The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 10-06-2020AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 6th, 2020 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Meeting will occur in person with recommended social distancing procedures in place for the Commission, staff, and public. Commissioners: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, and Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Special/Joint Meeting Minutes — September lst, 2020 b. Regular Meeting Minutes — September lst, 2020 c. Special/Joint Meeting Minutes — September 28th, 2020 C. Citizen Comments D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda E. Consideration to approve agenda 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Ordinance Amendment relating to the Interim Use of property for Public Uses Applicant: City of Monticello 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of a Finding that the Proposed Acquisition of 101, 107 and 121 West Broadway for Redevelopment Purposes by the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority is Consistent with the City of Monticello's Comprehensive Plan B. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September lst, 2020 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, Paul Konsor, and Andrew Tapper Commissioners Absent: Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Sam Murdoff called the Regular Meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. B. Consideration of approvin� minutes a. Re�ular Meetin� Minutes — Au�ust 4th, 2020 JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — AUGUST 4TH, 2020. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of addin� items to the a�enda None. E. Consideration to approve a�enda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Continued Public Hearin� — Consideration of a request for Amendments to Monticello Zonin� Ordinance to Chapter 3.5, Business Base Zonin� Districts, Subsection (G) Central Communitv District and Chapter 4.5 Si�ns related to transparencv of window si�na�e in the Downtown; and Chapter 5.1 Use Table and Chapter 8.4 Definitions as related to Mobile & Manufactured Home/Home Park; and Chapters 3.4 Residential Base Zonin� Districts and 5.3, Accessorv Use Standards as related to buildin� materials references for accessorv buildin�s Applicant: Citv of Monticello Angela Schumann introduced the continued public hearing from August for proposed miscellaneous zoning ordinance amendments. Schumann reminded the Planning Commission that they recommended approval of one of three ordinance amendments at the prior regular meeting related to accessory buildings and material requirements for accessory buildings. The other two items were tabled Planning Commission Minutes — September lst, 2020 Page 1 � 11 for language clarification based on discussion from the previous meeting. Staff presented the updated proposed ordinance amendments related to manufactured homes and regulation of window signage in the downtown. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PG2020-023, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. X, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS NOTED, BASED ON THE F1NDINGS 1N THE RESOLUTION. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. All three ordinance amendments (including the one that was recommended for approval during the August Planning Commission Meeting) would be brought forward to the City Council meeting. B. Public Hearin� — Consideration of a Request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for the Installation of an Accessorv Use Photo Studio Buildin� Applicant: Jeff Sell Steve Grittman provided a review of the application for consideration and displayed a location site plan. The proposed facility would be located on the westerly parcel. The application for amendment to Planned Unit Development would allow a digital photography process that will catalog and market the vehicles they have for sale. Grittman provided a rendering prepared by the applicants showing the proposed structure and noted that it would match the existing principle building. The building is proposed to be 30 by 30 feet and is prefabricated with a turntable interior to the building that vehicles turn on. Grittman provided an overview of surrounding land uses from the proposed structure. He also noted that their site plan shows consistency to the setback requirement of 6 feet from property lines for accessory structures. He mentioned that one issue with the proposal included removal of an existing trash enclosure with the accessory structure. Staff noted that the applicants are looking for an off- site location for trash handling due to limited space. Grittman explained that the selected site would need to conform to current zoning. Grittman provided the applicants survey and pointed out an existing accessory structure (used for storage) exists near the proposed structure. The survey noted it was 18 by 30 feet, but the applicants felt that was incorrectly labeled and larger than what exists. It would be reconfigured to sit next to the proposed structure. The structures would need to maintain six feet of separation for accessory buildings per code. Grittman noted that the biggest flexibility with the proposal was the use of inetal for the building exterior. In commercial districts, the Monticello Zoning Planning Commission Minutes — September lst, 2020 Page 2 � 11 Ordinance limits metal to 15 percent of the exterior of the building. The applicant is seeking an amendment to PUD to grant this flexibility. Staff have suggested that the approval could consider this an interim use and time parameters could be set to meet Zoning Code standards, or be relocated to another spot inside the principle building, or the applicant would need to seek additional approvals for the structure long-term. Staff reviewed the conditions of approval as noted in Exhibit Z. Sam Murdoff asked if the six foot concrete pad was existing under the trash enclosure. Grittman confirmed and added that it encroaches into the setback. Murdoff asked if the structure would be in the exact same footprint as the trash enclosure. Grittman stated it would not be on the same footprint and it was unclear if they would pour new concrete. Murdoff asked how far it encroached into the setback line. Grittman responded that it was close to the property line. The timing of the existing concrete pad was unclear. Murdoff also asked about the exterior materials. Grittman responded that exterior buildings are typically required in commercial districts. Other materials are permitted, but not residential vinyl siding other than accessory to the masonry on a building. Murdoff asked for an analysis on how the interim use permit gets around the required exterior materials. Grittman noted that the PUD allows flexibility to that standard and that with the approval, the City looks for conditions on the site that make a flexibility justifiable. Grittman added that the applicant is not proposing any other addition to the site. Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak about the proj ect first. Jeff Sell, applicant/owner of West Metro, introduced himself and explained the proposed proj ect. Murdoff asked if the company that builds the structure could offer different exterior materials. Sell indicated that it is produced how it was shown. Charlotte Gabler asked who the owner would be. Sell responded that West Metro would own it. Sell indicated that when they purchased the property, the cement pad was already existing to the property. The site was originally used as a Wendy's. Sell indicated that they would tear it out, replace it to code, and place a new slab. Gabler asked if the applicant was agreeable with an interim use permit. Sell confirmed. Murdoff asked if the turntable interior to the proposed building would require an additional concrete pad. Sell stated that it would set on the cement pad (separately) and rotate. Murdoff asked if the applicant would have the ability to move the building if an interim use permit was approved. Sell confirmed. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes — September lst, 2020 Page 3 � 11 Murdoff expressed concern with having an all steel building in a commercial district and asked that some (15-20 percent) of the front of the building have an approved material. Gabler asked if stone could be added to the front of the building. Sell indicated that the front is mostly a door and that if you added more to it, the building would look worse. He noted the proposed structure would look better than the dumpster. The color would match the existing principle building. Gabler noted that plantar boxes could be added in front of the building. Konsor discussed that the Commission should select to either approve amended building materials or an interim use permit. If enhanced materials are used, the structure would become more permanent. Tapper stated that there may be a possibility in the future that West Metro may want to expand their existing building and could possibly include this device inside of that building. Sell confirmed his appreciation for flexibility as they were unsure of how long-term they would like the structure/device. Gabler asked if staff had a recommendation for the length of the interim use permit. Grittman declined and noted that was a condition the applicant and Planning Commission could negotiate. The Planning Commission discussed the length of a possible interim use. It was asked if the applicant would have to come back for approval to extend an interim use permit, if desired to continue the use. Grittman noted that official approval would be needed to extend the length of the interim use permit. Sell requested five years for the interim use permit. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2020-024, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD, BASED ON FINDINGS 1N THE RESOLUTION, AND 1NCORPORATING THE CONDITIONS 1N EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT WITH THE ADDITION OF AN 1NTERIM USE PERMIT VALID FOR 3 YEARS. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion continued regarding the length of the interim use permit. Alstad amended his motion. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2020-024, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD, BASED ON FINDINGS 1N THE RESOLUTION, AND 1NCORPORATING THE CONDITIONS 1N EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT WITH THE ADDITION OF AN 1NTERIM USE PERMIT VALID FOR 5 YEARS. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1 WITH SAM MURDOFF VOTING 1N OPPOSITION DUE TO THE DURATION OF THE 1NTERIM USE PERMIT. Exhibit Z Amendment to Planned Unit Development Planning Commission Minutes — September lst, 2020 Page 4 � 11 Lot 1, Block 1, Carcone Addition & Lot 1, Block 2, Carcone Addition 1001 State Highway 25 South & 103 Sandberg Road The trash handling equipment shall be relocated to an area attached to, or within, the principal building, or in a reasonable location that is not in a yard adj oining a public street. 2. The applicant will construct the building to meet setback requirements of 6 feet from both side and rear property lines. The applicant removes concrete pad encroaching into the 6 foot setback area, and replaces it with landscaping required by Chapter 4.1 of the zoning ordinance. 4. The applicant shall submit a building permit for the accessory building which will indicate the location and materials utilized in the construction of the building. 5. The applicant executes a revised development agreement specifying the term of an interim use permit under the PUD and the termination date of such permit. 6. The accessory use building shall be subj ect to the review and requirements of the City Engineer, including those within the report dated 9/1/20. 