Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Planning Commission Agenda 01-05-2021
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING-MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 5th,2021 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: 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. Appointment of Officers for 2021 C. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes —December 1st, 2020 b. Special Meeting Minutes—December 29th, 2020 D. Citizen Comments E. Consideration of adding items to the agenda F. Consideration to approve agenda 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing—Consideration for adoption of the 2021 Monticello Official Zoning Map Applicant: City of Monticello B. Public Hearing—Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Office Use in the CCD (Central Community District), Walnut& Cedar Sub- District Applicant: Laestadian Lutheran Church (Phil Jurmu, Facilities Manager) C. Public Hearing—Consideration of a Map Amendment(Rezoning)to Planned Unit Development, Development& Final Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary and Final Plat for the Construction of a Machinery & Truck Repair& Sales Use Applicant: Nuss Truck& Equipment(Phil Watkins) D. Consideration of a request for Ordinance Amendment relating to R-1 Zoning District standards Applicant: Capstone Homes 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 1st, 2020 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, and Andrew Tapper Commissioners Absent: Paul Konsor and Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann and Steve Grittman (NAC) 1. General Business A. Call to Order Sam Murdoff called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes —November 2nd, 2020 Andrew Tapper asked for revisions related to word changes to speculation rather than specification. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REVISED REGULAR MEETING MINUTES —NOVEMBER 2ND, 2020. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda Sam Murdoff asked for an update regarding the plat of Spirit Hills South. E. Consideration to approve agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing—Consideration of a Request for Map Amendment (Rezoning) from A-O (Agricultural Open Space) to R-1 (Single Family Residence) District,Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Development & Final Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary & Final Plat for Featherstone 5th Addition, a 26 Lot Single Family Development Applicant: Novak-Fleck Inc. (Horst Graser) Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use applications that the applicant was seeking to accommodate a 26-lot single family development. This proposed project was part of an original Featherstone plat and Planned Unit Development that began in the early 2000's and has proceeded through a series of Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 1 1 14 final plat stages over the years. The original PUD was part of a mixed-use design for the 220-acre Featherstone parcels with single-family, mixed residential density, commercial, and industrial uses. The applicant is asking to retain the original approvals from the PUD including utilizing the same code for building size and building materials that existed. Grittman explained that the applicant is seeking to complete the 5th Addition similar to what was envisioned from the original plat. Grittman provided an aerial and the proposed plat layout. He noted that the plat is consistent with the R-1 standards, the originally approved preliminary plat, and the anticipated comprehensive plan. Staff recommended approval of the applications with conditions as noted in Exhibit Z. Sam Murdoff asked for clarification on the Exhibit Z conditions noting the construction of 89th Street NE. Grittman noted that the intent was to bring 89th Street NE including utilities to the edge of Featherstone 5th Addition. Murdoff asked if there were plans to fill in the agricultural land between State Highway 25 and Featherstone 5th Addition. Grittman explained that those areas were originally included in the preliminary plat from many years ago. It will be up to the applicants to continue phasing throughout the project to complete the development as envisioned. Grittman noted that it would not be surprising to see some modifications as development continues west from the original plat to any proposed development. John Alstad asked for clarification on "Street G". Grittman showed the site plan and noted that staff have asked the applicant to apply the standard naming to the street. Murdoff asked if a stormwater pond was proposed for the northeast corner of the proposed development and the 2nd Addition. Grittman confirmed, noting that the pond is already constructed and serves both additions. These ponds are listed in the drainage and utility easements. Grittman also added that a pond also exists on Block 3 of the proposed plat. Murdoff asked if the ponds were more than sufficient for what is being proposed. Grittman noted that it has been engineered to accommodate this development. Charlotte Gabler noted concerns with increased traffic on Ebersole Avenue with the recently approved Edmonson Ridge and adding an additional 27 lots in Featherstone 5th Addition. Grittman noted that the proposed lots would have access from 89th Street NE to Edmonson Avenue or Ebersole Avenue to 85th Street NE or 87th Street NE to Edmonson Avenue. Gabler asked if staff are looking at stop sign usage and other measures as traffic increases especially as it relates to the existing neighborhoods. Grittman confirmed that the City keeps track of the number of lots and the amount of proposed traffic generation that would use these external roadways. Grittman noted that the standard is typically 50 lots per access point. He explained that even with the Edmonson Ridge project, the area is below this threshold. Gabler also asked if it were known where the park was planned or if park dedication would be received. Grittman responded Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 2 114 that the park design runs throughout the project. Gabler noted hesitation with having parks on corners or bordered by roadways. Grittman noted that the PARCs is reviewing the design. Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Horst Graser, the developer, noted the history of the original approved PUD and the request for Featherstone 5th Addition. He noted that all the lots exceed the minimum density required and noted that most of the lots are between 13,000 to 14,000 square feet. The total number of lots that have been platted including the proposed addition is 161 lots. Graser noted increased demand for rambler lots and commented that the large lots would accommodate such design. He also indicated interest in look-out,walk-out, and split entry lots rather than flat lots. The developer ensured that most were not flat lots and that they raised the grade in some areas to accommodate the market request. The developer understood the need to dedicate additional land for park dedication. He noted that they were willing to work with the City to meet the requested dedication and did not see any issues with additional dedication requirements. Graser stated that they were proposing to grade the 5th Addition contemporaneously with the 6th Addition due to grade difference between the two areas. The lots in 6th Addition (a future proposed project of 23 lots)would be consistent with the original PUD and preliminary plat approval. Graser noted that they are building up to 25 homes a year to a year and a half. He envisioned building Featherstone 6th Addition in 2021 and noted that it would be the last addition for traditional single family. Graser indicated beyond that, there is approximately 35 acres dedicated for multi- family. He suggested that the developer would come back for an amendment to PUD as the product originally envisioned is no longer marketable or feasible. Graser noted if it is a multi-family development such as townhomes, it would be a coordinated effort between the builder, the product, and the platting. Graser estimated that this request could be reviewed in three to four years depending on market conditions. Graser also mentioned conversation with staff regarding potentially providing sewer to the proposed industrial development areas. This project along 89th Street NE has deep sewer at approximately 20 to 22 feet and will serve the proposed industrial and commercial area. Graser noted that they are at a point where water and sewer could be extended to serve the industrial area. Murdoff asked for clarification where industrial and commercial land would be proposed. Graser explained that Featherstone 6th Addition would abut industrial. The commercial and industrial land would run along State Highway 25. Murdoff clarified that after the 6th Addition and the multi-family development,the remaining space would be utilized for industrial and commercial. Graser confirmed, adding that they would dedicate the rest of the parkland that has been designated in the PUD as one large ten-acre piece (adjacent to 85th Street NE). He asked that some area be left for design purposes. Graser noted a problem that occurred with this development that was paramount in the 4th Addition was that there was 1,100 feet of park frontage. Consequently, that required the developer to have all of the utilities built in this area,where no residential lots existed, which was very costly, and it will be expensive to the City when reconstruction occurs. The park, if approved as planned, has frontage on three sides,which is Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 3 114 extremely costly and asked to have as much flexibility with the road that will intersect with 851h Street NE. Graser added that the builders in the development are predominately Novak-Fleck and Progressive Builders. They did not see a change to that in the foreseeable future and no homeowner's association exists in the proposed phase or the existing phases. Andrew Tapper asked if there was a reason the developer was not seeking Featherstone 61h Addition with this approval. Graser responded that it was cost prohibitive to build both phases at the same time. He noted that it was typical for developers to start smaller with fewer lots and build out. Tapper also asked if they have agreements with the builders for the proposed addition. Graser confirmed. Murdoff asked for clarification on timing of the park dedication. Graser noted that once a decision has been made for the multi-family development and it is known where the intersection would be made for 851h Street NE, Graser would be willing to dedicate the balance of the parkland to the City. He explained that they were willing to work with staff to meet the City's request for park dedication. Gabler asked if staff could review Featherstone 41h Addition's park and reconfigure the park due to the expansive street frontage. Schumann noted that the amount of park dedication is exactly what is required for this residential plat. Schumann was cautious in adjusting the acreage as it would then require a cash-in-lieu payment. Schumann noted that she understood that Mr. Graser was looking for future flexibility for how the multi-family would be arranged especially with how the street would be constructed and the location of parkland. She further pointed out that the City would seek park dedication to the east portion of the outlot, with flexibility left on the west for future multi-family considerations. Tapper asked for clarification on the linear park system in Featherstone. Schumann noted that two parcels have been deeded in prior residential platting to meet park dedication and that the balance of the requirement for park dedication would be met by the outlot abutting 85th Street NE. The recommendation to the PARCs board will be an amount at least commensurate with the required dedication of eleven percent of land, which is approximately two acres, and would be looked to be dedicated adjacent to the existing park land. She noted that the park provides a nice buffer to an