
~l: ,.
Lh ifJ
~
f H
; r
w
,-"
-B-.
~ ~I
I,
,- ------. --.,_.~~
,
,
i-
ll>. Gi =<
~ ~ l
~ . " ~
~-______~ AI --J (~
Jl 1... .
~ ""'", $
m 4 ~
~
;-l
UH
1~.
i~~
~
a,tlt,
c
t~l
~al
&
"1
&"
lit
&
i: :I
~ 1; rl~j]
" ~, '.
~ ~
=. WI 0 (11!
--:-~..~-]-. - ---~-- -f----------
_ 0 O. ~
0.0 '! t. ()
0'( ~,g'" 0
-,3 3 ~
t;l
litl
~
---
~
...-' ~.c.
~ !
,h
I~
I~ 8 I~
~" .
Q ~ ~
l'l
C&I'" ~"I'
"* ....~t
P"
l
~ ~I~
~ 8
o -,
--'0.....--- -
. ,3
i:. ~
i~
~~
tH
li&1
~
t;l
;&1
.....u. oi
"',G. Milo,'
. Mt ",y
.--
. 'I
t~
lit
'\
tt\
m
~
~
~ I'
Jl ) JlI ,~
t "
~J!!i~~~
Ih;9!~i
IJ1i,iGl
s 9 I
I tltllill
, j,l",
IIlH!i!
~::lit' ,
11.!jili
i liihHi
1111l!!'1
""111
'jhl,l,
t' ill;l:!H
I' "Ilt
.l.i!iil
h ,I rl
[I
UI
g .
....
i ~d
Ii ~
P od
:1
"
g
e
~
-t
~ !
~ ~
lr ~
I
I
! g
.
I
mil
~
.I ~
g Ii ~
..
II
I :! ~ .
I ;n ..
! m ~ ~
~ J ~I J , m
I
~ ~I em
~
'.
It
"'"
~
-e-
...."'"
1II~.;jt/IItT
...,...
..~llIWNII!'.
.~. OC;;,
8~~
i~~
i4.l
~
...
I~
r I~ i q
19iH
"itl
~
= 1lI1~
~~~
is 8
6 :(
. ~
i:: ~
..:
"
~ ~
''''''-
"'M'QoC:;,
. 'I
S"
~t
~
~
,H
"itl
~
.""'-
~ ",,' 0(:.
...
~~I ~
~ij ~i ~
t., ~. k
~~~ dJ ll;
(;it-~
III ,. " I '~
:: ~. ~ . ~~
01. ~ ,41 Ii,
"0 N.
J.-------~. ---'. s
~ -:1 ~~
~ ~
~
:-<
~:~i
____________~!t_____
...
J ()
,~~ ~
~~~ q i
~h ~A
hI ~J
~
i ~I
:4
~ J'
.\
v..I
0...:,
~ -e-
~ ; I
I.
i.
III (;i <
,. ,- ~ ;~
~-------~ ~ --J (~
~ .!.. :1 N S
~ ~ ~
~
J e~
e~
i6~
~
"I
~;l
.\
".x;M'T~
~~
- ,"._~' .._-........--~_.-,:--~,- ---"-~
..
j;: :I
~ ~ r~tl
" ~. '.
HI
.
r
~ ~I~
:'. g
--~~---
. .3
----~l
"itl
...... .\
~.r,;.. II~"
II .. 1Ir,
"" jIo4' (lI.~,
J
~2~
I~
JJl
h !/ ,I
!I a
t~
if a
II
m
~
~
Illll'~
I'i'h,'!
1!.!"ll
~::IHI':
'1'!li I
Ili!hlli
11'lliIP,
1'1'111
, ,I'
. "I,. I'
. "'1"
f "I'!' "t
\' "Ii
,I,i!iij
I
w
~ '
.! ~ ~
" - ,
Ii ll' il
:f
"
,...:...,----....;""'"""",-.'~,-
...;.,',..-.'7:.:~;^:.:.:.~ "." ".-
. ,,"..,-, ".
J
,
! m
j
I
-
~
,I of
e !1 ~
1/ III
J :! ~'
, .- !
! dl ..
~ ~
~ J ,I J - e
~ J em
omo
.~~."
.~'QK;.
~~~
!i~
~
....,..,
~..i:.4IO IrJ'
...,.,.
I~
r I~ ~ ~
~~
19t~I
li31
I(
~ ~I~
l< AI
IS g
6 ~(
. 03
..
.--
.W'IC),(;.
1: I
d::
x
~ ~
.---
.W' ,1.1;;.
t~I
-\31
I(
VI
~
-a-
. 'I
&~
'i3
I(
t
~
~
..,
~d ~
yl~ Jt e
~b Zl j
t I ~. k
~h iJ iii
.. r -. -
I
.J. ...