7. The installation of the photo studio shall be permitted as an interim use for a period of 5 years from the date of Council approval. C. Public Hearin� — Consideration of a Request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for the Removal of a Required Fence & Conversion of Self-Stora�e Space into an Office Use Accessorv to the Self-Stora�e Use Applicant: Keith Burnham Sam Murdoff stepped down from the Planning Commission for this item and noted a conflict of interest existed. John Alstad was the acting Chair for this item. Steve Grittman provided an overview of the requested amendment to the original PUD that granted self-storage units. Grittman noted that the original approval included a variety of conditions including a phasing plan for landscaping and fencing. The phasing plan allowed the property owner to complete construction of the site and delay planting, fencing, and other improvements of the subj ect parcel to avoid damage due to construction of a series of smaller buildings. The applicant is seeking three changes to the site with this application. The addition of an on-site office and management staff did not raise any zoning concerns. It was noted that ample parking supply could accommodate that use. The second amendment is for a landscaping change adjoining the RVi center site. It was noted that the RVi center was permitted to have rock on the western adj oining property line, the applicant is proposing to replace grass with rock to blend in with the adjacent property. Staff did not see any issues for the City with that amendment. Grittman noted several other changes to the proposed landscaping plan, which included the addition of spruce trees and boulders. The most significant change to the approved original plans was to the rod iron styled Planning Commission Minutes — September lst, 2020 Page 5 � 11 fence with stone pillars every 100 feet along Chelsea Road and Innsbrook Drive frontages. The applicant is proposing to not construct the fence. Grittman noted that the intent of the fence was not for security, but rather for ornamental purposes. The applicant would replace that area with a changing grade to the landscaping area along Chelsea Road. Rather than a sloped area as originally proposed, the land would be flat and grassed adjacent to the pathway to a two foot high boulder retaining wall. Above the retaining wall, it would flatten out again with landscaping as proposed in the submitted plans. It was noted that there was an amendment to the original PUD plans in 2018. Grittman provided the existing conditions and proposed amended conditions as indicated in Exhibit Z. Staff recommended approval of the application. John Alstad asked for the reasons for the proposed changes. Grittman noted that the applicant indicated that the fence was liable to damage and there is similar fencing along Chelsea Road that has been routinely damaged. It would also be a more maintainable landscape along the pathway and avoid the "crinkle fence" look that can occur with a metal fence. It was noted that the fence was never a requirement by staff and was submitted by the developer as a part of his original application for his landscaping. It was noted that the Planning Commission would recommend action to the City Council. Paul Konsor clarified that the applicant was going to plant evergreen trees in exchange of the fencing. Grittman noted that the evergreen trees were added landscaping along the west boundary. The boulder wall is the new addition, with a portion being located where the original fence was proposed. John Alstad opened the public hearing. Sam Murdoff, 9368 Golden Pond Lane, noted that he was a proponent of the original fence. He felt the changes to the PUD seemed reasonable. Charlotte Gabler asked the applicant if the fence along Chelsea Road has been damaged by snow removal. Keith Burnham, the applicant, stated that he believed down the block it was damaged, but his property has not been damaged. Gabler asked if the applicant would be open to keeping fencing on the Innsbrook Drive as it is residential. Burnham provided an overview of the amount of landscaping that would be provided along Chelsea Road. He noted that there would be difficulty with moving snow to their ponding area if a fence was necessary. Burnham further explained his request to eliminate the fence and in addition he would spruce up the landscaping especially along the pathway on Chelsea Road and where the slope is currently difficult to maintain at a 4:1 ratio. The proposal included a total of 4061ineal feet of boulders with a 2 foot retaining wall along Chelsea Road. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission further discussed the advantages of the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes — September lst, 2020 Page 6 � 11 PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PG2020-025, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD FOR AFFORDABLE STORAGE, SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED CONDITIONS 1N EXHIBIT Z, 1NCLUDING AMENDING THE FENCE CONDITION TO DELETE THE FENCE AND REPLACE WITH THE 1MPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN DATED 8/10/20, 1NCLUDING THE 2-FOOT TALL BOULDER WALL AND OTHER ADDITIONS. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Affordable Storage PUD Adjustment 3936 Chelsea Road West Lot 11, Block 4, Groveland Addition 1. Redesign of the site plan to accommodate 24 feet of width for all drive aisles. 2. Provision for pavement markings and bollards in the center aisle area to ensure protection of building corners due to the curved aisle design. 3. Rock mulch in the planting areas to be larger irregular materials to protect pathway. 4. Transition grading between phases. 5. No outdoor storage permitted. 6. No use of future phase areas until such phase is developed in accordance with the approved plan. 7. Provide signage plans in compliance with Sign Ordinance requirements by separate permit. 8. Site lighting in compliance with City ordinances. 9. Compliance with City Engineer's report dated July Sth, 2017. 10. Execution of development agreement. 11. Grading and restoration of the site to be completed with first phase. 12. Utilities, including curb and gutter, completed for Phases 1 and 2 with the first phase of development. 13. The fence, as proposed at the August 2017 Planning Commission meeting, would be deleted and replaced with the improvements shown on the landscapin� plan dated 8/10/20, includin� the 2-foot tall boulder wall and other additions � o, i nn � o� .,i,,,,,. rt,oi�o., �t,.,ii �.o ;,,��.,iio,a �.., cor�o,�,�.o,- i c��.,,;�t, �t,o �;,-�� In the alternative, the Commission may require a reduced fencing component, Planning Commission Minutes — September lst, 2020 Page 7 � 11 concentrating on the corners of the site in question, utilizing the prior approved fence and post design. 14. Building elevations and materials for buildings facing Chelsea Road and Innsbrook Drive shall be as shown in the Planning Commission packet of August 1, 2017, and building elevations revised to clearly detail material and facades for all building within the project. 15. �e Approval of the landscaping plan dated 8/10/20 to ' � include a timeline for landscaping �^r D�,^�o ,;� �rr;�,. ''n, Q.,,,,a cor�o,,,�.o,- , c�_ > > , . as required bv Citv Council resolution. 16. Site �� plan subject to the City Engineer's comments and those of the Fire Department as related to the northerly access. 17. Modifvin� the ori�inal landscapin� plans to replace sod with rock mulch alon� the westerlv common boundarv with the RVi center as illustrated on the landscape plans dated 8/10/20. 18. The developer shall enter into an a�reement for the PUD Amendment. D. Public Hearin� — Consideration of a Request for Preliminarv and Final Plat for a Two-Lot Subdivision in a B-4 (Re�ional Business) District Applicant: Krishna, LLC Sam Murdoff returned to the dais and resided as chair over the meeting. Steve Grittman introduced the land use application for preliminary and final plat for a 4.5 acre parcel in Jefferson Commons subdivision. Grittman provided an aerial of the subj ect parcel and surrounding land uses. He noted the parcel is zoned B-4 (Regional Business) and the district does not have minimum lot area or width requirements. The City usually reviews subdivisions in that district to ensure that they accommodate reasonable commercial sized parcels to have parcels that can be commercially developed. Each parcel was proposed to be over 2 acres and are reasonably sized to accommodate commercial development. It was noted that the applicant has discussed developing Lot 1 on the proposal, but that the development was not part of the application. Grittman reviewed the proposed plat with the Planning Commission. It was noted a large drainage and utility easement exists on the lot and the applicant is seeking a vacation of approximately 40 feet of the 100 foot easement. The Engineering Department has reviewed this request and believes it to be a feasible aspect of this plat and will still allow the City to maintain the sewer line there. The vacation would free up more space on the plat for the future development. If the plat proceeds to City Council, the vacation and request for preliminary and final plat would be considered by City Council. Staff recommended approval of the application subj ect to the comments in Exhibit Z. Planning Commission Minutes — September lst, 2020 Page 8 � 11 Paul Konsor asked for clarification on the subdivision. It was noted the original parcel is one large lot, subdividing into two lots. Konsor asked why there was originally a 100 foot easement. Grittman responded that it was for a deep sewer line and when the City acquired the land in an exchange, they placed a very generous easement on the site. Engineering staff felt that the easement could be narrowed and still maintained. Konsor asked if a feasibility study was necessary due to an additional parcel and driveway, existing businesses in the vicinity, and being located along a curve. Grittman noted that it shouldn't affect any other parcel, but that it does offset the driveways. Konsor asked where the new proposed curb cut would be. Grittman noted that it would straddle the proposed lot line. Sam Murdoff asked why the development would not have its own access. Grittman responded that the access management for School Boulevard wanted to limit the total number of access points along the collector road. It is expected that over the long term, the roadway will eventually accommodate and carry a lot of traffic. The compromise was proposed to have a shared access between the two parcels. Murdoff asked why Culver's and Applebee's along Deegan Court have two separate accesses. It was noted that was because Deegan Court is not a collector route and rather a local road. Murdoff asked if a shared parking and access agreement needed to also be considered with the plat. Grittman responded that it is not part of the platting process, but would be part of the subsequent approval request for the site plan, which would be completed through a Conditional Use Permit for shared access. Murdoff opened the public hearing. Maikhou Vang, 3802 Hayward Court South, had a question of the proposed easement. Angela Schumann noted that property owners within 350 feet of the subj ect parcel received two separate notices. One for the public hearing held by the Planning Commission for the preliminary plat and the other for the vacation of easement at a future City Council meeting (September 28, 2020). Schumann provided an overview of the current and proposed easement. It was noted that the easement was not being proposed to change for her property or any other properties besides the subj ect parcel. Schumann added that there are perimeter easements for all existing adj acent parcels and that those easements would be maintained. Gabler asked if there would be a proposed berm between the commercial development and the residential parcels. Scott Dahlke, Civil Engineering Site Design/project engineer representing the applicant (Vikram Aggarwal/Krishna, LLC), responded that there was space to accommodate the proposed use. A proposed site plan was displayed. It was noted that there was a lot of landscaping along the lot lines of the northerly residential parcels and there would be space to include a healthy amount of landscaping and screening on the commercial site. It was noted that the proposed use is a daycare facility, which would include a fenced in playground areas. The fence would be setback from the property line to include landscaping outside of fenced in area. Dahlke also noted the location of the proposed shared access point. Planning Commission Minutes — September lst, 2020 Page 9 � 11 Vikram Aggarwal, the applicant, introduced himself. It was noted that the proposed daycare facility would be a part of the Goddard Schools system. Gabler noted that this facility was also being developed in Albertville. She asked what the hours of operation would be. Aggarwal responded that they would be open from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Aggarwal also noted that there is a tremendous need for childcare in the city. Murdoff closed the public hearing. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2020-026 FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KRISHNA COMMERCIAL, BASED ON THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED 1N EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT, AS WELL AS ON THE FINDINGS 1N SAID RESOLUTION. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Preliminary and Final Plat Krishna Commercial Lot 2, Block 1, Jefferson Commons 3''d Addition (Replatting to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Krishna Commercial) 1. City Council final action on vacating the 100' utility easements in place, and replacing them with the proposed easements on the Preliminary Plat drawing dated 08/10/20. 