interior street that runs the length of the development and 85th Street NE. Murdoff asked for clarification on the style of home that would be placed near this flexibility. Graser noted it was too early to determine and depends on the market. He added that they are committed to completing the development as initially envisioned. Eric Hagen, 4255 89th Street NE, explained the uniqueness of Featherstone such that it provides step-up housing options and has large lots and spacing. He proposed that Lots 11 and 12, Featherstone 5th Addition, be combined and that the future structure face south towards 89th Street NE. Hagen explained that it aligns the lot size with the average lot size of proposed 5th Addition, the outer edge of "G Street", and the north side of 89th Street NE, including Featherstone 1st and 2na Addition. He also believed that combining these two lots would provide an aesthetically congruent neighborhood. All the other lots along the north side of Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 4 114 891h Street NE face that street, except for one lot proposed in the future Featherstone 6th Addition. He believed that combining the lots would provide an equitable and improved dwelling view, especially as related to the feeling of having wide open space. He felt that it would align with the aesthetics of the northern half of 891h Street NE and affords the future occupants a similar experience of space between dwellings when viewing the landscaping from their windows of the proposed rambler lookout in Lot 12. Other lots on the interior of 5th Addition share drainage easements that will create the same experience of space between dwellings despite their lot size. He thought that leaving the design as is, leaves a view into your neighbor's house feel from Lot 12, unlike any other property in the addition. The revision will also negate the issue of headlights from traffic turning onto "G Street" shining into the front of Lot 12. Traffic heading east on 89th Street NE turning north onto"G Street" will shine headlights through the front of the home on Lot 12. The revision proposed, especially with garage placement on the west side of the lot, would completely resolve that issue. Murdoff asked if the main concern was that he didn't want people looking into their house. Hagen confirmed that he preferred to not be the single development in the neighborhood that has house in the side yard. Murdoff asked if the modification would then create the same problem for the proposed Lot 10 of Featherstone 5th Addition. Hagen declined and believed because the lot size depth would be twice what it is for Lot 12 to his lot. He reiterated his concern for a smaller, more cramped feeling of proposed Lot 11 and 12. Gabler added that it was unknown where the house would be set on the property. Hagen explained that on the plans it indicates that the homes would be spaced by equal setbacks from "Street G". Hagen and the Planning Commission continued dialogue regarding his proposed adjustment to the plat and the developer's proposed plat. Grittman estimated the buildable areas on the lots near the concerned area. Grittman noted that they are all comparable to each other, but not in total lot area. He also explained that the building on Lot 12 would still be set back from 89th Street NE similar to those homes on 89th Street NE,but additional setback requirements for corner lots would be required. Grittman noted that the lot side yard abutting a rear yard is common on single-family plats. Lastly, Grittman commented that for Lots 11 and 12 of the proposed development would have a 30-foot front yard setback with 80 to 100 feet of rear yard space to the neighbor's side yard lot line. If the lots were combined, a home could be constructed as close as 10 feet to the neighbor's property. The Planning Commission recognized Hagen's concerns. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Decision 1. Rezoning ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-037, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FROM A-O, AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE TO R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 5 114 Decision 2. Preliminary Plat ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-038, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FEATHERSTONE 5Tn ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THE STAFF REPORT, AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Decision 3. Development Stage PUD ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-039, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR FEATHERSTONE 5Tn ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THE STAFF REPORT, AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD for Featherstone 51h Addition PID 155-252-000010 Outlot A,Featherstone 4th Addition 1. Lots on curves are re-notated to indicate actual lot width per Zoning Ordinance definition. 2. Street extension for 89th Street NE is constructed to its full extent in the plat. 3. Street extension for Street 6 is constructed to its full extent and connects to 891h Street NE. 4. The street name is subject to the approval of City requirements. 5. Park Dedication requirements for the full Featherstone project are reiterated, and if necessary, re-calculated and included in the updated Development Agreements and recorded against the current and future phases. 