Planning Commission Agenda 09-05-2017 (Joint Meeting)
AGENDA
SPECIAL/JOINTMEETING -MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSIONAND CITY
COUNCIL
th
Tuesday, September 5, 2017-5:00p.m.
Boom Island Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners:John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson,Katie Peterson
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 Planned Unit Development for a nine unit townhome project in a B-
2 (Limited Business) and a B-3 (Highway Business) District.
Applicant: SPO, LLC
3.Adjournment
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
__________________________________________________________________
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Angela Schumann
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: August 28, 2017
RE: Monticello SPO Townhouse PUD
Concept Review
NAC FILE NO: 191.07 17.23
PLANNING CASE NO: 2017 - 012
Application and Project Description. This memorandum reviews the elements of a
proposed Bar
and Grill, with access from the north along Hart Boulevard. The proposal is made by
SPO LLC. The property (consisting of two existing parcels) lies in an area of mixed
commercial and residential uses, with Kwik Trip to the west, two-family homes to the
north, and other commercial to the east and south.
The bulk of the property is currently zoned B-2, Limited Business District, as is property
-3, Highway Business. A
B-3. Finally, both parcels constituting the project are subject to the Wild and Scenic
Overlay District.
The twin homes north of Hart Boulevard are zoned R-2, Single and Two Family District.
The R-2 district allows townhouses by Conditional Use Permit, with a gross density of 8
units per acre. While the ultimate zoning for a development of this type would be PUD,
the standards of the R-2 Districts help provide a guide for use and density requirements.
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.
The proposal consists of 9 units on 43,385 square feet of land area. A plat would be
necessary to combine the two subject parcels that constitute the development site. The
develop 3 buildings of 3 units each, with access from Hart
Boulevard, and a common parking court which provides driveway and access space for
each unit.
The units are two-level structures, with an entryway, stairway to three upper level
bedrooms. The main-floor entry provides access to a family room, kitchen-dinette
-
feet, with a total living area of 1675 square feet, and 431 square foot attached garage.
All units appear to be slab on grade, with no basements or walk-out levels.
PUD Concept Review Criteria. Since the time Carlisle Village 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:
2
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
later consideration of a full PUD application. The Concept Proposal review
includes notice to area property owners, but is not a public 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.
Summary Comments.
For this proposal, the primary considerations evident at this point in the process
would likely include the elements below. It is important for Planning Commission
and City Council to raise issues that they find to be at issue at the project
proceeds to a more extensive review at Development Stage PUD.
a.
noted above. The PUD concept review discussion should be sure to address
this potential change.
b. For residential units in the R-2 District, the zoning ordinance requires a
minimum floor area of 1,050 on the main floor (or foundation size), with a
minimum of 1,400 square feet finishable space. The proposed units do not
meet the standard for the main floor square footage, but exceed the total area
minimum for such units. PUD flexibility would be necessary to accommodate
the units due to the foundation size proposed.
c. The garages are 431 square feet in area, shown to be 19 feet wide. Staff
would recommend a minimum interior width of 20 feet due to previous issues
found with garage use and dimensions in other past pro
minimum garage floor area is 450 square feet, so an extra foot of width would
result in meeting the square footage as well.
d. The buildings are shown to have lap siding on upper and lower floor facades,
with board and batten siding in the gables, and a wainscot trim of cultured
stone at the base. The side end facades have lap siding only, and limited
façade be covered with stone or brick, with additional treatment required
where buildings face the street. The units as shown would have two sides
3
facing Hart Boulevard the City may wish to require additional materials
standards applied to these exposures.
e. The northwesterly three buildings are shown along the 10 foot side yard
setback, however, the floor plans provide a sliding door and a ground level
14x12 foot patio. The location of the units should be shifted to accommodate
the outdoor space in this area.
f. The southwesterly three buildings also are shown adjacent to the side yard 10
foot setback, making turning movements out of the last (westerly) garage to
be difficult without additional space. Shifting these buildings about 5 feet to
the east would accommodate this additional turn-out space.
g. The project will need to address bufferyard planting requirements for
conflicting land uses as required by Section 4.1(G) of the zoning ordinance.