2. Location of the driveway curb cut at a shared access location, and appropriate zoning approvals related to that construction. The city waives the requirement for fee title property owner signature for application (as the parcel is tax forfeit), with the condition that the applicant obtain fee title to the property prior to filing of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall pay any required special assessment interest for prior city improvement proj ects as part of the property acquisition. 5. Execution of a development agreement related to the plat development. 6. Comments/Requirements of the City Engineer and other staff, including those related to right of way width for School Boulevard and any required easement for the existing trail. 7. Comments and recommendations of the Planning Commission. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Communitv Development Director's Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report. Planning Commission Minutes — September lst, 2020 Page 10 � 11 Schumann provided an in depth overview of the progress of the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It was noted that public feedback on the drafts was expected. A guide would be created to help stakeholders provide final feedback. A video regarding the comprehensive plan would be available with the public review drafts. In the video, there would be an invitation for stakeholders to participate in a community workshop that will be available in-person and virtually via streaming services. Schumann noted that the Planning Commission would be invited to also attend several meetings to participate in for September. A Concept Stage Planned Unit Development submittal has been received for a parcel along Chelsea Road West, with a meeting scheduled for September 28, 2020 at 5 p.m. In addition, the Planning Commission is invited to attend an upcoming EDA Meeting to hear a presentation regarding the Housing Report. Lastly, Schumann provided an update regarding the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning Partnership. The partnership is currently working on the second round of engagement and has invited the Planning Commission to participate. Sam Murdoff asked if the Planning Commission members would be notified to attend future events. Schumann confirmed and noted that Outlook appointments would be sent. 4. Added Items None. 5. Adjournment ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:50 P.M. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Recorder: Approved: Attest: Jacob Thunander October 6th, 2020 Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — September lst, 2020 Page 11 � 11 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September lst, 2020 — 4:15 p.m. Academy Room, Monticello Community Center Council Members Present: Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Lloyd Hilgart, and Charlotte Gabler Council Members Absent: Brian Stumpf Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, and Paul Konsor Commissioners Absent: Alison Zimpfer and Andrew Tapper Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business � A. Call to Order Sam Murdoff called the Special Meeting of the Monticello City Council & Planning Commission to order at 4:15 p.m. 2. Regular Agenda A. Concept Sta�e Planned Unit Development Proposal for a 68-Unit Twin Home Residential Development and Commercial Lod�in� Use Proposer: Mike Schneider Angela Schumann introduced the meeting and noted that staff, Planning Commission, and City Council members had the opportunity to visit the site prior to the start of the special meeting. She provided information about the purpose of the Concept Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) and process for the meeting. Steve Grittman also noted that the submittal was not a formal land use application and was meant to provide the applicant with feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council. Grittman noted that the next step would be to apply for Development Stage PUD, which requires a public hearing and formal review. Grittman noted the location of the proposal and stated that annexation would need occur to develop the submittal. He noted that the City is undergoing a comprehensive plan update and the draft land use map illustrates the area as "Employment Campus". He added that either way, if the City's current comprehensive plan or new comprehensive plan is in place, an amendment would be required with a formal land use application. Grittman explained the request was for twin home development proj ects, where each building consists of two buildings for a total of sixty units that are between two and half to three stories and a total development area of eight acres. He also explained parking and access. He noted that a hotel was proposed on the southeast portion of the subj ect development area, that parcel is owned by the City of Monticello. Grittman stated that some right of way would need to be acquired to accommodate the project. City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — September lst, 2020 Page 1 � 4 Grittman reviewed preliminary comments and potential issues that would need to be resolved prior to development of the site as indicated in the staff report. An engineering report was also provided with the staff report. It was noted that more detailed plans would be necessary if the project decided to move forward in the next development approvals. Grittman opened the meeting for questions of the City Council or Planning Commission. Bill Fair had questions about the streets in terms of emergency vehicle access, snow removal and storage, and lengths of the driveways. Staff noted that those were all important areas to review with a formal land use application. It was noted that the site could likely accommodate snow removal. Sam Murdoff asked the applicant if they had any questions and would like to speak Mike Schneider introduced his development team and explained his proposal in detail. He reiterated that there would be 39 rental twin home buildings and a 72-unit motel. He explained that Monticello has a fair share of rental, but there are very few options for rental twin homes and that this provides greater options to residents. He also noted that the setback from the interstate would be like Monticello Crossings. Schneider commented that they are looking for an upscale hotel to locate on their development proposal and would work with Bluesky Hospitality to further narrow down their choice of a motel. Schneider also explained the development requests right-of-way needs from both the City and State of Minnesota Department of Transportation. He provided some history on the roadways and reasons to vacate it for his proposal, even with a possible expansion of the interstate from Albertville to Monticello. Schneider commented on the proposed land use designation. He believed that because the surrounding area is entirely residential, that the proposed land use designation was not appropriate. Lastly, after discussion with Wright County Assessor's Office, it was noted that an estimated additional $428,500 in real estate taxes would be collected annually if the proj ect were completed as proposed. Charlotte Gabler responded that she sits on the I-94 Coalition. She provided some background on the future potential expansion of the interstate between Albertville and Monticello. She noted that it was an estimated 60-million-dollar proj ect and that the organization has been applying for funding to help push the proj ect to a closer time horizon. She also added that a noise wall would be an additional two- million-dollars. She noted that she hears complaints often about the amount of noise from the interstate and was concerned about noise at the proposed development. She also mentioned that she would like to see some type of commercial in the area and the importance of balancing development on the east side of town with the community as a whole. City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — September lst, 2020 Page 2 � 4 Lloyd Hilgart added that the development would be the first thing you would see when approaching Monticello. He had concerns about the use and density of the site. Sam Murdoff echoed concerns about noise. He did not feel commercial or employment campus was the best land use for the site though. Questions also arose about the location of the hotel on the site and its proximity to residential. The developer's team responded to some of the initial concerns by members of the Council and Commission. It was noted that the hotel was just shown as a placeholder and would likely be adjusted with a formal application. They also commented that the purpose of acquiring some of the Broadway right-of-way would be to shift the development closer to the south to help with noise concerns. It was noted a smaller sized noise wall or retaining wall could be considered for construction, and that a MnDOT two-million-dollar noise wall was unrealistic and unfeasible for a private developer. The developer also noted that they would use sound buffering materials such as triple pane window and foam insulation in their housing product. There would also not be any front doors facing the interstate and that part of the intent of the twin homes was to not have a long continuous wall of townhomes, which would break up the noise better. Gabler asked if the hotel would need to be surrounded by other commercial and amenities including a restaurant. The developer noted concerns with the develop area having commercial or employment campus types of uses on the parcel. Fair asked if the rentals would have vouchers or subsidy requests. Schneider declined. He envisioned people between the ages of 25 and 40 primarily living at these units and that they would be mid to upper-end styled living. Murdoff asked if the developer considered moving the hotel to the opposite side of the development proposal. Schneider declined and noted concerns with doing so. Gabler asked who the twin homes would serve. Schneider indicated that typically residents seek one to five-year leases and they take better care of the units. She also asked if there was a better layout for the twin homes. Schneider noted that he preferred not to sprinkle the buildings, which would be avoided with the proposed development. He noted that he would use steel siding so that it would not be as susceptible to fire damage. It was noted that the developer owns and manages rental properties in Litchfield. These units are different in that they are affordable units and were built in 1997. Hilgart noted a difference between the unit counts that were listed on the submittal and the amount Schneider proposed verbally. It was noted that the development team provided a more detailed plan with inputting setbacks and other ordinance requirements. The total proposed units would be 78 but could change based on feedback. Setbacks were discussed. It was noted by Ron Hackenmueller that a minimum of ten feet between walls of two buildings was City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — September lst, 2020 Page 3 � 4 required for fire access. A zoning ordinance amendment would be necessary for changes to setback Schneider responded that he did not want to amend the ordinance, rather comply with the existing rules. He noted he would take into consideration truck turning radius for fire trucks. Matt Leonard noted concerns with the many access points shown on the drawing. Paul Konsor asked if he was the current owner of the parcel or if he considered the development on a different site. Schneider confirmed he was the current owner. In his experience, there has been no interest in employment campus for the parcel. Fair asked if the developer would own and manage the rentals. Schneider indicated that an on-site manager would live on site and serve the needs of the neighborhood. Fair did not completely agree with the density, but felt there was plenty of amenities and that it was filling a niche not seen in Monticello. Alstad entertained the development, but was concerned with the low amount of greenspace. Schneider noted that a retention pond would need to be constructed, likely closer to the bridge. He added that a fence would also be constructed around the pond and include a dog walking area/park. Jim Davidson echoed concerns about land conveyance for residential projects, access points, and density. He noted that the placement of the motel seemed out of place. Fair asked if there had been other proposals for the City owned parcel. The boards went around and summarized their concerns for the project. Overall, there was a mixture of inembers for and against the land use. Murdoff asked if anyone from the public would like to speak about the development proposal. No responses were recorded. 