6. Compliance with the terms of the City Engineer's report, dated November 19th, 2020 7. Compliance with other staff comments as submitted. B. Public Hearing—Consideration of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for the Expansion of Outdoor Storage and Changes to Facility Operations for an existing Bulk Fuel Sales & Storage Use in an I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District Applicant: Beaudry Oil & Propane Steve Grittman provided the background of the application and a location map of the subject parcel. Grittman stated that the development and the parcel to the north was originally approved under a Planned Unit Development that arranged for common access and joint driveway design. The original occupant of the subject site was an oil tank storage and distributer company that formerly Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 6 114 occupied much of the land that Monticello Community Center is located on now. At the time of the approval of the Community Center,the City was looking for a site to relocate this user to and the current subject site was the chosen location. The approval of the PUD waived many of the typical zoning standards to accommodate the convenient relocation of this facility. The approvals anticipated that over time as additional use was made of this property that eventually the site would come closer into conformance with our zoning standards. The applicant has modified its use from the original bulk fuel/oil tank storage to more of a propane facility including storage of propane cylinders and filling of some of the cylinders. They have also been using shipping containers for storage and shelter for the filling of the propane cylinders. There have been very little improvements to the site overtime. The applicant is seeking approval to continue those evolving uses. The City's process is to review the terms of the original PUD approval and understand how the change in use would be consistent with the original intent and as the site intensity to seek additional improvements to bring it closer to conformance with our code. Grittman noted the use of the site is primarily located in the northwest corner of the parcel. There is dense wooded land east of the activity facility. The remaining southern portion of the parcel is unoccupied, but at times have been used for storage. The applicant's intent is to confine the activity and use area to the northwest area. In staffs review,the use is generally consistent with what was originally anticipated at the site (bulk fuel facility with some storage), is an appropriate use of the site, but the intent of the original PUD was to seek additional improvements to the site over time. Grittman reviewed the recommended conditions of approval. Sam Murdoff noted the conditions on the original PUD and asked if additional plantings occurred along the freeway. Grittman declined. Murdoff asked if there have been any other expansions since the original approval. Grittman believed the use of the site has ebbed and flowed over the years. There has been some storage use on the south portion of the site. The applicant is proposing to confine storage to the north portion of the site, but staff would like to see that delineation on a plan. Murdoff asked if additional paving or curbing has occurred on the site. Grittman declined. John Alstad asked for the size of the lot. Ken Beaudry,the applicant,noted that it was 3.62 acres. Alstad asked if there were any regulations from preventing what they are seeking to do on the site. Grittman noted they want to receive authorization for tank storage and filling operation. If this were a new development, the site would be required to follow paving, curbing, and landscaping requirements. Alstad noted the Timber Ridge letter that was received for public comment. Grittman explained that an advantage that exists currently is the dense number of trees between the activity area and the Timber Ridge development. Grittman noted that the Fire and Engineering Departments are looking at this site with some specificity to make sure that any potential danger Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 7 114 with a spill would be contained according to fire codes. Grittman believed that was the intent with the early planting plan along that boundary line now. There would be a buffer landscaping requirement from our Zoning Ordinance between the townhomes and the south area if the use were to expand to that area. Charlotte Gabler noted correspondence received from Wright County Assessor's Office that indicates the property has been in place since 1999 and the townhomes were built between 2002 through 2004. She further read that it was unlikely that the updated CUP would have any effect on the value of the neighborhood. It was recommended if the City were concerned, proper landscaping and screening would address it. Andrew Tapper was looking for clarification on the purpose for the land use application. Grittman explained that it was to accommodate the shift of uses from the original approval. The original PUD was for the fuel tank storage that was originally built there and had very little of the container storage and filling that the applicant proposed and is believed to be doing currently on the site. Tapper asked if the fuel transitioned from fuel oil to propane. Grittman confirmed. Murdoff asked for clarification on what was triggering the land use application. Grittman stated that the site is no longer purely a bulk fuel facility. Angela Schumann stated that the 1999 approval appears to be limited to just the bulk fuel cylinders along with some storage building facilities. Beaudry is proposing to add the small propane cylinders and the residential cylinder tanks in outdoor storage areas. Staff provided the site plan. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak first. Ken Beaudry,the applicant, noted that when they purchased the property in 2012, they did not realize the stringent CUP that was placed on the property. Beaudry indicated that permits were approved, and installation is scheduled to install the required fire hydrant. Beaudry indicated that the Monticello Fire Department has inspected the property and noted that it meets all State and Federal regulations. Beaudry indicated that with the application submittal was a site plan that indicated the location of the storage. He added that his crew would work on cleaning up the site too. He indicated that he would like to color coordinate all buildings and storage containers (hoping to keep on site). Beaudry indicated they aren't using the bulk fuel facility a lot, but that they do a lot of storage for biodiesel. They have a Pro-To-Go, a cylinder exchange business typically