The bufferyard planting and setbacks will be applicable along east, west, and
south boundaries. Particularly with the active outdoor use to the south,
buffering will be important to preserve the livability of this development.
h. The scale of the site plan drawing appears to be inconsistent with the
dimensions on the plan, but the dimensions would appear to be adequate for
driveway and drive aisle widths. The applicants should consider 2-3 visitor
parking spaces within the project to supplement driveway parking areas.
i. Other issues raised by staff or city officials.
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.
While there are several details to incorporate as the project moves forward, the most
significant appear to be the departure from the standard floor area dimensions required
by the code, and architectural treatments for building walls facing Hart Boulevard, along
with the fundamental question of amending the land use in this commercially zoned
block.
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.
4
August 14, 2017
Project Narrative PUD Concept Proposal
The applicant is proposing to build three townhome unit buildings on a site
they own in Monticello, MN. The parcel of land is 43,385 square feet/0.99
acres. The proposed development will include three units per building,
nine units total.
The existing parcels zoned B-2 and B-3 will be combined into one lot. The
applicant is seeking a zoning change to R-2, Residential. The applicant is
also seeking relief form the 30 foot rear yard setback to 20 feet, this will
allow for greater ease of circulation for vehicles within the site. The
applicant is seeking relief from the maximum unit density per acre from 8
units to 9 units.
The utilities serving the project are currently located along Hart
Boulevard. It is our understanding that since the site is less than 1 acre, no
on site treatment of stormwater will be required.
The proposed schedule for the project would be a late winter or early spring
start date of construction.
The applicant believes this is the best use for their site. The adjacent
zoning to the north of the site is R-2, Residential and they feel this use will
be best for complementing the sites adjacent surroundings.
Sincerely,
Martin Woody, AIA, LEED AP
egfla\[\]ddg, eaff\]kglY 55330
`Yjl Zgmd\]nYj\\
MD 8
?1
NPMHCAR: f\]o Zmad\\af_k DMP:
B?RC: bmdq 18, 2017
DGJC: A:/khg\]/Yhl/?1.BUEQFCCR:
h
gj
\]h
qlj
d
\]fa
01
'
mZ
\\da
fa
_
k
l\]
YZ
\[
c
ad
\]f
\]
f
a
d
c
\[
Y
Z
l
\]
k
\]
f
a
\\
d
j
Y
c
q
\[
Y
j
Z
Y
l
\]
\]
j
k
'
\\
0
2
j
Y
\\
q
\]
k
j
g
Y
h
\]
g
j
j
'
h
0
3
`Yjl Zgmd\]nYj\\
30' ^jgfl Zmad\\af_ k\]lZY\[c daf\]
hjgh\]jlq daf\]
01
'
hjgh\]jlq daf\]mZ
da
fa\\
_
k
l\]
Z
Y
c\[
d
fa
\]
h
gj
j\]h
ql
ad
\]f
LMPRF
60
40
20
0
\\\]ka_f/Zmad\\ ECLCP?J AMLRP?ARMPk\[gll Zmad\\\]jk, af\[.12 \\anakagf klj\]\]lZm^^Ydg, KL. 55313AMLR?AR: ja\[c k\[gll(763) 684-0000
?PAFGRCAR
K?PRGL UMMBW ?PAFGRCARQ, GLA.26405 keal`lgof jgY\\k`gj\]ogg\\, KGLLCQMR? 55331AMLR?AR: K?PRGL UMMBW, ?G?, JCCB ?N(612) 382-2423
NPMHCAR RC?K
ZYk\] \\\]fkalq:mfal lqh\]: lgof`ge\]eafaeme dgl Yj\]Y h\]j mfal: 7,000 kimYj\] ^\]\]lZYk\] \\\]fkalq: 6.2 mfalk h\]j Y\[j\]eYpaeme \\\]fkalq l`jgm_` NSB gj h\]j^gjeYf\[\] klYf\\Yj\\k:5,445