3. Adjournment JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:56 P.M. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: October 6th, 2020 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — September lst, 2020 Page 4 � 4 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 28th, 2020 — 5:00 p.m. North Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Council Members Present: Mayor Brian Stumpf, Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Lloyd Hilgart, and Charlotte Gabler Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, Paul Konsor, Commissioners Absent: Andrew Tapper and Alison Zimpfer Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller, Matt Leonard, and Tom Pawelk 1. General Business ., A. Call to Order Sam Murdoff called the Special Meeting of the Monticello City Council and Planning Commission to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. Regular Agenda A. Concept Sta�e Planned Unit Development proposal for a Machinerv & Truck Sales & Repair use Proposer: Phil Watkins Angela Schumann introduced the meeting and explained the meeting was being held to review a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development submittal and for the boards to provide preliminary feedback. Steve Grittman noted that a proposed truck and equipment dealership was submitted for Chelsea Road West on about 10 acres. The site is located in two zoning districts: B-3 (Highway Business District) and IBC (Industrial and Business Campus District). Grittman noted that the applicants have noted they would like to apply for a rezoning to the I-2 (Heavy Industrial District), which permits machinery and truck repairs and sales. It was explained that because the applicant's site plan contains some unique aspects to it and the building is not typical of what is seen along the north side of Chelsea Road West or in the City's Otter Creek Industrial Park south of Chelsea Road West. Grittman was looking for comments regarding land use, site improvements, and building aspects. Grittman reviewed the proposed concept in detail along with staff's preliminary comments and issues as noted in the staff report. Staff opened the meeting up to discussion by the boards. Brian Stumpf asked why machinery and truck repair and sales was permitted in an industrial district, but not in the B-3 District, which leans towards vehicle sales/rental/automotive type uses. Schumann explained that the B-3 is a commercial district and you are finding retail transactions between a retail establishment and a direct consumer. With machinery and truck uses, the City considers it an industrial use because you are dealing with repair and sale of vehicles not necessarily to a direct consumer. Stumpf cautioned the use of spot zoning. Grittman noted compatibility with surrounding land uses for industrial. City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — September 28th, 2020 Page 1 � 4 Sam Murdoff asked for clarification of the surrounding zoning designations. Grittman noted that that north and south of Chelsea Road West is zoned industrial with the freeway frontage being designated IBC and the south side of Chelsea Road being designated I-1. Lloyd Hilgart noted that the parcel was previously zoned industrial, but cautioned against zoning it I-2 (Heavy Industrial). He noted that a PUD makes the most sense and recommended against an ordinance amendment to allow heavy equipment in the B-3. Hilgart also pointed out that he felt the proposed building was too small and suggested a larger building to support tax capacity goals. He also was against having a metal building for this development. Bill Fair explained that sales type uses are common in the area and that the request was compatible with surrounding land uses. He would however like to see the project apply for a PUD so that the City could have more say about building material, landscaping, and other improvements. Fair mentioned concerns about unpaved surfaces in regards to controlling dust and drainage, and also the tracking from equipment into the City's utility system. He also suggested a type of building that is compatible with other buildings in the area. Fair noted that it seemed like the business was working well in other cities that they are currently established in. Murdoff asked about the Otter Creek Business Park covenants and how far they extended. Grittman noted that they were in place by the City in Otter Creek Business Park (south of Chelsea Road). Charlotte Gabler noted that three PUDs are already in the area and that the use is similar to other uses seen in the surrounding area. She agreed with a larger building footprint with no metal treatments and adequate landscaping. Murdoff noted that he had no preference of whether to rezone to PUD or an industrial district. He felt it fit more in a B-3 District and the City should look at amending the zoning ordinance. Murdoff asked to see some of the same covenant standards in place from Otter Creek applied to this development due to high visibility and agreed with having no metal buildings. Stumpf explained the importance of keeping the uses consistent with the corridor and noted the importance of outdoor storage on the north side of Chelsea Road. Fair wanted a better understanding of how the business would plan to move trucks and equipment in and out of the site. Stumpf encouraged the use of Highway 25 to Chelsea Road. Paul Konsor was interested in learning more about the proposal's fencing. Sam Murdoff invited the applicant to explain their proposal in more details. Bob Nuss, Nuss Trucking and Equipment, provided more information about their proj ect proposal in Monticello. Phil Watkins, Nuss Trucking and Equipment, addressed concerns that were presented. He noted that they were open to enhanced building materials, landscaping and screening, fencing and limited City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — September 28th, 2020 Page 2 � 4 outdoor storage besides vehicle or related equipment storage. Watkins explained their request for an area that is non-concrete/bituminous for unloading and moving of equipment. The boards discussed the building materials and size of the building in detail. It was noted that they preliminarily proposed a building at 30,000 square feet, but would be open to expanding later if everything went well and the economy continued in the right direction. Hilgart noted that he would like to see the building be 40,000 square feet (nine percent building coverage) as is the standard for the B-3 District. Greg Nuss, Nuss Trucking and Equipment, explained that the reason for the size of the building was partially for energy conservation. He noted that they could still expand the building later on, but they wanted to make sure they had a team ready and could replicate their business model in Monticello. It was noted that they were not necessarily opposed to a 40,000 square foot building, but there was concerns with having too large of a building for their current needs and not having enough workers right away. It was asked if they have other buildings that have needed to be expanded. Nuss confirmed and noted that typically it would take 5-10 years before considering an expansion. Nuss indicated that the location of their possible expansion would be length wise to the west. Schumann also pointed out that there are buildings with the enhanced building coating in the community such as Monticello RV and Von Hanson's. She noted that it would be important to understand life and wear and tear on such building materials. She also explained that larger buildings are more costly to construct and that the City would not want to comprise the landscaping and screening for too much building space. She encouraged the boards and applicant to also understand where vehicles would be repaired and new vehicles would be sold and displayed. She also asked the boards to think about the amount and location of B- 3 designated land and typical uses allowed in the B-3 and encouraged the PUD route. Fair asked for a timeframe of the proposal. Greg Nuss indicated that they would like to start construction in the spring or as soon as possible. Nuss also explained that they would be looking for asphalt millings to be placed in certain areas and would work with staff on issues such as dust control. Gabler mentioned signage on the property. Greg Nuss indicated that they were flexible on signage. It was noted that they are located in the Freeway Bonus District, which allows greater sign flexibility. The applicants indicated that they would want to put a flag on site. Hilgart reiterated his comments regarding the building size, materials, and landscaping. The applicants were willing to work with the City. The applicants asked for an understanding of timing and next steps to continue with the project. It was noted that a PUD was likely the best route to move forward with and would require submitting a land use application for development stage PUD, preliminary plat, and comprehensive plan amendment. Pending approval of those applications, the applicant would revise their plans per City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — September 28th, 2020 Page 3 � 4 the conditions of approval and submit for final stage PUD and final plat, which would only be considered by the City Council. Staff noted that it was up to the applicant on how they want to move applications through, but staff would work with the applicants on timing. It was noted that the proj ect should be ready for development by the spring pending any tabling by City boards. Staff would follow up with all land use application materials, checklists, and deadline calendars for planning cycles. Schumann noted that Andrew Tapper was unable to be in attendance at the meeting, but he provided comments similar to those discussed previously regarding building materials, landscaping and screening, and outdoor storage. The applicant asked how to formulate their proposal using a certain zoning district or that it would be customized under the PUD. Grittman indicated that the PUD offers a customized zoning district that utilizes a site plan and architecture as a part of an approved package. Greg Nuss noted that their screening would be proposed to look similar to their St. Cloud facility. Hilgart asked if their outdoor storage was just for equipment. Nuss responded that their outdoor storage would be used for items other than equipment, such as buckets, and could be in a fenced in and screened area. Murdoff asked if the developer could include a boulder type landscaped design for featured truck sales or equipment. Greg Nuss entertained the idea of installing a number of display pads on the proposed site. John Alstad asked for more information on the history of the company. It was noted that the company began in 1959 in Rockford, Illinois. In the 1970's, the family moved to Minnesota and expanded their business. They are currently located in eight communities. 3. Adjournment PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:07 P.M JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 8-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: October 6th, 2020 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director City Council & Planning Commission Minutes (Special Meering) — September 28th, 2020 Page 4 � 4 2A. Planning Commission Agenda 10/06/2020 Public Hearing - Consideration of a Repuest for Ordinance Amendment relating to the Interim Use of propertv for Public Uses. Applicant: Citv of Monticella (NAC) Property: Planning Case Number: Legal: NA Address: NA 2020-028 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Deadline for Decision: Land Use Designation: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance establishing an Interim Use Permit for temporary indoor storage as an accessory activity in the B-3, I-1, and I-2 Districts. NA Places to Shop and/or Places to Work Zoning Designation: The purpose of the `B-3" (Highway Business) district is to provide for limited commercial and service activities and provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. The purpose of the "I-1," (Light Industrial) district is to provide for the establishment of warehousing and light industrial development. The purpose of the "I-2," (Heavy Industrial) district is to provide for the establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing development and uses which because of the nature of the product or character of activity requires isolation from residential or commercial use. Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Project Description: The City of Monticello is seeking to temporarily store public works equipment in existing buildings in the community as its current buildings are being replaced or removed, but prior to authorization of construction of new public works facilities at a new campus location — a proj ect that currently has no fixed timeline. To accommodate this temporary condition, the City proposes to amend the zoning ordinance to allow this public/governmental storage use by Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Agenda 10/06/2020 in a variety of potential locations, including the B-3, I- 1, and I-2 zoning districts. The presumption would be that the storage use would be a secondary use sharing the facility, although it may be the sole use of an otherwise vacant building. ANALYSIS As noted, the City is seeking temporary indoor storage space for its public works department equipment, pending the eventual construction of new public works facilities. To consider this proposal, staff is proposing that the use be added as an Interim Use Permit in each of the 3 districts. For the I-1 and I-2, the current zoning ordinance would allow this use in an existing building as a principal use occupant for warehousing, or as a tenant in a multi-tenant building. It should be noted that "Public Buildings or Uses" are already permitted in all three districts as principal uses — it is the introduction of this public warehousing/storage use as a second principal activity that requires the amendment. Without this amendment, any such shared property could result in the need for a PUD, which is not how PUD zoning is intended to be applied. In the B-3 District, storage is only allowed as an accessory use to a permitted principal use. As such, the City could not utilize an existing B-3 building since its storage would not be "accessory" — it constitutes a separate principal use of the property. As such, the amendment intends to allow municipal indoor storage as a "secondary" use — presumably unrelated to the principal use on the site. Because some of the potential facilities may consist of storage in separate buildings, the amendment is structured to address the use specifically in each district as an IUP. Three aspects of the zoning ordinance would be amended. The first would be the Use Table in Section 5-1, under Civic and Institutional Uses. A new line item would be added as follows: Second, a new reference for such Warehousing would be added as 5.2.(D)(10) to which the section would link, and read as follows: 2 Planning Commission Agenda 10/06/2020 Section 52 (D) (10) Public Warehousing, Temporary: (a) The use shall be allowed by Interim Use Permit, with a termination date of no later than five (5) years from the date of approval. (b) The interim use shall apply to public storage of equipment only, and shall not apply to any private entity, either during or after the term of the permit. (c) The use, if not allowed as a permitted principal use, may be a "Secondary Use" allowed on the property, separate and unrelated to the principal use. (d) The use shall occupy indoor storage only, in one or more existing buildings, and shall not include outdoor storage. (e) The use shall otherwise meet all zoning and building code standards. (� The use shall not interfere with other permitted, conforming private uses of the property, nor with the provision of public services to the property or the neighborhood in which it is located. (g) No signage shall be allowed identifying the use, other than permitted directional signage on the property. Finally, a definition for the proposed use would be added to the Definitions portion of the ordinance. That definition would be added in Section 8.4, and would read as follows: Public Warehousing: The indoor storage of equipment and/or materials by a government agency which may, or may not, be related to other principal uses on the same property. With these restrictions, the proposed storage should not raise use or grandfathering issues for future re-use of the buildings after the City is no longer in need of the storage area. The IUP terminates the rights of the property for this use, and does not roll over to a subsequent user, as would a Conditional Use Permit. The limitation on signage and prohibition on outdoor storage are both intended to further discourage any private interest in this type of permit. It is expected that the City will propose an IUP on a specific property at a public hearing in November, pending adoption of the amendment. Planning Commission Agenda 10/06/2020 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS L Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2020-027, recommending approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance adding Public Warehousing, Temporary as a secondary use of existing buildings in the B-3, I-1, and I-2 zoning districts by Interim Use Permit, based on findings in said Resolution. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC 2020-027, recommending denial of the proposed amendment, based on findings identified after the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the Resolution, subj ect to additional information from staff. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends Alternative 1. The amendment provides the City with flexibility during an interim period as additional permanent public works department facilities are being explored. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution 2020-027 B. Draft Ordinance C. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Excerpts 0 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020 -027 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD TEMPORARY PUBLIC WAREHOUSING AS A SECONDARY USE BY INTERIM USE PERMIT IN THE B-3, I-1, AND I-2 ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City's Public Works Department has need for temporary equipment storage; and WHEREAS, the additional permanent storage opportunities are being studied, but require unspecified additional time; and WHEREAS, the proposed storage would raise few issues for surrounding properties in B-3, I-1, or I-2 zoning districts; and WHEREAS, public buildings are permitted as separate uses in the subject zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would accommodate the public storage use on a temporary basis by Interim Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the public warehousing activity would be allowed as a secondary use of property without the need for PUD zoning or requirements of accessory uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 6th, 2020 on the application and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: The Zoning Ordinance amendment provides an appropriate means of furthering both the intent and the specific goals and policies for land use in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use raises no extraordinary issues for the City's regulation of storage uses or buildings. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020 -027 3. The ordinance incorporates applicable provisions of staff comment, including engineering, land use, and public services. 4. The proposed use is expected to have no negative impacts on municipal public services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approves the Zoning Ordinance amendment, based on the findings listed above. ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 2020, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION : ATTEST: Sam Murdoff, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 5.1, TABLE 5-1 USES BY DISTRICT; SECTION 5.2(D) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS; AND SECTION 8.4, DEFINITIONS; RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF TEMPORARY PUBLIC STORAGE AS AN INTERIM USE PERMIT IN THE B-3, I-1, AND I-2 DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 5.1, Table 5-1 is hereby amended to add "Public Warehousing, Temporary" as an Interim Use in the B-3, I-1, and I-2 Zoning Districts. Section 2. Section 5.2 D) — Additional Requirements, is hereby amended to add the following: � (10) Public Warehousing, Temporary: (a) The use shall be allowed by Interim Use Permit, with a termination date of no later than five (5) years from the date of approval. (b) The interim use shall apply to public storage of equipment only, and shall not apply to any private entity, either during or after the term of the permit. (c) The use, if not allowed as a permitted principal use, may be a"Secondary Use" allowed on the property, separate and unrelated to the principal use. (d) The use shall occupy indoor storage only, in one or more existing buildings, and shall not include outdoor storage. (e) The use shall otherwise meet all zoning and building code standards. (� The use shall not interfere with other permitted, conforming private uses of the property, nor with the provision of public services to the property or the neighborhood in which it is located. (g) No signage shall be allowed identifying the use, other than permitted directional signage on the property. Section 3. Section 8.4, Definitions, is hereby amended to add the following: Public Warehousing: The indoor storage of equipment and/or materials by a government agency which may, or may not, be related to other principal uses on the same property. Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title 10, Zoning Ordinance, and to renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process, provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as has been adopted. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. The ordinance in its entirety shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. � `� � w ATTEST: Jeff O'Neill, Administrator AYES: NAYS: Brian Stumpf, Mayor � � � � eHAPrE� s: usE sraNDAaas Section 5. I Use Table ��ubsection (A) F�rplanation of Use Table Structure � � . .- . � -. �.. . . . . -. -. • . -. Residential Uses 5.2(C1( I 1 Attached Dwelling Types 5.2(Cl(21(al - Duplex p C 5.2(Cl(21(bl - Townhouse C p 5.2(Cl(21(cl - Multiple-Family C P C C 5.2(Cl(21(dl Detached Dwelling p p p p p p None Group Residential P P P P P 5 2(C1(31 Facility, Single Family Group Residential C C C 5.2(C1(31 Facility, Multi-Family Mobile & Manufactured C C C P C 5.2(Cl(41 Home / Home Park Civic & Institutional Uses Active Park Facilities P P P P P P P P P P P p p p p None (public) Active Park Facilities P P P P P P P 5 2(D1(11 (private) Assisted Living Facilities C P C C P 5•2(Dl(21 Cemeteries C C C C C C C 5•2(Dl(3l Clinics/Medical Services C p p C None Essential Services p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p None Hospitals C p p C 5.2(D1(41 Nursing/Convalescent C C C C C C C C C P P 5.2(Dl(51 Home Passenger Terminal C C C C None Passive Parks and Open P P P P P P P P P P P P �} p p p None Space Place of Public Assembly C C C C C p C 5.2(D1(61 Public Buildings or Uses C C C C C C C P C C P P C P P 5•2(Dl(71 Schools, K-12 C C C C C C � � 5.2(Dl(81 Schools, Higher Education None C Utilities (major) C C C 5.2(Dl(91 �„aa��a t1� ti°i(3tFUCCBBi7 L�ir11i� i�i`C3tYtua€: '' �'ii��.—B .�.�I cHAPrER s: USE STAhlDARDS Section 5. I Use Table Subsection (A) F�cplanation o f Use Table Structure � � . .- . � -. �.. . . . . -. -. • . -. Commercial Uses Adult Uses P P 3.7(Kl Auction House C 5.2(El(21 Auto Repair — Minor C C P P 5.2(El(31 Automotive Wash Facilities P C 5.2(E1(41 Bed & Breakfasts C C C C C 5.2(El(51 Brew Pub P P 5.2(El(61 Business Support Services P P P P P None Commercial Lodging C P P 5.2(El(71 Commercial Self-Storage C P 5.2(Fl(31 Communications/Broadcasting P P P P 5.2(El(81 Convenience Retail C P P P 5.2(E1(91 Country Club C 5.2(�(10�. Day Care Centers C C P P C 5.2(�( I I�. EntertainmentlRecreation, p p C C C 5.2(�( � 2�. Indoor Commercial EntertainmentlRecreation, C C C C 5.2(E�(13� Outdoor Commercial Event Center C C C 5.2(E�(14� Financiallnstitution P C P 5.2(E�(15� Funeral Services P P 5.2(�(16�. Kennels (commercial) C 5.2(�(17�. Landscaping / Nursery P 5 2(�( � 8�. Business Offices p p p p p p p 5.2U(20� Personal Services C P P P 5.2(�(22�. Production Brewery or Micro-Distillery without P P 5.2(�( � 2� Taproom Production Brewery or 5 2(E�(23� Micro-Distillery with C C C C C 5 2(�( j 3� Taproom or Cocktail Room Recreational Vehicle Camp C 5.2(�(24�. Site Repair Establishment C P P P P 5.2(E�(25� Restaurants C P P C 5.2(E�(26� Page 358 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance eHA�rE� s: usE sr��aAa�s Section 5. I Use Table ��ubsection (A) F�rplanation of Use Table Structure � � . .