Planning Commission Agenda 07-11-2017 (Special/Joint Meeting)AGENDA
SPECIAL/JOINT MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY
COUNCIL
Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 - 5:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, Lucas Wynne
City Council: Brian Stumpf, Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, John Rued
1. Call to Order
2. Concept Proposal for amendment to Planned Unit Development for detached single
family lots in an R-3 (Medium Density Residential) District at Autumn Ridge 3rd
Addition. Applicant: SW Wold
3. Adjournment
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
__________________________________________________________________
415 0 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Angela Schumann
Mayor Stumpf and Monticello City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: June 30, 2017
RE: Monticello – Autumn Ridge PUD Amendment –
Concept Review
NAC FILE NO: 191.07 – 17.
PLANNING CASE NO: 2017 - 020
Application and Project Description. This memorandum reviews the elements of a
proposed amendment to the Autumn Ridge Planned Unit Development. The proposal is
made by SW Wold Development for the remaining undeveloped townhouse area along
Edmonson Avenue NE, the east half of the original Autumn Ridge Development . The
property is currently zoned R-3, Medium Density Residence District. The west half of
the project included 169 townhouse units - 90 of which were built in this area as a part
of the original Autumn Ridge PUD. An additional 79 townhouse lots were final platted
but not built.
The current proposal is for a PUD Concept Plan review, which is not a formal zoning
application, but is intended to provide the applicant an opportunity to get City feedback
on a potential development proposal prior to more formal zoning review and the
extensive supporting materials that such reviews require. The Planning Commission
and City Council will have the opportunity to review the project, ask questions of the
proposer, and provide comment as to the issues and elements raised by the project.
The neighboring property owners have been notified of the meeting, but it is not a
formal public hearing. This memorandum provides an overview of the project, and will
serve as an outline for the discussion. No formal approval or denial is offered for a
Concept Review.
2
The original Autumn Ridge development was platted and processed as a Planned Unit
Development by Conditional Use Permit, comprised of 169 attached townhomes. The
project is served by a private street and public utilities, with an internal pathway
connection – all of which was built for the project. In the Autumn Ridge Third Addition
area where the infrastructure was built, but the majority of townhouses were not
completed, the applicant is proposing to replat the area to accommodate 41 detached
townhouses – small lot single family homes subject to an association maintenance
agreement. The applicant proposes to split the association for the new detached project
from the previous attached townhouse association.
The primary difference in association management is that for detached projects, individual
unit owners provide for their own exterior maintenance, subject to the overview of the
association. In attached projects, it is typical that the association also manages the
maintenance of the building exteriors.
PUD Concept Review Criteria. Since the time Autumn Ridge was developed as a
Conditional Use PUD project, the Zoning Ordinance recently amended to revise the
process for PUD review. The first stage consists of an informal Concept Plan review
which is separate from the formal PUD application which will follow the Concept Review
step. The Ordinance identifies the purpose of Planned Unit Development as follows:
(1) Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is to
provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non -
residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more
creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and
marketable. This is achieved by undertaking a process that results in a
development outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable
through the conventional zoning district. The City reserves the right to
deny the PUD rezoning and direct the developer to re-apply under the
standard applicable zoning district.
PUD Concept reviews are to proceed as follows:
(a) PUD Concept Proposal
Prior to submitting formal development stage PUD, preliminary plat
(as applicable) and rezoning applications for the proposed
development, the applicant may, at its option, prepare an informal
concept plan and present it to the Planning Commission and City
Council at a concurrent work session, as scheduled by the
Community Development Department. The purpose of the Concept
Proposal is to:
3
1. Provide preliminary feedback on the concept plan in
collaboration between the applicant, general public, Planning
Commission, and City Council;
2. Provide a forum for public comment on the PUD prior to a
requirement for extensive engineering and other plans.
3. Provide a forum to identify potential issues and benefits of the
proposal which can be addressed at succeeding stages of PUD
design and review.
The intent of Concept Proposal review is to consider the general acceptability of
the proposed land use, and identify potential issues that may guide the City’s
later consideration of a full PUD application. The Concept Proposal review
includes notice to area property owners, but is not a pu blic hearing. The City
Council and Planning Commission meet in joint session to provide feedback to
the developer, and may include an opportunity for informal public comment as
they deem appropriate.