k.^. h\]j mfal (8.0 mfal\]k h\]j _jgkk Y\[j\])
hjghgk\]\\ \\\]fkalq: 1,700 k.^. h\]j mfal (9.0 mfalk h\]j _jgkk Y\[j\])
kal\] Yj\]Y: 0.99 Y\[j\]k/43,385 k.^.\]paklaf_ rgfaf_: Z-2, Zmkaf\]kk \\aklja\[lhjghgk\]\\ rgfaf_: j-2, j\]ka\\\]flaYd \\aklja\[l
hjgb\]\[l \\YlY:
QA?JC: 1"< 20'
QGRC NJ?L
Y2 ^gmf\\Ylagf hdYfY3 eYaf d\]n\]d ^dggj hdYfY4 k\]\[gf\\ d\]n\]d ^dggj hdYfY5 \]pl\]jagj \]d\]nYlagfk
?1 QGRC NJ?L
BP?UGLE GLBCV:
1
?1
egfla\[\]ddg, eaff\]kglY 55330
`Yjl Zgmd\]nYj\\
MD 8
?2
NPMHCAR: f\]o Zmad\\af_k DMP:
B?RC: Ym_. 14, 2017
DGJC: A:/khg\]/Yhl/?1.BUEQFCCR:
egfla\[\]ddg, eaff\]kglY 55330
`Yjl Zgmd\]nYj\\
MD 8
?3
NPMHCAR: f\]o Zmad\\af_k DMP:
B?RC: Ym_. 14, 2017
DGJC: A:/khg\]/Yhl/?1.BUEQFCCR:
egfla\[\]ddg, eaff\]kglY 55330
`Yjl Zgmd\]nYj\\
MD 8
?4
NPMHCAR: f\]o Zmad\\af_k DMP:
B?RC: Ym_. 14, 2017
DGJC: A:/khg\]/Yhl/?1.BUEQFCCR:
egfla\[\]ddg, eaff\]kglY 55330
`Yjl Zgmd\]nYj\\
MD 8
?5
NPMHCAR: f\]o Zmad\\af_k DMP:
B?RC: Ym_. 14, 2017
DGJC: A:/khg\]/Yhl/?1.BUEQFCCR:
Building a legacy ǤƚǒƩ legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
August 25, 2017
Ms. Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: SPO Townhomes PUD Concept Plan Review
City Project No. 2017-032
WSB Project No. 010648-000
Dear Ms. Schumann:
We have reviewed the concept plan received on August 14, 2017 as prepared by Martin Woody
Architects, Inc. and offer the following comments.
1. The driveway access should be located in order to provide adequate driver sight lines
given the curve along Hart Boulevard.
2. Provide adequate turnarounds within the site for vehicles, garbage trucks, etc
3. A 6-inch sewer and a 6-inch water service stub is extended to the property line per
City utility as-builts. A drainage and utility easement will need to be provided with
the plat for the extension of these main lines. It is assumed individual water and sewer
services will be extended from these mains to each individual unit.
4. A hydrant shall be placed at the end of the watermain extension.
5. The development proposes to add less than 1 acre of new impervious surface,
therefore volume control (infiltration) is not required for stormwater management,
however it is encouraged to provided infiltration if possible.
6. Runoff from the site drains to the existing pond adjacent to A Glorious Church. The
pond design will need to be reviewed to determine if there is adequate capacity to
meet rate control and water quality requirements for the site. The applicant shall
submit a drainage report with the development stage PUD submittal.
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\\010648-000\\Admin\\Docs\\LTR-a-schumann-SPO PUD Concept 082517.docx
August 24, 2017
Page 2
7. A more detailed review of the development plans will be completed when the
applicant submits complete civil plans and a stormwater management report.
Please give me a call at 763-271-3236 if you have any questions or comments regarding this
letter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
City Engineer
cc: Steve Grittman, NAC
Enclosure
skb
K:\\010648-000\\Admin\\Docs\\LTR-a-schumann-SPO PUD Concept 082517.docx