..-t>-
4IIM'IO'..e.
II> G;-i~ I ~. ~
:: ~ ~ . :~
..... "
~ i'AI wii,
e-------~:I ---~ ~
~ ~
~
;-I
--------------------
I .~ __ ,_ __ ,_ _ _ ~,. _ _
(,,~I"'G
~
i ;1
I ~
~..~~
~M~~
---------___:!t_____
..,
~~~ ~
r~~ d~ (;\
~h B ~
1-.--...-------
I
1
II> G;~'
. . ~ ;1
~-------~ ~--j ~
~ ~-
~ · i
~
w
......,
;
~
~
---&-
t H .l,~
~
U~~
I . ~
I~
.- -?H,. --- i '~:t""- . - m
;f ~ :- i [~~l
~ 0 6~
.::'~ ~ w'w~' . iit
--3~~-]-- ---~-- -f---------- HI
08 a:~i I(
q:<< ~ f' ~ 0
03 :'''. ~
;31
,,8
"
~.:x.If'l~
. ;14' {i,e.
oUIt"..~,
,"..IINt~G
r
----JI
'i81
-.. I(
",~,."..
.....,t'
~ !I~
~ 8
--0.:1._--
. 03
. '(
&~
'i3
I(
4IIi1r4' 0.(:.
t.:. ~
~ ~
~~
.---
~
..--
.W'f)c,.
. 'I
&~
-,\8
I(
Wl
, ~
I
IIllli~
1,..1...\
'1'1'1'
I,' i.li
Htlii'l
,!I"'!I'
I "Ii
'Iill!!!i
I Ill!!',
"f'lll
".,,
. ;(['; ':
f "['f,III'
l~ (.11
ll,l!iii
al
h
III
Q q
d)-
.i 'i i
Ii So!
n (r. I
:1
"
g
mIl
~
LBIB 2
1.
~ !
! ~
II' ~
a
m
~
;:::
g "l:
~
!' at
:! ~,
;n'
~ t
~ ~ ~I J a JIm - i
~ ~I mia
LBIB
.
I
I .; I
-,!
\
" \'
\
\
\
. \ \\ \
~. O~Clt \ \
<- s \
a'OM aJU ~~ ONI1';I'J ~
I "
",
'"
/0
'"
.,.
~
~
'i'
~
"
",
:>018
f1'
I.
'NOIJlOaV ONl )~~ ~38
C-=-lln~~ al~N31'
\
(>ooa i~~'O)d
./
, I
,'I I, 0 .f
-~';.
L,
~
J I .:
l.:;
I
l__
L
f>;,
I
floE 1-: D~A/ +-u~"T"'s.
/~
s
\
I I'
I'
/
~" I'
..-, /.. I'
4-/
/\~\
/ \\
I' . \\
>
.
~ "'" ~ - ~ ~
./
, ,
/
,
,
/
,
,
/
I'
I'
o
'-
-;-
5 0-
Il 0 -:!(,
II -J ~
II \V
" ~
" 'V1
/ 'L ---==:
,."".J - ... ... -
11 --- __==---
/ ...----:..................
~ ,- - - -
, :
~I
f
, I
I :
/
I'
/
"
I'
/
"
"
/
/
~
.
.
.
Planning Agenda - 12102103
6.
Consideration of a simple subdivision reauest: Location is Lot 7.8 BJock 16 or 824
East River Street: Aoplicants. ioint owners - Eu~ene PineeJ and James Kaz.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In reviewing a survey of their property the owners found that a small part of the
neighboring home to the west encroaches onto the their parcel. Pingel/Kaz found that
they cannot sell their property until this boundary problem is resolved. The method
proposed for solving the problem is to create a new boundary line located 6' (minimum
setback) from the adjoining home. The land created by this subdivision would then be
attached to the parcel to the west. Creating a lot line at this location would bring both
parcels into conformance with code and also clear up title problems for the Kaz property
thus enabl ing the sale of the land.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
I. Motion to approve the simple subdivision as proposed on the attached survey.
The motion based on the finding that the subdivision will result in two parcels
with dimensions and setbacks that are in conformance with City Code.
2.
Motion to deny approval of proposed subdivision.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 1. The proposed subdivision eliminates a setback problem
and results in two parcels with dimensions and setbacks that are in conformance with
City Code.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of survey/site plan, pictures.
~Mc:. S .. C. i '^ Jv 0.. +( lI. T-
.C... OC'lC- -P- Po ;,~..J ...~ Au. <1 '''1 V. -P. h~.. 51.
e-e...,.... '. f 'f61 K 1 <. I:'/....c. -t-h pi"
.