- . � -. �.. . . . . -. -. • . -. Retail Commercial Uses (other) Buildings Less P P P 5.2(�(27� than 10,000 SF Retail Commercial Uses (other) Buildings Over C P P 5.2(E�(27� 10,000 SF Specialty Eating C P P P 5.2(E�(28� Establishments Vehicle Fuel Sales C C C 5.2(E�(29� Vehicle Sales and Rental C 5.2(E�(30� Veterinary Facilities C 5.2(E�(3 I� (Rural) Veterinary Facilities C C C 5.2(�(3 I� (Neighborhood) Wholesale Sales P P P None Industrial Uses Auto Repair — Major C P P 5.2(Fl( I 1 Bulk Fuel Sales and p p 5 2(Fl(21 Storage Contractor's Yard, � � � 5 2(F1(41 Temporary Extraction of Materials I I I 5.2(F1(51 General Warehousing C P P 5.2(F1(61 Heavy Manufacturing C 5.2(Fl(71 Industrial Services C P None Industrial Self-Storage Facilities C C 5.2(Fl(81 Land Reclamation C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.2(F1(91 Light Manufacturing P P P 5.2(F�(10� Machinery/Truck Repair & Sales P P 5'2(�( I I� Recycling and Salvage Center C C 5.2(�(14� Truck or Freight C C 5.2(F�( I 5� Terminal Waste Disposal & Incineration C 5.2(F�(16� Wrecker Services C P 5.2(F�(17� City of Monticello Zoning Ordinanc:: Page 359 Planning Commission Agenda: 10/06/20 3A. Consideration to adopt a resolution findin� that the proposed acquisition of 101, 107 and 121 West Broadwav for redevelopment purposes bv the Citv of Monticello Economic Development Authoritv is consistent with the Citv of Monticellds comprehensive plan. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to consider a recommendation finding that the acquisition of 101, 107 and 121 West Broadway by the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority is in conformance to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The acquisition includes commercial building/property on three parcels. It is being acquired for the direct purposes of supporting riverfront redevelopment as envisioned by the Downtown Small Area Plan. The property is located in Block 52 which is located at the northwest corner of Broadway and TH 25. All three parcels front on Broadway with one being in the middle of the block and two of them at the southeast corner of block A map illustrating current City/EDA ownership of parcels on Block 52 is attached for reference. The parcels are guided "Downtown" within the current Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan adopts the Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan as the guiding document for downtown development and land use. The Downtown Small Area Plan specifically recommends leveraging the public property on this block to "create a new signature development with market rate housing and a destination restaurant or entertainment use overlooking the park and river". The plan views the area as key to the success of downtown revitalization, suggesting as an immediate Next Step and Implementation measure to "Aggressively market development opportunities such as Block 52...". The draft Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan also incorporates the Small Area Plan as the guidance and foundation for growth and development within the Downtown. The acquisition site is currently zoned CCD, Central Community District, which is the City's downtown zoning district. There are zoning standards in place specific to the downtown, which are in the process of being updated. The EDA plans to work with a developer and the City (which owns the Walnut Street public parking lot) to develop a project which maximizes the community's connection to the Mississippi River, ideally a mixed-use proj ect including both residential and commercial components. The EDA authorized entering into a purchase agreement on the property at its regular September meeting. The purchase agreement includes a reference to the Planning Commission's review. The Commission's role is to provide a report to the EDA on the conformance of the acquisition to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Agenda: 10/06/20 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2020-028 finding that the proposed acquisition of certain land at 101, 107 and 121 West Broadway by the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority is consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan for "Downtown" uses. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff supports Alternative #1 above. Acquisition of this property by the EDA is a key proj ect in moving forward with redevelopment on Block 52 as outlined within the Downtown Small Area Plan and Comprehensive Plan. Acquisition of these parcels by the EDA is in clear support of the Downtown Small Area Plan's goals for revitalization on the block, as the property connects the downtown directly to the river and future redevelopment on the site supports the plan's four main goals: 1. Become a River Town 2. Improve the Pine Street experience for all 3. Focus on small and medium investments 4. Shift the center of downtown to Broadway and Walnut D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Resolution PC-2020-028 B. AerialImage C. Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3— Land Use, Excerpts D. Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan — Excerpts E. City/EDA Ownership Exhibit, Current 9/20 � CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-028 A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO' S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") proposes to purchase certain property (the "Property") located at 101, 107, and 121 West Broadway in the City of Monticello (the "City"), legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, for the purposes of redevelopment; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356, subd. 2 requires the City Planning Commission to review the proposed acquisition or disposal of publicly-owned real property within the City prior to its acquisition or disposal, to determine whether in the opinion of the Planning Commission, such acquisition or disposal is consistent with the comprehensive municipal plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed acquisition of the Property, and has determined that the Property is guided and zoned Downtown, and is designated as an area for mixed commercial and multifamily residential uses within the City's comprehensive plan and Small Area Study, that the Authority's purpose is to redevelop the Property consistent with these uses, and that the proposed acquisition is therefore consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, that the acquisition of the Property by the Authority is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and will promote the redevelopment of a portion of the downtown area of the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be communicated to the Board of Commissioners of the Authority. Adopted this 6th day of October, 2020, by the Monticello Planning Commission. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION I� ATTEST: Sam Murdoff, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property A strip of land 16 1/2 feet frontage on Broadway and 90 feet in depth in the Southeast corner of Lot 8, Block 52, Townsite of Monticello, also described as the Southeasterly 16.5 feet of the Southwesterly 90.00 feet of said Lot 8, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the Southeasterly and Southwesterly lines thereof. Lot 9, Block 52, Townsite of Monticello. Lot 10, Block 52, Townsite of Monticello, except that part of Lot 10, Block 52, City or Townsite of Monticello, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 10; thence Southerly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 10 a distance of 36.00 feet; thence Westerly to a point on the Northwesterly line of Lot 10 distant 36.00 feet Southerly of the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 10; thence Northerly along said Northwesterly line of said Northwesterly corner; thence Easterly along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 10 to the point of beginning. The Easterly 20 feet of Lot 3 and Lot 4 and Lot 5, except the East 18 feet 10 inches of said Lot 5 (the East 18' 10" of said Lot 5 being sold to Roy A. Lauring and is described: That part of Lot 5 being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southerly point of said Lot 5; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly side of Lot 5, 18 feet 10 inches; thence Northeasterly and parallel to the Southeasterly side of said Lot 5 to the Northeasterly line of said Lot 5; thence Southeasterly 18 feet 10 inches to the most Easterly point of said Lot 5; thence Southwesterly to point of beginning), all in Block 52 in the Townsite of Monticello, according to Plat of record by John O. Haven. Wright County, Minnesota, Abstract Property 101, 107, and 121 West Broadway, Monticello, MN 55362 � � � � . ,.. 5 . � � . C:�4:' �� `� � I k M,`�� I e �� ._ ' �,� .. � . � �* . . �� . a' . . �` p (�, ';: O4 .-�.. f�t�� . � t"'} � �br . . � � ,.. � �`k• i � .' �� Q3� : �' U ��' .� � � � � 1� .r� F� � ��,�. �J� - � c°prV %"� � . � ,� �� ad z'.. �., G] '.�, . U�'� , r�'� � .:_;V.`r . U� S� ,....,1� ` . �; �(�. � P � � ��. � +�' , �'.^�� ' ;, i _ �,� � � � � � Q ��"'� ' `'-.. . rc�T � ° � � ` M � E�y�Pd `�re;-� . . �,�� . ` � � 4 ` lC7 "• !� i i � i,�,.. h ': ..��' ' . ��" .. � � ■ � ��' -s' �: , • �� ' �, . y�. ti .,. . Q '.. r ` ,S ' h �!`� �"�,. �''' � 4 � ..+ ; +� - � ;�a ��:� i �. -, � � �f [a � .. , . 6�� . �� • � � A._ . , .� �', . �,¢� f �� p0 .. w�. y t..� � 'fs. .. � � ��1�',%� �` �� 4. �� y� �`s � � ' � .,�.� :. N� ,f . � �'' �: ' `��. 3 - li `'� . r �, � , �' s ,'� �' , �s N .� �,'A, �r' � �-.;w' .•, � i' �':i rF . � . �,� � �r •,.; � �; �Q �. �' � �, "1 ' s � � ' • � �� N�a �. ; �g � ' ' i " �. ..�� •„� � �.. .� �y � �;'. . �=' 1�. � � ` r� 'F... � ��.... i� 6 m . . • �` f+ O a ` T � �� u � ' � � �� + � /, ''� �� ' ; ' � ��- '�+ � + � �+ �� 7' �s t --.�:. � ,� � ��'� �'t. �rr �.. � J+ -9 0 `� •; . � `�' ~r � �''1 �r y„ . �`� � �,,� w��e � �� " � �+ , .. . , . r .� r � , , � f , .y� =� ':!� � `",. -".+w � � � � .' - � ` ., r ... �.�o,,� ' r �' c-�� r };._ �' `�..�. �� '� ,� ` . " ;� ,��; -� ��,: � � %f�� ' I� . _ � �� ' �_ � �S��N7b � , �; � �'� : yY �a`� � '� _ � � �� _C �`' �� Y � 4#,. ��;� 'kF.• � �` .,�- , `' �Q `� _ �, ' ��" .i, �. .r � � r � , r`''. �. . . � � .::."'-� � � . � }�� . y, p+� � � .. � ��' ' .. � � ^ � �'� �'' � � � �`T' � u> � ` � l,. �'�;` ' �� _ c� � ` = � O kF � � �`�r� �� a �� . F � i m � ��''� � � � -�,�� -� � i. � � ' �, <'�, �,� ' � ,: +� � �, �� .y „�.k K � � `` . -�S � � . � ! u—r . ,� .: • .1r1,� ��,„ 4v � � �� '� � �� `' � �� 'I� � ` �. � t7�'�I � �� .��.�_ ,�� .,...� ��"'_. , - , ,� �� . , ` ., �_ • �: ' p .'`-- � .... - .... N � � ,. � •' `� - ��, � � � ' "! : . �.ati.: 1 � . ..: � . i . .. ��..� "�' ; a r � . � � ~1�: � � - _, � � + F�`' "•v r '� � � � , F � . � , � f ' ` � � � ,t � .: a, �� r } `� ', �Y � '�L. Y. � .. I O ,,� r 4 ' �, � � �, � . � � �,, '�� z� �A�S� �.. � .. �� . 1. - . � + � � ~ '�i �f�i�'� � ' .� � � , � . . � !: � � s �` �`F tir `� � ` ,� � � ` `�'�� M � '�` ` ��'` ' r—�� , +�� ' '� � /�+ N �� . �_ ,�, .�w� �� ` � , , ' ..(S� J : , - } �� .: �� . N �C ' Cj ' • �' � . , -: ,. � . . , - ,. U ' � ;. w . , uu r'° 0 yR �'4- = p . . .•. , � . '. Y � � � ., * r- � � � �. �, � m :�:, �-.,�� . . .�; � , �� R�' °'�a'.:.. . � � / of manufacturing, processing, warehousing, distribution and related businesses. 5. Places to Worl< may include non-industrial businesses that provide necessary support to the underlying development objectives of this land use. Examples of supporting land uses include lodging, office supplies and repair services. Additional public objectives and strategies for Places to Worl< can be found in the Economic Development chapter. Places to Shop Places to Shop designate locations that are or can be developed with businesses involved with the sale of goods and services. Places to Shop may include offices for service businesses. Places to Shop guides land uses that are both local and regional in nature. Policies - Places to Shop � °�,._ � '. � - i� ' � . - - � . <# � � � y �� _ • ��M1 ' .;. -_ The Comprehensive Plan describes issues, plans and policies related to the Downtown in several sections of the Plan. between the commercial parcel and adjacent residential uses. These policies help to create sustainable locations for Places to Shop in a manner that enhances Monticello. In guiding land uses for Places to Shop, the Downtown Comprehensive Plan seel<s to: 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 1he Comprehensive Plan seel<s to attract and retain businesses that provide goods and services needed by Monticello residents. The Comprehensive Plan seel<s to capture the opportunity for commercial development that serves a broader region. Places to Shop with a regional orientation should be located where the traffic does not disadvantage travel within Monticello. Commercial development will be used to expand and diversify the local property tax base and as an element of a diverse supply of local jobs. Places to Shop will be located on property with access to the street capacity needed to support traffic from these businesses. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of parl<ing that mal<es it convenient to obtain the goods and services. Building materials, facades and signage should combine with public improvements to create an attractive setting. 