Staff observations/site plan notes:
Autumn Ridge Third Addition PUD Required Applications
Rezoning to PUD
Replat
Concept PUD Sketch Plan Review
Existing Conditions and Proposed Improvements
i. Third Addition Attached Project, Originally Proposed: 91 townhouse units
constructed in 18 buildings.
a. First phase of development resulted in 12 units constructed in 2 buildings
ii. Remaining Phase: 79 platted, but unbuilt, townhouse lots in 16 potential buildings
iii. Current Zoning: R-3, Multiple Family Residential
iv. Total project area – approximately 22 acres
v. Approximately 11 acres developed; about 11 acres undeveloped.
vi. Proposed PUD Amendment: replace 79 planned townhouses with 41 detached
single family, still in a townhouse-style association.
vii. Proposed project will change density from proposed 7.2 units per acre to about
3.9 units per acre gross, 4.6 units per acre net.
viii. Infrastructure is already constructed – private roads, public water and sanitary
sewer, internal and external trails.
ix. Most of existing townhouses face away from proposed units – only in northern
section would attached units face detached units.
x. Side-to-side setbacks shown as 10 feet building separations
xi. Front setback from curb – majority at 25 feet, some 23-24 feet, one (Lot 31) at
21’-4”.
xii. Perimeter setbacks shown at 30 feet from Edmonson.
xiii. Back-to-back setbacks generally at 40 feet separation – one area (lots 24-27) at
20-25 feet +.
4
Staff Preliminary Comments and Issues. For this proposal, the primary
considerations evident at this point in the process would likely include the following
elements:
o Lot 31 – should be moved or redesigned to increase driveway length to 23
feet.
Eliminate porch; or
encroach into exterior setback; or
provide alternative floor plan to reduce depth. Consider additional
landscaping to buffer if allowed to encroach.
o Lots 26 and 27 – realign to square up driveways with street, avoid oblique
angles for backing vehicles.
o Garages are 22’x24’ deep; consistent with code requirements.
o Houses appear to be about 1,635 s.f. – ordinance requires 1,800 s.f.
finishable for single-family and 1,400 s.f. finishable for townhomes in the
R-2 District.
o Some units appear to be look-out design with finishable basements. Site
plan shows Crawl Space, Full Basement, Lookouts, and combination.
Applicant has provided driveway grades, but the City En gineer will review
the proposed designs relative to grading and drainage.
o City will need to see more detailed landscaping set – especially front
foundation plantings.
o City will need to understand division of association requirements and
cross-access and maintenance agreements
o Applicant will need to verify signatories on plat to illustrate platting and
County approval for recording, etc. including appropriate legal
descriptions.
o City staff have recommended a trail connection from the internal system to
the pathway on Edmonson.
o City Engineer and Water & Sewer Superintendent have provided comment
on the proposed removal of unused service connections for the proposed
development. Please see the City Engineer’s comment letter on the
concept for additional information.
Summary. As noted, the Planning Commission and City Council provide comment and
feedback at the Concept Review level. City officials should identify any areas of
concern that would require amendment to avoid the potential for eventual denial, as well
as any elements of the concept that the City would find essential for eventual approval.
One of the primary issues to discuss will be how the applicant will abandon unused
water connections that were built for the original townhouses, but will not be needed for
the revised project due to reduced unit counts. The applicant and City utility
staff are reviewing options for presentation to the joint meeting. In the
past, the City has required the removal of the unused services to the main.
5
The City Council will be asked to provided direction to the applicant on this
item relative to preparing utility plans for a formal application.
The notes listed above acknowledge that a significant amount of detail will be added as
the project proceeds to a more advanced stage of review.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Proposal Aerial Image
B. Proposal Narrative
C. Existing Plat of Autumn Ridge 3rd Addition
D. Existing Conditions Survey
E. Site Plan
F. Grading Plan
G. Utility Plan
H. Landscaping Plan
I. Example Elevation
J. Example Floor Plan
K. City Engineer’s Letter, dated July 5th, 2017
L. Public Comment
SW Wold - Con cep t Pro p o sa l fo r Amdt. to Pla n ned Un it Dev elop men t
Autumn Ridge 3rd Addition (See Legal Description Attached to Public Notice)
C reated by : C ity of Monticello
278 ft