~ 110,""\ A ... ~...........c.. i>,~..l.
N \33.1~ f-t-. ~ .1-.1- '=..'BH<
.... ~ l}... (:) f-+- b f- LoT" 5. 13 I \~ I
~ R IllER STREET ~
-------------------
.
=:::..
oPOo ctQ
o:fPO . N'" J~ ........" u.. .. '''' ,
'\ !>OSl llEl ' '8 ''1( ~
'-,,~ ,. S 5go5J' lJw E
1\
I \
/ I
1/ t4'\ ct
I ( ..,OOO~ 1
1-"0 I.:
/
/
/
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
/
I
!' /
-- /
I
/
I
I
" /1
. I
---;;-2:---IB'
"".2
- --;.,,- :-"'---1
/
I
/
N 59056' .17" Wi
- .1.1, 0.1 .... /
",/
1..' I
~I.."
~ /
/
I
I
I
I
/
I
/
I
/
/
/
I
I
/
/
I
I
I
/
I
I
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
/
16/
/
/
I
.J
'3" 1../
,,~
1\ do" /
,!loci \.. I
~~\l
I ~ I
~ I I
\ I I
+ -.. ,J,J.O__ J _ _./
----I I \ --';-. - _ N 5905(J' J7w W
\ '......... !Wty tlJrE" OF' tOl 1
11 I I ..... I
I I 1.."
! (.6". ~ 1
~
.
~
:i
"
l&"
~
<4>.
,..
6
~
"-
....
...
~
'" .
g~
l$~
~
~
~
.
",
...
~
...
I
.)
1.11,92
-
I I
~
:so
~
.
~
.....
27.7
------
..
'"
.0#
...
'"
27_9
------
6
~
~'\ .
<p'
,'!l
~'
t\).
,,--
~
~
~
...
.....
~
~
tr,
99, 12
/
/
/
BOOK / PAGE
F~J29 J9
Lots 7 and 8, Slock 76. LCNER #l)NTICELLO, according to the
recorded plot thereof, Wright County. Minnesoto except thot port of soid
Lot 7 described os follows: Seginning at the most westerly corner of said
Lot 7; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of soid Lot 7. 0
distonce of JJ.07 feet to the most northerly corner of the Southwest JJ.oo
feet of said Lot 7 os ".asured at 0 right angle to and parallel with the
southwesterly line of said Lot 7; thence southeasterly parallel with said
southwesterly line of Lot 7, 0 distance of JJ:OJ feet to the intersection of 0
line drown northeast fron the midpoint of said SQuthwesterly line of Lot 7
to the midpoint of the northeasterly line of soid Lot 7; 'hence
southwesterly olong soid intersection line, a distonce of J3.01 feet to said
midpoint on the southwesterly line of Lot 7; thence northwesterly along
said southwesterly line. a distance of JJ.04 feet to the point of beginning.
t>>IL Y EAStAENTS CW MCCRO PLAT ARE SKMN CW THIS SLRVEY LNtlSS
ADD IT I(7lIAL lXXWENTA TlCW OF OTIER EASEAENTS OF RECORD ARE
PROVIDED TO lIS.
StBJECT TO PUBL IC RIGHT OF WAYS AM) tASOLNTS OF RECORD IF ANY.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THA T THIS SLRV[Y PLAN OR REPCRT WAS Pf?[PARED
BY AC OR LNJER MY DIRECT SlRERVISION AND THAT I AAI DUly REGISTERED
LANa SURVEYOR f.N)ER THE LAH6 OF THE STATE OF AlINNESOTA.
~
/0 -z -03
DATE
-t:/.
TAYLOR REC.
StaT OF:
SCALE
DATE DRAWN:
10/16/03
FLE N1.
03576
l1N. OR 2OF'T.
.
.
.
lo
.....~. .
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
7.
Public Hearina: Consideration of a reauest for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow residential dwellinas on the around floor within a CCD Zonina District
Applicant: Barry Fluth. (NAC)
A.
Reference and Backaround.
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to allow the construction of 11
ground level dwellings (row houses) upon a 0.76 acre site located north of Third Street
and west of Locust Street.
The subject site is zoned CCD, Central Community District which allows ground level
residential dwellings by conditional use permit.
The proposed development constitutes the second phase of the Landmark Square
project. The initial phase of the project, which borders the subject site on the north,
consists of a mixture of commercial and residential uses and was approved
approximately two years ago.
CUP Requirements. According to the zoning Ordinance, ground level dwellings are
allowed within CCD districts provided:
1. The proposed site for residential use is consistent with the goals and objectives of
the Downtown Revitalization Plan.
2. The proposed site does not interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian traffic in
the CCD District.