seen at gas stations or hardware stores where you can exchange 20-pound cylinders. This operation is completely run out of their Monticello plant and a lot of the filling occurs at the site. Beaudry noted that the reason they utilized the storage containers, unknowingly of any violation to code, was because it was the safest way for their employees to fill those containers. He noted that the shared access with Electro Industries is gravel and to bypass that requirement of requiring pavement just for their site. He noted cost concern of the construction of a building for cylinder filling and noted that he would need to discontinue that use on the site if buildings were required. Beaudry also explained that he was open to adding a few trees and noted that the site contains close to an acre of woods, but that they would do a better job of keeping that facility cleaned up. The most important request of Mr. Beaudry was to keep the storage containers. Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 8 114 Tapper asked if the two current shipping containers were used for storage and filling. Beaudry indicated that one container is for the small, filled cylinder storage to protect the tanks from the elements. The other one has automation equipment that fills the twenty-pound cylinders. Tapper asked if electrical service in one of the containers. Beaudry confirmed and noted that it has been inspected by the Fire Department and is also fire proof. Gabler asked if there are locations in the city where shipping containers are being used. Schumann confirmed that there is a self-storage facility that utilizes this type of structure for storage under an Interim Use Permit(IUP). There are some of the City's industrial users that have been grandfathered in and using shipping containers for storage as well. Schumann indicated that the Beaudry site is a slightly different use. It's not used for storage and is an active use that replaces a building. Gabler asked if the City could approve the use of the shipping containers under an IUP. Schumann noted that a condition of approval from the staff report indicates a phased approach, but an IUP would be another mechanism. Grittman noted that they are using the PUD effectively as an IUP. Murdoff asked about the surface driveway from Electro Industries. Grittman noted that it is mostly gravel. Murdoff also asked if the shipping containers match the rest of the structures on the site. Beaudry confirmed,if approved, all the buildings and containers would be color coordinated. Murdoff asked if any of the small tanks are stored outside. Beaudry provided the site plan including the outdoor storage plan. It was noted that empty 20-pound cylinders are left outside, and full ones are placed in the shipping container. It was noted that it was limited to have storage of empty propane tanks inside structures. Steve Christ, 11573 Spruce Drive, asked for clarification on the size of the tanks, the quantity, and if they would be spread across the property at some point. He had a concern with that there was no defined limit on the use of the site. He was also concerned about a potential propane leak and which way the propane would go if a leak occurred. Murdoff asked how many of the residential 500-gallon tanks and 20-pound propane tanks would be on the site. Beaudry indicated they had several of each type of tank. He estimated 100-125 tanks of the residential 500-gallon tanks. Beaudry indicated for the 20-pound propane tanks; they do not refurbish the tanks. They receive a load of refurbished tanks; Beaudry fills them and delivers them to customers. The semis take the old, empty tanks then. He estimated that Beaudry fills about 100, 20-pound tanks per load. Tapper asked if the 500-gallon residential tanks are empty. Beaudry confirmed and added that most of the tanks are brand new. He indicated that his company installs the tank at the customers site and fills them there. Tapper noted a picture of tall tanks and asked what was in those. Beaudry indicated that there were a variety of sized fuel tanks and they currently don't have fuel in them. They have been storing biodiesel in them, Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 9 114 which is considered non-flammable. There is nothing over 1,000 gallons for propane tanks. Murdoff asked how long it takes to go through a semi load of the 20-pound tanks. Beaudry indicated on average two weeks from May through September. The remaining part of the year, the business is cut in half. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Murdoff asked for clarification on the rules for outdoor storage in the I-2 District. Schumann indicated that outdoor storage is limited to 100 percent of the square footage of the principal building. In this case, it is a tough standard to apply directly. Murdoff noted that it may be useful to take some time to determine what an appropriate amount of outdoor storage space for this site would be and a screening process. Tapper reminded the commission that the use is outdoor storage. Beaudry noted that they selected that site because you cannot see the tanks from the freeway. Beaudry indicated that they submitted to staff a plan for the number of tanks and he understood that anything above that amount would need to come back for consideration. Tapper asked if the entire lot is fenced. Beaudry confirmed and noted it is a chain link fence. The Commission talked about visual appearance of the site, especially the outdoor storage. Gabler asked if MnDOT had any comments regarding the application. Grittman responded that none of the improvements would impact MnDOT. Murdoff asked if any safety precautions needed to occur if anything were to happen to a tank. Grittman responded that was the role of the Fire Department to make sure that they added the improvements necessary to meet fire code. Murdoff was opposed to Exhibit Z comments referring to the addition of pavement as they are coming in from a gravel road. He also noted if the shipping containers are meeting code and match the color of all structures, he was okay with them staying. Decision 1. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2020-036 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BULK FUEL STORAGE AND FILLING, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF EXHIBIT Z WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF REMOVING ITEM 2 AND 5 BE CHANGED THAT THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS CAN REMAIN BUT ALL STRUCTURES MUST BE PAINTED A UNIFORM COLOR. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. It was noted, the Planning Commission received written comment from some residents of Timber Ridge neighborhood. That letter was posted online and is entered into the record. The Planning Commission and the applicant also received a copy. Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 10 114 EXHIBIT Z Conditional Use Permit for an Amendment to a PUD 2156 River Street West PID: 155500041302 1. Installation of the required hydrant, a holdover condition from the prior PUD approval. It is staff s understanding that this project is in process as of the date of the Planning Commission meeting. 2. Ground surface treatment of outdoor storage areas to control weed growth and drainage. This may include gravel or similar surface, also to be denoted on the revised site plan. 3. Notation on the revised site plan of the limits of use and improvements,which may be expanded and amended under the PUD amendment process identified in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Additional initial planting/landscaping improvements at the south boundary of the property along I-94, as well as remaining area along the east boundary with the residential development. 5. The developer shall paint all buildings and shelters with consistent colors. 6. Other staff comments and recommendations. C. Public Hearing—Consideration of a Request for Variance to the Side Yard Setback for a single-family residence in the R-1 (Single Family Residence) District Applicant: James M. & Kaye A.Eisele Steve Grittman provided an aerial image of the subject site and noted that it is an existing single-family lot. The applicants have removed the home on the subject parcel and are seeking to construct a new home on the property. Due to the shape and history of the lot, the applicants were seeking a variance to side yard setback facing Vine Street. The encroachment would be within six feet from the side property line, rather than the typical 20 feet that is seen on a corner lot. Grittman provided the site plan of the proposed"T" shaped residential structure. The proposal better meets the zoning ordinance than the original structure did, but because the home occupies a different part of the parcel, a variance was required and grandfathering rights were dismissed. Grittman explained the review process for variance requests. Grittman noted that the Vine Street right-of-way was much wider(80 feet)than what would be normally found in a residential area. Because of the right-of-way, a significantly wide boulevard, and narrow cul-du-sac roadway, it limits the ability to face a driveway out to it. The applicants have designed a home that shifts the property to a six-foot setback from Vine Street, which is typical of the City's interior side yard setback requirement. On the west side of the proposed property, the Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 11 1 14 applicants comply with the setback. The applicants also designed a garage that would access from the south part of the structure in a hammerhead driveway rather than backing up right onto the right-of-way and parking could occur on the driveway rather than on the boulevard portion of the property. Staff felt the applicants created a reasonable design for the use of this single-family lot given the changes in right-of-way and dedication that the applicants have participated in over the years. Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions as identified in Exhibit Z. John Alstad asked for clarification on the location of the setback. Grittman noted that the setback of the structure is proposed to be six feet from the property line, which would normally be 20 feet for a corner lot. Andrew Tapper asked if the property line is setback so far from the street because of easements. Grittman explained that the nature of the Original Plat had a number of these very wide right-of-ways. Our typical code for new plats requires 60 feet in width rather than 80 feet(existing on Vine Street). In addition, the cul-du-sac street design is narrower than our normal public street with the width of the boulevard much wider than a typical single-family condition. Alstad asked for clarification on the history between the property owner and the City. Grittman stated overtime the property owner was cooperative with the City and adjacent property owners in dedicating and accommodating some property changes in this area. Sam Murdoff asked how close the street was from the property line. Grittman estimated 25 feet. Murdoff clarified that the structure would be 30 feet from the road. Grittman confirmed that it would be 30 feet from the curb to the structure. Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Jim Eisele, the applicant, indicated his intent to construct a new home on the narrow lot. The home that was demolished would sit similar on the property as the proposed structure. Alstad asked if it was occasional to receive these types of variance requests. Grittman stated that 6 feet was our standard setback, but since this is a corner lot, there is an larger setback. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-040, APPROVING THE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE EISELE HOME AT 704 4Tn STREET WEST, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND PURSUANT TO THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Eisele Variance 704 4tb Street West Planning Commission Minutes—December I st,2020 Page 12 114 Parts of Lots 5 and 6,Block 23, Town of Monticello 1. The new home shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. 