7. Site design must give consideration to defining edges and providing buffering or separation The Embracing Downtown Plan was adopted by City Council resolution 2012-011 on January 9, 2012. The City einbarked on an update to the Downtown Plan in 2017and the Downtown Sinall Area Plan was adopted by City Council resolution 2017-070 on SepteJnber 25, 2017 and is herein incorporated as an appendix of the Coinprehensive Plan. Downtown is a unique commercial district that is part of Monticello's heritage and identity. It is, however, no longer possible for powntown to be Monticello's central business district. 1he mass of current and future commercial development south of Interstate 94 along TH 25 and in east Monticello along interstate 94 have replaced the downtown area as primary shopping districts. 1he future success of downtown requires it to be a place unlil<e any other in Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan seel<s to achieve the Vision, and Goals described in the Downtown Small Area Plan. Downtown is intended to be a mix of inter-related and mutually supportive land uses. Businesses involved with the sale of goods and services should be the focus of Downtown land use. Residential development facilitates reinvestment and places potential customers 2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-13 in the Downtown area. Civic uses draw in people from across the community. During the planning process, the potential for allowing commercial activity to extend easterly out of the Downtown along Broadway was discussed. 1he Comprehensive Plan consciously defines Cedar Street as the eastern edge of Downtown for two basic reasons: (1) Downtown should be successful and sustainable before new areas of competition are created; and (2) The Comprehensive Plan seel<s to maintain and enhance the integrity of residential neighborhoods east of Downtown. More than any other land use category, Downtown has strong connections to other parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the City has adopted the Downtown Small Area Plan as its guiding planning document for the Downtown. The following parts of the Comprehensive Plan also address community desires and plans for the Downtown area: ► ► The Land Use chapter contains a specific focus area on Downtown. The focus area contains a more detailed discussion of the issues facing the Downtown and potential public actions needed to address these issues. The operation of the street system is a critical factor for the future of Downtown. The Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Frameworl< of the Downtown Small Area Plan influence the ability of residents to travel to Downtown and the options for mitigating the impacts of traffic on Highway 25 and other Downtown streets. ► The Parl<s chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the Parl<s & Open Space Frameworl< of the Downtown Small Area Plan provide for parl<s in the Downtown and the trail systems that allow people to reach Downtown on foot or bicycle. ► The Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the Implementation chapter of the Downtown Small Area Plan lay the foundation for public actions and investments that will be needed to achieve the desired outcomes. Goals - Downtown ► Improve Pine Street for all users. ► Shift the center of Downtown to Broadway and Walnut Streets ► Encourage Small and Medium Scaled Investments ► Become a River Town Policies/Guiding Principles - Downtown 1. � 3. 4. 5. I� Downtown is a special and unique part of Monticello. It merits particular attention in the Comprehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve community plans and objectives. Downtown is intended to be an inter-connected and supportive collection of land uses. Land uses should support and enhance the overall objectives for powntown. The City will build on core assets of greater Downtown Monticello as identified in the Downtown Small Area Plan. lhese assets include the preponderance of civic activity, proximity to the river, a grid of streets and small blocl<s, and a varied building stocl< - both old and new. A shared vision among property owners, business owners and the City is the foundation for effective team worl< and long term success. A shared understanding of realistic marl<et potential is the foundation for design and generation of a healthy mix of land uses. This includes both residential and non-residential land uses. Housing the core blocl<s is encouraged to be medium density (apartments or townhouses) and to face the perimeter of the blocl<s and be pedestrian friendly, either with street level commercial uses or doors, stoops, porches, plazas, or other features that face the sidewall<. A safe, attractive human scale environment and entrepreneurial businesses that actively emphasize personal customer service will differentiate Downtown from other shopping districts. Property values can be enhanced if property owners and the City share a vision for powntown and actively seel< to cultivate a safe, appealing environment and attractive mix of inter-related uses. 3-14 � Land Use City of Monticello 8. Housing in the Downtown can facilitate necessary redevelopment and bring potential customers directly into the area. Housing may be free- standing or in shared buildings with street level commercial uses. 9. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To the degree possible, unique public facilities (such as the Community Center, the Library and the Post Office) should be located in the Downtown area as a means to bring people into the Downtown. 10. Downtown should emphasize connections with the Mississippi River that are accessible by the public. It is especially important to design Broadway so it is easy and safe to cross as a pedestrian or cyclist - with an emphasis on Walnut and Cedar Streets. 11. Downtown should be a pedestrian-oriented place in a manner that cannot be matched by other commercial districts. Pedestrian scale is achieved at the scale of both the blocl< and the building. Blocl<s should reflect the historic fabric of the City and buildings should present a pedestrian friendly facade to the sidewall<. 12. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free parl<ing for customers distributed throughout the area. The Downtown should be well connected so customers are comfortable wall<ing 1-2 blocl<s from their car to their destination. 13. The City and business community must worl< actively with MnDOT to ensure safe local access to the Downtown. All of these policies worl< together to attract people to Downtown and to enhance the potential for a successful Downtown environment. Mixed Use The Mixed Use is a transition area between the Downtown and the hospital campus. It has been created in recognition of the unique nature of this area. 1he area serves two functions. It is the edge between long-term residential neighborhoods and a major transportation corridor (Broadway Street). It is also a linl< between the Downtown, the hospital campus and the east interchange retail area. 1he primary goal of this land use is to preserve and enhance housing in this part of Monticello. Any non-residential development should be designed to minimize the impacts on and conflicts with adjacent neighborhoods. Policies - Mixed Use 1 2. 3. Development should not have direct access to Broadway street. Access should come from side street. Non-residential development should be limited to small retail, service and office businesses. 1he scale, character and site design should be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. All non-residential development will be oriented to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River Street. 4. Commercial development compatible with the Downtown should be encouraged to locate there. 5. More intense housing and commercial uses may be allowed if directly related to the hospital. Places to Recreate Places to Recreate consist of public parl<s and private recreation facilities. The land uses are essential elements of the quality of life in Monticello. 1he Parl<s and Trails chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes the current parl< and trail system and the future plan to maintain and enhance this system. The Comprehensive Plan is only one aspect of managing the land use for public parl<s and private recreation facilities. 1he City's zoning regulations place these locations into a zoning district. Often, the purpose of the zoning district is to guide private development, such as housing. Under current State Law, zoning regulations "trump" the Land Use Plan and govern the use of land. With the potential for the redevelopment of golf courses, it is important the Comprehensive Plan and other land use controls worl< in concert to achieve the desired outcomes. The City's plans and policies for parl<s, trails and open space can be found in the Parl<s chapter of the Comprehensive Plan 2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-15 i � a � a, � a � � N C � O a+ C � O � O ai u � C C� C � � � u z 0 � Z o� _o v u � �v• o w � m �p o p L Y w av a a` � �¢ � � v Y v� Y; � v �� a �, a c � 'a o � � � o .a � v L t v � �� a �- �o� � � � a v � 3 0 F L � a a 8 3 � b a � � H 7 N � C 'd d k y�'i N H � bq L 7 u w v C k �+ 7 C � 3 0 �+ 3 " F 'd w b O y L � Y C V m x �+ �+ w x H L N 5 .'i a L 0 r m i m C 'a a 0 E � .ti ro v �, ��, c°'�n �� N�' o y w o � . v;� v 7'�a T +� �� o� `° o y A �' °� o o�'� ° N m p, a+ � °, " � � " v a, �, ;; v ° � � ;°' o �, '°' m � ° ,� � °' a, �y v... a�, � y N a�N � � y �� o �� o�m v � � a, a .o o °' � ° �, �S o � a �' �o q° g � � v °' o. >.'� � � > � 7 � a-o � � � mw "� � v °�'° o,�' o�' 'v 7 v v'ti v.y > w v 5 �tl v ° � y � ,�, .. � ° � o a�i .� � '�' � o � ° N 7 � � q � o^ +� . ° � " � '"> >.-o q v � ° v '� �a ro o. a�i �n eG''9 � A y � v� �� .. y>, � ro'� o,x v vai �a � o b9 '�' . � m > �a v .� v � � �G' > 7 .`^ .�' � � � � � � •C 7 o a, j 7�,L' o b�0 �c^y o o'G, a��, Q', 7 b� y� p G' p,L' '� v] ,:' � iy �' o j m°�'° ,�''", a, v u�i � 3�v �,^�, o C o m V v � ��, .� o o-d Q' v ro �, +,�'' 'ti '_' y'� y o+'�'' v o'o �' 3 ro N o ro �3 �p .� � ° � aa ro ° -°d � in � v ° � w � � b o � � v � in m v� � v� 73 p°� v N 3� o � a�.ti �.d� � O'� �,�°,�' a'vNi 7 � '� � °y � � p 7°' N ro° o > 'C � v " v 0. G' ^' 7 � °" a�i o ° 'd ro� o ro �� v ro 7�a�� v"�v A a �' �a �' 'o 0 � � O � 7 a � � o " �, .� � '�. v v v �n ^d > ��b�°'��o ctl , v � p9 �. P-i .d � � y � � � � C ro ° '� o g �n �' � . a� 7 °%tl �.� C � �0 3 v o 3�a q a � o � w � o � � � � v 7 � ° "� a � v o � > � -. .. o � o o a � 3 � v � � � b 3 `�° o � °' o � ^ 3 ,� � v ro ro 3 a�, ,�' a . °: � '° °�'' ° �' � o N N � �3 �' �y ° �°v° � ro ro � � v v a q v � y � . v v 3 v� o � ti A � A � N o �y ro ...� .° m o � y ; � v � ctl O � p p� G p'� a� m o:ti v � � � v o ,� � p 'V o v 3 ro m " � c�. � -d 7 " -d o � � o•v a w ro w -o m >. o 0 N m o ,��, � v o � y ... v m ro �>° N �� v... � � y °,�° a, A a' � .7 o N a,�a f- .ti ro � o ,�, o > v �y � o 0 " � >. � . .. m N o �' 0 7 N'� v' o� ro � o � > a�i 3 y w � v... � o y � � v � q o y � a,y vA � � 0 Q 3 .� N y o� � m�o v .ti v v � �+o �.�' y'dpA � N � y .0 N � y � � � y ro o � b y � �a o o e4 7 0 -d � ° � � � � �.P'A � o v a,'a � c�. 0 3 � m �a v � ro a m p � ai C m o 3 � a .R � � � � v d y N £ . � a 3 � £ � � � v � � ro C w m N � � a v � y " m m 3 X � ro � � ro v w a oo -o � w y � ° � f6 j � � � o � a+ w a o " � E �aa°a°� � r-1 N � O p b �' y i' .u. � � ... � �w� a p � i' 3 �a v' °i a 7 � a p � � " 0 7 m o � F� �' a' v a � a`�, .� .� �' R' m y ro '�ry +� bq,L' �. � '" � A° � � '" .� 3 v m � 3 A °' � � � � � a ro7 - �d o � � � a+ °' w °�' o .�' y � o � o � m v �� 7 " v x N v . ^d v v i, �n 'j 'd .�' � � �'� °q 3 v oyo. . ,� y 3 y ro x v v � o o m 3 � a6 y 3 � q �o N � 3 � w " o v � F� v w o v a � a, ^d .0 ° m v � o ro 'v � q 'd � cd a, ^d v� G' a V a a, � > ' � � �ro o � v q � o � �' �i � O a � � O � � y � y � a q C � ? N v ro .ti � a o� a ro a c�d v'b P..� v v^� .a 'd .� .� cd � 'd cd C f6 o� a c y V � i N � � £ s W i Ya Y o V GI Y f6 � s ,�o C C m m aa N � 's � o N � ic �� 3 'a� � � ° a � N 3 . v ^d A ° � s°�. a�i � Q � a �p v aro y o ,�, CN m O C. v � � a�o "d v v � v a'b ." v o � � °„' -o 0 o y v� m ° � �-o m V � �' U c�tl p y7 � 0 P. � � ° ,,, a � o ro o -d ^ y`qy; °' va v vq°'� N C � � � v 0 0 f. 'd � °' �' v O � O � A � 0 �Gl�c4wv° �''/�� f G, � �� ;,� �'J` V `_ ♦ � xi. `'''�. ,.. °_� � ``, r Q" �. '^� a m m :�' o�\V�� e4 0 � p 0 v � v � a 0 3 � v N m �y a a, a v � � � � � `tl �o a a � �" p 7 � � v o � m ro o � m 'ti o o -d pa `� v G o � o � � b � ro ro � .r J� j ? v v � a a °: � N � � � � m a, °� � v° a v a+ p O a > °� 3 ro p a 3 � ro a � v a 0 a � w J m v a�i � ^d v � w o w � A o ro � � � " 3 ^d ° v a.� N y 3 0 ai o � v ; v � v ° 7 � 0 0 0 ,� �-o o � : N V � v .d � � c 5 �m 'i� m v � � � ro V V 'b d � .