3. Density for the ground floor residential units not exceed one unit per 9,000 square
feet of lot area, exclusive of land area utilized by, or required for, permitted uses
on the property.
Downtown Revitalization Plan. The City's Downtown Revitalization Plan encourages
reinvestment in the City's downtown area and the creation of higher residential densities
which support/complement area commercial uses. As a result, the proposal is consistent
with the goals and objectives of the Plan. Although this specific site is shown for
commercial development, the city has viewed the land use patterns in the CCD broadly.
Planning staff believes that residential use on this portion of the block is not inconsistent
with the intent of the Plan.
Pedestrian Traffic. The site is designed to encourage pedestrian movements along the
periphery of the site with vehicular movements being confined to the site's interior. With
il.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
.
this in mind, the proposed development will not interrupt the flow of commercial
pedestrian traffic in the area.
Density. As previously indicated, the maximum allowable density of the site is one
dwelling unit per 9,000 square feet of land area.
In calculating the allowable density for the development, both the subject property and
Phase 1 site (to the north) must be included in the site area. With an overall site area of
88,345 square feet, a total of 9.8 (or 10) units are allowed. To comply with such density
requirement, one dwelling unit will need to be eliminated.
Subdivision. The subject site presently overlays three individual parcels of land. If the
row houses are to be sold individually, the property should be subdivided such that the
dwelling units correspond to individual/ots. Such lot configuration would however,
require the processing of a PUD (to accommodate the creation of lots without public
street frontage). If the property is to be owned by a single entity, the four lots should be
combined into a single parcel of land.
Site Circulation. Several concerns exist in regard to site circulation as summarized
below:
Drive Aisle Width. Access to the site is provided from the west via a 20 foot wide
driveway from Locust Street. To allow safe, two-way traffic movements, the
driveway should be increased from 20 to a minimum of 22 feet in width.
.
Garaqes 3 and 4. All proposed dwelling units are provided two stall garages.
While the majority of the garages are accessed from within the interior of the site,
Garages 3 and 4 are provided direct access to a public street (Locust Street).
The allowance of such periphery garages presents both a visual concern (in
regard to consistency of public presentation) and a functional concern (in creating
pedestrian/vehicle conflicts). Garages should be designed to be no less than 20
feet by 22 feet in dimension.
Garaqe 5. 6, 8 and 9. Access to these garages is considered problematic in that
area does not exist to allow 90 degree turning movements necessary to provide
access. The site plan should be revised to improve accessibility to these garage
units.
Garaqes 10 and 11. Some concern exists in regard to the proximity between
Garages 10 and 11. Of issue are safety concerns over the possibility of
simultaneous backing maneuvers (out of the garages).
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
Off-street Parkin!:!. According to the ordinance, single family dwellings must provide two
off-street parking spaces per unit. In satisfaction of this requirement, a total of 35
parking spaces have been provided for the 11 dwelling units. To be noted is that the
proposal includes 10 visitor parking stalls and 4 supplemental garage spaces.
While parking beyond the minimum supply requirement (22 stalls) is typically considered
a positive feature, it is believed such additional parking has resulted in deficiencies in site
circulation. For this reason, it is believed the areas devoted to supplemental parking
could be better used to correct the noted vehicular circulation concerns.
In consideration of the site's "Downtown" setting, it is believed that visitor parking can be
accommodated on street. It is acknowledged that some of the visitor parking on this
parcel is designed to accommodate overflow from the commercial projects to the north.
Nonetheless, the parking lot design needs to be functional. The existing parking lot
shows a 22 foot drive aisle and shallow stalls. This area is already congested. As such,
changes need to be considered to make this proposal work.
Landscapin!:!. To date, a landscape plan has not been submitted. As a condition of CUP
approval a landscape plan identifying the location, size and variety of all site plantings
should be submitted subject to City approval. This plan should address perimeter
plantings, as well as the treatment of the landscaped courtyards between the units and
the garages. This area could be made a very attractive space if given adequate
attention.
Gradin!:!. Draina!:!e and Utilities. Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities should
be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer.
Suildin!:! Desiqn. Generally speaking, the proposed building designs are considered
positive and through the use of several architectural features (i.e. dormers, grilled
windows, front porches etc.) evoke an image consistent with the age of area buildings.
While it appears that the buildings are to be finished in horizontal lap siding and brick,
the elevations should be modified to specify finish materials. The Design Advisory Team
should provide additional comment on architecture and materials.
Cross Easements. Recognizing that the functioning of the site is dependent upon the
use of the phase 1 site to the north, it will be necessary to establish cross access
easements. Such easements should be subject to review and approval by the City
Attorney.