� y'^P' 3 � a d a p W o W . � o°o " `tl 3 " Q, o � � Q 0 � o � � � 0 o p � y b�9 W v o. v m � � N p v � m��tl°� a� aa � � � o �?0 3v N a, -o � y o � a, o °: � x y o' � �° � C v �, a � � o m a � v 3 � "d P. q cd � v c�y � v° � a �, N O � m 0 � 0 ^d v v ro 7 � m m -d m 0 0 � 0 ro "d v a� > °O � � D v b a C m C a � > Ca y d b W N b-0 � 0 � G v � �3 v N � ro 'd 'O ro � � ^ v 0 7 0 -° � v � ^d O ro 0 N� o a�i � � � �v � � � o °' G ° �', & ±�a ;;� '��i-� I'' L a" n"a ;d i � 3 b k N N u � �bG 7 L � O N N fA �L � l e �, ry . � 3 -:;�. ,�:. 3s a �� 4 ��,� `, � w lkt:�� ; r- � "> `o � v � � �; .�': o�� ° { ;i w�,a� �_� �a �s��m < � � i1� � 0 0 0Q ��^. t�'�7 �:._3 �'3 � " yh � � � � _ a aa�i C ! ��' �5-O C �L � �;r � . N ��L ��a� s'°3�� ', �� i 8 v�ao�o � �3� yv — �T�,�,� a n�.�v a'�' ��,3v 3�oso 4-€� a 0 Q Q Q .. ,-.1ra' a � a ,�`:� .�� trr ,.¢ p� r,' �,�.:� �^sa o ,4 ,y{� 00 / �_�, r r,� �c.:i v� tF� �r4'� " x �A� i.; .\ Ppj� .�//.A . .�� .� N fi � � '.: < d* � � a ` a .,�.9 R '}i . a '��`/'ff� , "d � . i'SY' � ��. ;� y "�� TM Y.K=`n /p� �"� ✓- p 'd A ti�+ u , ; . �" �'� Q oo-v � '� a p � � � "� �'d� �� °1 ° o � '� � �^` 7%'� " ' ,c` "� y '-d P � ��.. ,� v m �` �M /. V � N � � %r'� � ,;� C �. o W � � � �� y� "�•Va "�.J/ . AT � N � a�+ � ��4Y '�' .�� c: � .. �`� f � C4 � a� / ro � "d y S�r p G' N G' <tl ro N .b � O v� N LL '^ �� p � v �S�r �i� �� 7 S�i v ,�, �' 'N p" a o:" m 7 c�n a '�a ,� � o.v v.� av v v� � v ��.�... � v� a. v o A g��' m a�i 3 v�' e4 m v p y�' 'm o m.� v' a, °' � a w v'° � A" ro �� a' y� o c4 p, � q v un 3 3 m �' '" `�° 3 0 ° � � �o a'�i � �,°.•, x o�n �'Cw a�i � o�'�n 0 0�' v m v �y �' m °' ' u' N� a�i ,xi. q � ° v y > � y v � ° ¢' � � p ^d �a > o o a. �' �' , id a, o m a� a v�°' v N � "° m v 3 a o�� °'^� >>.� ° A ro-"o N A � V N� G' N •V• �� ctl a+ v N ctl 7 �� ro'� ,C f3. A o P• o A N o�y v .� ��•b 7 y 0.' . y �+ G� cn 7 i�i 3�" �,� N� b A 7 v v ��' N,� N �, ��, � N� � ctl � y v �-•' v� V:� ctl N� O� � b9 � � +"' w" C ,�, ° � q ° " � � m ro � v o v 3 `tl " > p° o v� o m � o� �> o�o v �? �� y�� > .. �' y ^ ��' ' , m, cC v m `° v ° 3 o°'n cC v°' � q w�°q �n evn un p� `tl o A w'°'.' 'ti '�" � o�, y sv. +'�' � U o�, ,ti ai �, ,� m� y„ � v V,ti a„ti m m v� � q v �, p m'0 7� ° v � a v'tim c4 >� ° y 3 a m'o > a-o 04 � a m . o� N .� � o C ° o o a ro^d v m,�' �� ° �,�., " °q �w q itl G N a N� v v v� v 3 0>�� 3�� ro v A v �� N v � o o v`Vi . pq '7 "'^ V �i CC N 'd � ^ A `� R+ N y' � 'L' � �'i+ v' ro v j o y^�, v m s�°. � A m� ��, N v.�' �� o f� c4 � m m� e4 co 5 m � in 7 0 0 o aa ' a'>sa�, d F e F 0 D� 0 ;�°S�n�� eP vi ¢ � '� � �;Sa �..`. Ud roz��'�L. \� � :k � F� � i'� m F"�� y� O 0 � rot:.ypW a Q� � �a o:c'h `£y� 0 — a�i ¢S;n �� m a 1 �� ba� �a�o� ab�N�� °m c° o°qF° �� o �yo �� oo��'°n.�' '� $ v �°'�x v o N � 0 ��3P"d N ^�� zAo v� � a p y o > N 3 v ,� � �x N in �a u�o �� a q �� o,�om °� a� o � �o;?m.�'�,a� 7 v y � 7 '� �y � � � �� P. � O O �y S1 O� O O� b � N a > N>�N O�-o�m°��3 � 0o v �� `tl o '��° �� oo�� ,� � o oo�aa N � � ax��.:v cLSLv. vo`tl.°aa,oyo�y'�7 ti v-o 0o ti o�� N o� �' ao�oo„'�',ti-dm�a° � �,N" m'ti m nn�'�v v�Naamp�o � �v�AN�y.�Ny3y° ' � ;� w y p m.� 7�y y y°' p a N ��ti :�. y v w�',� v o��j'5� "w„ # ai1 N 7 � �a�;,�3oa�a�� v i �a' o o�o'� `�° °�''oo�' wF°A � o � a¢' o ti'a� w a,w�aw m N�' v '� w „oo6aN,-omy� 0 y" 0 b9 �' 'd �� O O � �N � N �^� a+ N 70 p '"d 0 a`�-' �"d �� v N N � � a"�+ N'd � LL m� Q� Y �' A � 'd � 7 <y �' +x' a�°N'map��oo W b� b0 �. a� �' "Z4 �� N� �N �' ��p W O'� � C'� r� a° ��"'ti°ooNo X � o �o N � .d �, 'v � C G° m � oo.ti ,v' +� " A� y'Ci. v yN � �' a� o G w� o o��'o.¢' o a�° -d „ „ �,�7 � ¢sa�� A y ,�' v Nl"�'"e � �d m ''`v � m "° � .7 w o �' � m _ y � N m �:z ti j� � ¢ °� N a� � m° w �C�� 3v�° C � 7 0o m>:,'", p w D�� b oo� a �^ � `tl o° C:9� �'�o �a`z'S:n / ° ? - � �, 'm o ° o '� � ¢ LL � �.b�� ' ' w ¢' 7 ° ,3 0� b� ti d � y°a�b z 5 3 v v � ° a-°o yv �� z'3 0 3 a z � � �a� � m 3w�000 r ° a >. a, EQvz"v w � w m N.d o�ootia 3FqO�o� o �N �z C � y �w � x 3 � � v a ° A � � p y � v C N ' ti o � � ,� � .� � � p b N~ N ��"�i. L� ' .'L b9 � � � a v � -o C mm °�..�'tl. ° 'r ,��F p,. g�;a �� '.; �.� � „ � �y � �'` f � `` �� `eh� � / � 3 0 � . r � '> ` � P � � � r ; �� ., r v' � � " a, � � a' `�� i s,� �.. 2a� " , s :r 3 v m° a a �' jt. � ',��'�`i �" ��", �'\� �s"sr� / ' � a � �X � �° m a3 /� O 7 � �f(��. ro g j, � . . � �",• (�p � n , �IY �',�la�' �I" �S q � � . � ` � a � Qi v, A �y i � i J RI� i K 4 i Ci o a °' � c �x",fe.c». � . -b� F- . � .. .._ o r i °' `� ' . a > .... � e y��t A�- 'Q°' ♦!. '' � � 41 N.: al v V� c0 5 � � y/��: sa,,,d {� j �3: � �� # � � � � a > a 'ia' s�} t, � �-„ l 3 V,� o� vin�o w < r� o- w C �' , .. �F �F� V A ctl �,� G' > A $s�`�M� � �' � ' '/i � �.. J] >.p v ,3 �, � v .? ..P .J �.° % �.,. � ,x' �'ti o �;� 1� �cs cr�, � �.� � �... `� �, � �� i� , �' � � o , r n .� >.xi. � 7 7 � �r�"� �",y,.w r s � � / � �f^ ^ '�`�`� V�f.. �� S'�U��+ „ \,...�+ V ,-w ,�' � ° � �� ro �� 'T�`� i� �v , .�: � d/, "'�y ' o o .� -o .ti >..ti ��i'1��. `i.�� _. .�`i�r '. � (�:_., ;�. >��b.-_ m aa � m" � � � � . . r ' ,'ti _ . ', . .� I '�. �i �r. o 0 � � . c . �` �'. �h �'f..� . Lf� Lf� �..� � �� •' � ,��.• �L�.�t . �� L:i � �_ _ �`� _ , f. �. _ . Jf .w �' -� 3 • '� �L./ N Y' L r _ C � ' -:� �/; � �- .�� - � 0 �� T � •. �" � � G7 � � � � , Y:.'�'- �` Y `-; 0 � :� ,.�' �.� . ��}, `• u °1 � > i� ��. ° �� > � ��r � d i _ sM • .�J.. 7 'i ,— :. U . , . r.�J d d �� a � � ;�, �" ,•�* � �', � , O O " .y, i . - . � _� � N N r. 4.1 � . J_ L � CA CA (6 (6 � 7 - � � ' � -- ' �+ �+ /1'� A•� � � ' � - � � i + i � a� a� `�-•- � w • '� ti �� . dC _' "1" d d �� , � , � � N W � � . LA r-I � f t + � � . O p • - _ � N ,, , '�4' � '�, ' � � � � _ ' + � � 4�'i V �� +�. : .,� . �. ,� ��''� •4' � , . l�D � rM-I O w+ r '4,� �-,fi p �^ lD � -- N o�� ' �� N �, ,- ��! m m p E., - ' � , o � iA �. . , � f � � �n � � v 0 �,� � O �� T7 . . - �� = W p � C� � #y, . � IL .. aks r � O y}�rO �F � �., i ' :�i �.L 'i� � � � N a� V � � O � � 'a � O f � �• _ o o c? ��,. C�J ��• � a� .. °� , y ' � � = C� "�'' N o �.�,� � _ '� � 3 w� � '' N � �� Q o y �'�� i� � . �� N� y � T y,� ~ � � � � �,; � � % Q r2 . O � = ti a ` N � O d `, , � > �r � � 0 o Q � � � �� '� f U a c`�`i� ��s "�� N G� � o J � o O� � + + + , `,.� +' r�% N� �" J u�'� � � d. H H H = J� � � ' r�,, �• / p Q � I.Nfl � � �+ � � � 0�0 O { p O m y '� o / 1!� d ¢� � d v' ui Oi T f.t � r t �. O M ' �y �, � N � �r� � � =� 0 0 �"� . u� _ � n n , �..� ' T � .' 4 � � fOA � � . ,� N �'�... � O ' + , � f � �- � � � � ' � �! � � � � � ' O 4� _` -1_� � N � ;,` ...,�� 4 , � � 3 u� - � d o � � �n � s � �' °c � : �r� s � i O =.., � `.? � = 1!� p r C ��- ~�� Y^ O O �' �� € E CA �►^ � �� "1- �" ��- N � ,_ . '.ti ' _ -. > t �� fr - -` � . �� 3 1 � -- � � � �� ! —_ � . . �� n J� �� ' -�_. - � � -�+ , h0 -�f ��_. - , _ F r - . . -_ � � 'n � N C • %tr -- � 7 f6 lD `1 ` ,. � .� - C� J � •1 n�• � ��., t �n N �`p � , � - _ . -- � N i � �n +' ' y., Q C . -� � N ..' 4,. � i � N (6 a'' 7 c0 1. . -. � C � � .� N O N � . .. : _ k C ! '�' on � � � *' � v � � �o � _� 3 c � x c +� f6 +' 3 �E`+-�,; -d � . � O �o � � o ` --�a °1 � � o ��,� l � �•`r ,�li�. � � a � �, `° � > � � - " , a� +-' � c� c v c � m v m - „ `� > � �o � '� v 3 � c . � � � � � o � � � � ��` °�'� � � o a C O C � "a +-+ C ?�. . � . � f � , � . I � � a� N a ��, m ��, v � � � � � � ,} o Lii � c �' Q +, m>� � �' � o a� +� v +� � p � v � '� �n `• � � y, � v � '� w � v '� s-1 .. .I +��' �6 � � M 2� 00 C � i ++ �` � �,,, _� i U i �� ++ � to . to cn � O �n � . _ , �, � � O ..y:� � .�; * 3 !I O U • • • / ' � �� . �` � O � � , � • � m- -' ,4, . .. l* "'� � O ., � t • ` . �. � . � = �''�fv . ° , . k�,. �: - :i;. �"� ..�. - _ r '�. ",G�� ti � N . r, � 4 �' ' Planning Commission Agenda - 10/06/20 3B. Communitv Development Director's Report COVID-19 City of Monticello Information Resource: https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/covidl9 Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations • Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendments to Monticello Zoning Ordinance to Chapter 3.5, Business Base Zoning Districts, Subsection (G) Central Community District and Chapter 4.5 Signs related to transparency of window signage in the Downtown; and Chapter 5.1 Use Table and Chapter 8.4 Definitions as related to Mobile & Manufactured Home/Home Park; and Chapters 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts and 5.3, Accessory Use Standards as related to building materials references for accessory buildings Applicant: City of Monticello Approved on Council consent agenda of September 14`h, 2020 per Planning Commission recommendation. • Public Hearing - Consideration of a Request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for the Installation of an Accessory Use Photo Studio Building Applicant: Jeff Sell Approved on Council regular agenda of September 14th, 2020 with modification to a 10 year interim permi� • Public Hearing - Consideration of a Request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for the Removal of a Required Fence & Conversion of Self-Storage Space into an Office Use Accessory to the Self-Storage Use Applicant: Keith Burnham Approved on Council consent agenda of September 14`h per Planning Commission recommendation. • Public Hearing - Consideration of a Request for Preliminary and Final Plat for a Two-Lot Subdivision in a B-4 (Regional Business) District Applicant: Krishna, LLC Approved on Council regular agenda on September 28th, 2020 with additional companion considerations related to easements and fees. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan The majority of the draft Monticello 2040 Plan is ready for public review and comment and available at: https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/2020update. The chapters available include: • Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation • Mobility and Connectivity Planning Commission Agenda - 10/06/20 • Parks, Pathways and Open Space • Economic Development • Community Facilities • Community Character, Design and the Arts Planning Commission and City Council met in a joint workshop on September 21st, 2020 to review the last of the four chapters noted above. From now through October 22"d, comments will be taken to finalize the chapters prior to public hearing. There are two primary options for comment: In person: Community Workshop at MCC, Thursday, October 22"a *The meeting will be (tentatively) offered via Zoon and Facebook. Online: https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/2020update A video promoting the comprehensive plan and the comment opportunities is also available at: https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/2020update Housing Study MSA Professionals has completed a draft of the 2020 Housing Study, which staff received on August 26th. Staff has a number of comments to help organize the data and document and has provided comments to MSA. Presentation of the report is anticipated at the EDA meeting on October 14th, 2020 at 6 PM. The Planning Commission is asked to attend to hear the presentation. CMRP Updates Framework 2030 Round 2 engagement is ready to begin. The City of Monticello is an active member of the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning Partnership. In late 2019, CMRP launched Framework 2030 -- a collaborative effort to develop our region's first-ever strategic land use and economic development plan. Throughout 2020, we have been engaging stakeholders to help shape the region's future. As we enter Round 2 of engagement on the Framework 2030 Plan, we encourage you to provide your feedback on the developing vision, strategic commitments, and objectives. These draft elements grew directly from the input we received from you, our stakeholders, and in the first round of engagement earlier this year. You can provide your feedback on the draft vision and strategies either in-person or online - the information and questions are the same. In-person: Tuesday, October 6th: 7:00-8:00 AM at MCC Monday, October 26th: 5:00-6:00 PM at MCC Online: http://bit.l,y/FW2030-R2, open through midnight November 29, 2020 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/06/20 You can also learn more about the Framework 2030 project here. Project Updates Deephaven: The site development and first of three planned multi-family residential buildings is in progress at Edmonson Avenue/Chelsea Road. Haven Ridge: The first phase of the residential plat has begun grading and utility work. The 213 acre plat's first addition includes 27 single-family homes. UMC: The precision manufacturer has submitted their building permit plans for their planned expansion and plans to begin construction this fall. Council Connection https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/vertical/sites/%7B46185197-6086-4078-ADDC- OF3918715C4C%7D/uploads/Council_Connection_09282020.pdf