Liqhtin!:!. As a condition otCUP approval, a photometric lighting plan should be
submitted which indicates the location and illumination levels of all outdoor lighting.
,
,
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
.
B. Alternative Actions.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow ground
level residential dwellings within the CCD District based on the comments from
the staff.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit to allow ground level
residential dwellings within the CCD District based on a finding that the submitted
plans are inconsistent with goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization
Plan.
3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit to allow ground level
residential dwellings within the CCD District subject to the submission of revised
plans which respond to comments of the staff.
C. Staff Recommendation.
While the density and circulation concerns cited in this report are considered
"correctable", it is believed such modifications will significantly impact the design of the .
project. For this reason, staff recommends that the CUP request be tabled pending the
submission of revised plans which respond to the issues identified in the report. If an
approval recommendation is proposed by the Planning Commission, a list of
recommendations is provided in Exhibit Z that should be attached to the approval.
D. SupportinQ Data
1. Site Survey
2. Site Plan
3. Building Elevations
4. Floor Plans
5. Conditions
.
~ J-. CI'J ---1 1--- ----- - _n
.~ ~ t) U J".. to!
J-. ......, BiI 'I "'
-t:Q 0 ~ II'~ .1111 :
o .b s:: lid ,.e!1l
rn t....> Ill, I:.....
~ II 11ft!;
II
-I . ......
nJ ; I
.._,..,___'__.~~~..~~, '._0__________..
, I
-IIi!
. .--------...,.-...-..... ....._ .__..._.. u..__
~~~ 2; ~ s
~~~ it !
~5-~ III III
0 I ..,
OOlJ.,., I
....u. l l .
__~_w._,~_~~,~
I
,II
r
~~
iii llJ ~ ::
.. s-
II ft II II B ! 11 B 11 11 ! llJ ~
). .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
It II
~~ -I .. .. i~ -, .. ... .. .. <> ..: .. "
-, -, -I -, -I -I -, 'I -, I
I I
co
." 15 I_ 19 I. la !la II; Is !II a !I 51! I:: ::
I
I
l89J~S lnU/DM
JJO' O.
---=-- -~-_._~--._-~---.. -f
f ~ _ _
(~~/\U\:,:".):,; - T".J-- ~f- - - - T- - - - - - - - - - - --,
.'" ...; .";..;: ". "~ ' - '.~ I___n.__ -"'--T'- ,-- I
\::t~~:~~~;,f_l:~~Jiii i=-_-~':~-' _ .---~=:::_~-r:-- ~_ I , ,
~i-.~ ,~ --r- _ I .i.,.-...-:~::.~~::,;~-:.:~_.:;i...;...:--::,~--.::-: ',','. ,
'- , '."'.. ,.., -..":,'." I .-.-.---,,---.. .-- ----I 1:1l..' -
,..;(~:;!:;..y.:I:i\.:.{~j?\.: :--'------____1._ .___ " .. . ,_ < "
'. " ... ~, ., r I {i:}:X.~:
~!~:fHJ:.~~~,HF i:=='== ===t:-= I -"
~..:-r~-?<:.I.~'~".,j___i__-~ - - -r----- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
/. I.- t 1./."<- t..~'i.;.~.~..:"""'..."'.~.;.. I ___~....L~__._~~ I
".J: ,.~;~ l.':r .~;'.f; .;-~!_-" a;:. ..;.:-=:<;7 'J'~. r -- ~ ~ ~ I '-'Ao......
..-~..-~J"f,..".."':....-~.~..1,t.o,f I _..l.-_~~. ....,
. - -=..:-..;;;.--~~-- ~
"0";"'><' ,'to ~..~{ '.~ .-i" -.J' ,~:' I ;r I ~ ' I
I:t.....~,...\~. !;, :-'/' l....". ____-L, -:! - \ I
~"" S'i.l" "~I ,.... I = \
...~ . *::..:" ..; . ... ~",a~.
. . .,!-<'.-~"f~... -- (I -- I -..
: ~
z 73Q ~pfi I
.... " :
",.
'~", If , _ _ _ ~ I
...."" '.! ~
r " 7.7~i
~J ~I& I~~I
~/It
....~
~-----
l~ ~jli.,~t"- ~',. I.,: , ;: .1':. ~
.:..~,..:....l/'!.'~i ':~.~:
Ij' 01'1.. . . f' . f..~:
~ .~~. I;:r~:; .~ ....;....:~
.:~: f:~:~:-:; ~i ~~.,-~::<;~~;~
~
---..-.....
- T-- ., ---
... ,: I w '4
I-II---~:I-;; '--" II' -I"'"; I
I.L..........I"'- ....... L.I _
--~---~-
r -
I ;r
~f.+
~ RW
V~:~~
: ~~U
~ ~ "
~/: r~"
"'l.. 8 : 1= l!
-=F=-=-~~ ~
I
~
~
,...,
I>><<
I: ~~'!Ir
I II'
L _..J _.J
t -- 1 ~
I : 8:
I I I
,
.....
"
~
.....
CI)
'ti
~
1;;J.r~8~~i~;;l,:;.>-
..,--
L
""i
.:-m ~ ~
~ 'eln~f/d"Ti
IllS ...
,.~:~/;.:;)::~~</~:<):: ~~ - ----; ,,-~:--
.....,.- -r.~.'-.o'(' ,-."- C 77).1 ~1lO
. .,...- ~'" ',:'~:~~-'/,",. -':1 Il
....: ,~"" , ~ - . '. ," ,-- ~ ....~
;:;::~i~; ~i > ..~"~;;.;-~;.t~:~1 f::~
tr
~
o
.......
I ~ III I I
I 118'_~"'I
I "j ~ ,~l ~rL
i;~~~:~.;.:~;,:,~~~~.;'~:J!~_'~;_~_)~_~:_.,: ,Ill.
1.,. ~. -. _r'" .... _' _ . . ,.I;
~J1I.
~
h ~_}>-r' ~-1 - - t:f
v I:: ...
~~ .-.
I
'fl' f[':~'"1
Ii il~ll F
~
~
p~
:!I't
I r
, ......-r--... 1;;_ ~- h
DDWG\10319LS2\Study2\A02-1.DWG, Layout1, 11/071200312:07:34 PM, sta26a
..
J
H~
~
1
.....
'-r
~
.~
~
~
- t.
r------,
t.) [
Q
~
~ ;1 J
=
O!
J ~ .
.....
...l
~
.Q
,,)
~
J
.....
i
::>
li
-n
-i
L - 1
,
...
[ CI] s::l M UJ. , . -- . .--..-- ~---- .-- ."..-.--- . . .."...-... ... un. .________.. ,
-- II Ir I! 'I i I I sl
......., (l.) (l.) E- I I ".. I
:=J . - ...c= U Ii II I
I JI' II ~~~ en
--h~~ I 11 t:i(5
I o _1:I:l 0 ,.,. :i'l! ~ ~rz:I Wl=
-,,- o .o::r:: ~ L ~g~ ~~ ~
t/)u I i.!I~ : III I rnp... I Ii
~ .11 .II!" I I --il
I l I
-; """- , .. ..
u_ .~..~ _.n,._,'..,~~~_~,.. """ -~.~ ..~.~~' ..,..-....---- .'".~""-,. -- - ".... ~' ... .,.~. ,~
-=rr
-tl--
~
,-
vO
lINn
3A08V
ro
lINn
-,
J
1
11
-....1 r"'---,
lO
(liNn I
H:\ACADDWG\ 1 0319LS2\Study2\survey.dwQ, Layout1, 11/07/2003 01 :54:44 PM, sta26a
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.J
I
I
I
I
I
I
L----______l_______
I
I
, .1
I
I
I
I
I
I
__J
I
I
I
I
I
I
L___
"-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...-'
r---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12102/03
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions:
1. The number of ground level dwelling units be decreased from 11 to 10.
2. The three parcels of land that comprise the subject property either be combined (if
the project is to be owned by a single entity) or replatted in a configuration that
allows individual unit sales
3. The site's access driveway (from Locust Street) be increased from 20 to f 22 feet
in width
4. Direct garage access to public streets be prohibited.
5. The site plan should be revised to improve accessibility to garages 5,6,8 and 9.
6. Safety concerns over the possibility of simultaneous backing maneuvers from
garages 10 and 11 be addressed to the satisfaction of the City.
7. A landscape plan be submitted which specifies the location, size and variety of all
site plantings.
8. The submitted building elevations be modified to specify building materials.
9. Cross access easement be established with the Phase 1 site (to the north) subject
to review and approval by the City Attorney
10.A photometric lighting plan be submitted which indicates the location and
illumination levels of all outdoor lighting.
11. The City Engineer provide comment regarding grading, drainage and utility
Issues.
1
-1
.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
8. Consideration of a request to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan
relatinq to the development of Block 52 (HiQhway 25 and Broadway).
Applicant: Steve Johnson. (NAC)
A. Reference and Backqround.
At the November meeting, the Planning Commission heard a presentation
regarding the development of Block 52. The applicants are requesting an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to permit the development of a
Walgreen's facility with parking lot in the yard area between the building and the
street. The Comprehensive Plan calls for storefront design that is built up to the
street and sidewalk as commonly found throughout the traditional downtown
area. Parking areas are to be placed behind the primary commercial buildings
they serve.
The applicant represents a development interest on Block 52, and is the owner of
a portion of the property on this block. The site in question is the northwest
corner of Highway 25 and Broadway, bounded by Walnut Street on the west and
River Street on the north. The proposed development would consist of the
removal of most of the buildings along Broadway and River Street (retaining the
one building at the corner of Broadway and Walnut), and elimination of the public
parking lot along River Street. In the place of the current uses, the applicant
proposes a Walgreen's Pharmacy that would have parking and driveways on all
sides, and a row of residential units along River Street.
An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary due to the proposed site
plan for the Walgreen's facility. The layout relies on a suburban model that
includes parking along the primary exposures to Highway 25 and Broadway, in
direct opposition to the traditional development pattern and the requirements of
the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has suggested that they would be willing
to construct an ornamental structure along these frontage areas to regain a
sense of the zero setback building required by the planning policies, as well as
use building architecture that would be more traditional in nature.
The Design Advisory Team has reviewed the proposal and found that some
flexibility might be offered along Pine Street (Highway 25). However, they have
recommended that the Broadway Street frontage be maintained. Particularly at
the prime intersection of the downtown area, a suburban style development
would be contrary to foundation on which the Plan is built, and on which the City
has spent considerable amounts of funds to help achieve. Although the
applicants argue that their tenant will accept no other design due to economic
requirements of their business, several other development projects have been
completed or are proposed throughout the downtown area that reflect the
objectives of the Plan. Among these are the Town Centre project, Landmark
Square, and the Walnut Plaza project currently under consideration.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
In addition, the City has a significant area zoned for the style of project proposed
by the developers. The B-3 and B-4 zoned areas south of Interstate 94 permit
this type of commercial site planning, and various projects of this type are under
way in those areas. The introduction of this type of site development in the core
of the downtown would not be consistent with the City's planning process, nor
with the large public and private investments that have been made throughout
the downtown area.
.
The applicant is approaching the Planning Commission with an informal request
at this time. If the Planning Commission believes that the proposal has potential
merit, a pUblic hearing should be called for formal consideration of the request at
the December meeting.
B. Alternative Actions.
Decision 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment permitting parking lots along
Pine and Broadway.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that
this corner is an inappropriate location for traditional downtown
development patterns due to high traffic levels.
.
2. Motion to deny the request for an amendment, based on a finding that the
Comprehensive Plan direction for this site is important due to the
significance of the location as the prime intersection in the Monticello
downtown commercial district.
C. Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends that no amendment be considered at this time. If any
flexibility is considered, Pine Street frontage may be appropriate, however, the
Broadway Street frontage is of primary importance to the integrity of the Plan.
The applicants suggest that the Theatre corner across Pine Street from this site
is an example of parking lots along the primary streets. However, this parking lot
pre-dated the Plan, and has been one of the examples cited as being a layout to
avoid, rather than follow.
Although the applicants may have found a tenant who is interested in the site, the
restrictions placed on the development of the property by that tenant are
completely inconsistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the
existing development pattern, and other new projects in the downtown area that .
reflect the direction of the City's planning goals. Other sites in the community
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
.
would be appropriate for the proposed use, but the prime corner would be the
least appropriate location.
D. Supportinq Data
1. Site Plan
.
.
.
.
.
~nmr~l'" r fl"'.. /.. "-~-m ! \
, ,I .if1" ''f"T . f.l..~, i i f i! 1 . i ' ~ ~ j " I
" : tAt ~ . ' , \ \ ' " 1f .' ; tit li ._i 1 \ . t ! .L i 1 ! I
~i.t~~r'Zl~ ~'~'N'"' ~ ' ~ .
/lJ Ul, t lllU llnb i · 'r~!Il~Llli( 1. \
l~":ll..!I.J~~ , I)
.l>-",wr~- ~ i ? i
_ ~ I:
_~ I
I
--"'*l
--
..:' '.' . ~
'.'
1
.f/1't.{c..""j, f
. f -."
t ...; .
~I ~ ,
:;r.:~
~
:j
" ---J\
i 3"
~
: 31,
. -4 \
. j i 1 \ r f' l _ ~ ; ~-'''i' - <r-?-' I'
_ , ' . _,,' I~ ~..~po .. AJJy
'~~ I ---. --......
, , , I t~\~
et.4ck52~' ~~,~ llr~
-,
, l. ViJ
'\, ~
-
.t'l
J:1
1
~.
-,,'
...-
'f"'.,.
..
'6
"-
.
.
.
Minutes
Regular Meeting - Design Advisory Team
Tuesday, November 18,2003
Monticello City Hall - Academy Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Hoglund, Pam Campbell. Dennis Sullivan. Rnberta Gerads. Cindy
Anderson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Susie Wojchouski
OTHERS PRESENT: Ollie Koropchak. of City Staff
Dan Olson of State Farm {nsuwnce. Ray Lopez of ReMax
1. Call to Order
Ron Hoglund called the meeting to order at 4;30 PM
2. Approval of minutes
Motion to approve the Minutes from November 3 (by Susie Wojchouski) was made by
Cindy Anderson and seconded by Roberta Gerads. Motion approved
3. Consideration of adding items
Ray Lopez of ReMax Reality
JerfO'Neill with a comment on Well Fargo parking expansion
Dennis Sullivan tel'"ffi expires. "viII not continue
4. State Farm Insurance Expansion (Dan Olson)
Dan Olson plans to expand the current building using brick to match, and roofing to
match the current materials and color. The gables will have a maintenance free product
that will look like the current shakes. The business entrance will be changed to the
Walnut street side.
Motion to accept the building plan as presented using the above materials was made by Roberta
Gerads and seconded by Pam Campbell. Motion approved.
5. LandMark Square Review
There was not a discussion of any specific plans other than to show a picture of
the concept based on a development in Atlanta, and the site diagram.
;f
6. Block 52 Review
The picture of the set back proposal for the Broadway block was shown but
nothing has changed. Oat voted last time to request zero setback on the
Broadway side. and would approve the parking setback on the Pine Street side
matching the Theatre parking. There '.vas no motions made to change anything.
7. Ray Lopez ReMax Real Estate Office
Ray has purchased the I\.E. Michael's Decorating Center building on East
Bruadv,;ay and presented concept plans to renovate the building into an office lor
his n::al-estate business. The Broadway to parking area access will be closed. and
a handicap access ramp will be constructed li)r access to the office from the rear.
The building front will have a cast stone material added over the lower portion.
Dat recommended keeping the current wood siding instead of replacing it "',lith
vinyl. The sign covering the entire width of the building was discussed.
Individual internally illuminated is preferred and the square ReMax logo sign is
<G
acceptable. Due to the cost of the letters, Ray is seeking a lower cost altemative
such as externally lit individual letters via gooseneck or a lower tube lamp.
Motion to approve the current wood siding, with stone on the lower portion. the
siue access dosed off, and a sign of individuulletters externally illuminated. plus .
a ReMax logo sign was made by Cindy Anderson and seconded by Roberta
Gerads. Motion approwu
2
8. Wells Fargo Parking Lot Expansion
Jeff O'Neill explained the parking lot Vs Walnut Street building situation that was
part of the library to bank.building exchange. The city staff wanted another
business building added to Walnut to continue the look of Town Square for
another block. This requirement language became a showstopper in the library
exchange so it was removed. NO\.y Wdls Fargo is planning a parking area 011
Walnut along with their Drive Through expansion. This was for information only
9. Dennis Sullivan Comments
A) Dennis show'ed a picture of the Crafts Direct Facade on their building recently
completed in Wait Park. The outline. creating a look of individual stores \vith a
variety of heights is \vell done and worth a second look. The scalloped roof edge
was made in St. Cloud by Miller Roofing.
B) Dennis also announced that he \-vollld be stepping down from DA T \vhen his
term expires in December.
10. Motion to Adjourn
Pam Campbell made a motion to adjourn. seconded by Cindy Anderson. Motion Passed.
Next meeting is scheduled for December 2nd, 2003.
.
Submitted by:
Dennis .J. Sullivan
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/03
9. Public HearinQ: Consideration of a reQuest to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to permit Wells Farao Bank to construct a parkinQ lot
alona Walnut Street in the ceo. Applicant: Wells Farao Bank. (NAC)
A. Reference and Backqround.
Wells Fargo Bank has requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to
permit the construction of a parking lot along Walnut Street. The applicants have
received Conditional Use Permit approval to proceed with this plan. As a part of
that discussion, it was noted that an amendment would be necessary to support
the CUP approval.
The amendment in this location relies on the fact that the Wells Fargo facility has
direct building frontage along Pine Street, but requires additional parking on the
site to facilitate its expansion. As a result, the applicant argues that it is not
possible to construct both an expansion of the bank and a separate commercial
building along Walnut Street.
B. Alternative Actions.
Decision 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow for the construction of a
parking lot along Walnut Street adjacent to 4th Street for Wells Fargo Bank.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that
this design is the most appropriate site plan for the site, given the need
to expand the building and the location of the site.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that
the commercial use along Walnut Street is a integral component of the
Comprehensive Plan.
C. Staff Recommendation.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment, based upon previous action of
the Planning Commission and City Council.
D. Supportinq Data
See agenda item from November Planning Commission meeting.