2. The new driveway will be required to meet the zoning code. For a single family R-2 house the maximum width at the back of curb is 28' and 30' at the property line. 3. Any additional recommendations of other Staff or Planning Commission. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration to approve a one year extension of a variance approval for WSI/Polaris Angela Schumann noted that although the City Code allows the Community Development Department to administratively grant a one-year extension for variance approvals. Schumann was more comfortable bringing these requests to the Commission so that they knew of the requested extension. WSI/Polaris requested a variance to a setback for an accessory piece of equipment for their building. As they continue to make process improvements internal to their building, they've not been able to install this particular piece of equipment and are seeking a one-year extension to the granting of the variance. Staff has no concerns with this request. It was noted that the staff report should reflect that the original variance request was approved in December 2019. Tapper asked if staff were able to follow-up on his concern about the fact that the equipment is a condenser unit and its proximity to the roadway. Schumann noted she forwarded that concern to the City Engineer and he indicated that he did not have concern. Schumann noted she'd go back to the record to find that correspondence. Tapper reiterated previous concern with a condensing unit and cold weather possibly creating a fog that condenses on the road. The motion would be to extend the variance approval to December 3, 2021. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE 30-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR POLARIS AS APPROVED ON DECEMBER 3, 2019. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. B. Consideration to appoint John Alstad to a new term on the Planning Commission John Alstad confirmed his interest in serving a new term on the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 13 1 14 SAM MURDOFF TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER ALSTAD FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2021. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. C. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report. As previously discussed,there was an opening on the Planning Commission because of Sam Murdoff's appointment to the City Council. The position has been posted and currently the City has received four applications. The opening for the position would be until December loth. Schumann noted that staff would select Tuesdays that could work for the interviews and send them to the Planning Commission to see what works for consensus. The City Council would also be invited to attend the interviews. Appointments for officers would be made during the regular January 2020 meeting. Schumann provided an update regarding CMRP. She encouraged the Commission to review the PowerPoint presented at the October 22"d CMRP meeting. A summary overview of the organization's activities was also provided in the staff report. The partnerships next meeting is scheduled for December 3, 2020. 4. Added Items Spirit Hills South—Angela Schumann explained that the Spirit Hills plat received preliminary plat approval and amendment to conditional use permit(CUP) for planned unit development. The developer requested a one-year extension of deadline for submission of final plat. The extension runs until May 2021. The developer will be required to submit for final plat by that date or resubmit for preliminary plat and amendment to CUP after that timeline. Schumann noted that the County is planning for a reconstruction along Fenning Avenue and the City is paying attention to County design in that area. Schumann also noted that with that reconstruction would be a trail connection to Hillside Farms. 5. Adjournment SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:21 P.M. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: January 5th, 2021 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes—December 1 st,2020 Page 14 114 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING-MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,December 29th,2020 - 6:15 p.m. This meeting occurred remotely via GoToMeeting. Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, Andrew Tapper, and Alison Zimpfer Commissioners Absent: Paul Konsor Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Council Members Present: Lloyd Hilgart, Bill Fair Staff Present: Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann 1. Call to Order Sam Murdoff called the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Interview of Planning Commissioner Candidate and Recommendation of Candidate The Planning Commission conducted interviews with four applicants. The vacant position was a result of the appointment of Sam Murdoff to the City Council. COMMISSIONER ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO RECOMMEND ERIC HAGEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A TERM ENDING ON DECEMBER 31, 2023. COMMISSIONER ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 4. Adiourn MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:46 P.M. WITH NO MOTION. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: January 5th, 2021 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission(Special Meeting)Minutes—December 29th,2020 Page 1 I 1 Planning Commission Agenda: 01/05/21 1B. Consideration of election of Planning Commission officers for 2021 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to take action to elect for positions of Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission for 2021. At present, the City code for Planning Commission requires that the Commission elect a chair from its appointed members for a term of one year, and other officers as it determines. The Planning Commission has in the past elected a Vice Chair, in addition. The Vice Chair has fulfilled the duties of the chair in the event of absence. The position of Chair is open due to Sam Murdoff's election to the City Council. Commissioner John Alstad currently serves as Vice Chair. Unless otherwise directed by the Commission, staff will continue to serve as Secretary. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Decision 1: Chair Position 1. Motion to nominate Commissioner as Chair of the Planning Commission for 2021. 2. Motion of other. Decision 2: Vice Chair Position 1. Motion to nominate Commissioner as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2021. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff defers to the Planning Commission on matters of appointment. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. City Code Title 2, Chapter 1 - Planning Commission CHAPTER 1 PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION: 2-1-1: Name of the Commission 2-1-2: Authorization 2-1-3: Membership 2-1-4: Term of Office 2-1-5: Attendance 2-1-6: Vacancy 2-1-7: Officers 2-1-8: Meetings 2-1-9: Quorum 2-1-10: Duties of the Commission 2-1-11: Amendments 2-1-12: Compensation 2-1-1: NAME OF THE COMMISSION: The name of the organization shall be the Monticello Planning Commission. 2-1-2: AUTHORIZATION: The authorization for the establishment of this commission is set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462,Municipal Planning Enabling Act. The planning commission is hereby designated the planning agency of the City pursuant to the Municipal Planning Act. 2-1-3: MEMBERSHIP: The Planning Commission shall consist of five members appointed by the Council. All members shall be residents of the City of Monticello and shall have equal rights and privileges. 2-1-4: TERM OF OFFICE: (A) Appointments. All members shall be appointed for three year terms ending on December 315t of a given year; however, said term may be terminated earlier by the Council. Terms shall be staggered so that no more than two members' terms shall expire in a given year. Said terms are to commence on the day of appointment by Council. Every appointed member shall, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, take an oath that he/she will faithfully discharge the duties of office. (B) Renewals. When an expiring member's term is up, such member may be reappointed by Council with the effective date of the new term beginning on the first day of the next year following the expiration. MONTICELLO CITY CODE TITLE 2/Chapter 1 /Page 1 2-1-5: ATTENDANCE: It is the City Council's intention to encourage Planning Commission members to attend all Planning Commission meetings. Should any Planning Commission member be absent for more than three meetings in a calendar year, that member may be subject to replacement by the City Council. 2-1-6: VACANCY: Any vacancy in the regular or at-large membership shall be filled by the City Council, and such appointee shall serve for the unexpired term so filled. 2-1-7: OFFICERS: (A) Elections. The City Planning Commission shall elect at its January meeting from its membership a chair, vice chair, and a secretary who shall serve for a term of one year and shall have such powers as may be prescribed in the rules of said Commission. (B) Duties of Chair. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the Planning Commission and shall have the duties normally conferred and parliamentary usage of such officers. (C) Duties of Vice Chair. The vice chair shall act for the chair in his absence. (D) Duties of Secretary. A secretary may be appointed who is not a member of the Planning Commission but can be employed as a member of city staff. The secretary shall keep the minutes and records of the Commission; and with the assistance of staff as is available shall prepare the agenda of the regular and special meetings for Commission members, arrange proper and legal notice of hearings when necessary, attend to correspondence of the Commission, and handle other duties as are normally carried out by a secretary. 2-1-8: MEETINGS: (A) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month. This meeting shall be held on the first Tuesday. Regular meetings shall commence at 6:00 p.m. Hearings shall be heard as soon thereafter as possible. The Planning Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, and findings, which record shall be a public record. The meeting shall be open to the general public. (B) In the event of conflict for a regularly-scheduled meeting date, a majority at any meeting may change the date, time and location of the meeting. (C) Special meetings may be called by the Chair or two members of the Planning Commission together, as needed, and shall be coordinated with MONTICELLO CITY CODE TITLE 2/Chapter 1 /Page 2 city staff. 2-1-9: QUORUM: A majority of all voting Planning Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. 2-1-10: DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION: The Commission has the powers and duties assigned to it under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462, Municipal Planning Enabling Act,by this Code, and state law. 2-1-11: AMENDMENTS: This ordinance may be amended as recommended by the majority vote of the existing membership of the Planning Commission and only after majority vote of the City Council. 2-1-12: COMPENSATION: Compensation of members of the Commission shall be as set forth in City Code for Fee Schedule. (#336, 11/22/99) (9337, 1/10/11) (#593, 3/10/14) (9607, 1/26/15) MONTICELLO CITY CODE TITLE 2/Chapter 1 /Page 3 Planning Commission Agenda—01/05/21 2A. Public Hearing— Consideration for adoption of the 2021 City of Monticello Official Zoning Map. (AS/JaT) A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed City of Monticello 2021 Official Zoning Map and consider recommending the map for adoption by the City Council. The map included for review reflects rezoning actions which have occurred since the adoption of the last official map in February of 2020. The map proposed includes those rezoning amendments adopted in 2020, as follows: Ordinance 733 —Rezoning Haven Ridge to R-1 (0 Addition) Ordinance 734 - Rezoning Deephaven to PUD (Residential) Ordinance 735 —Rezoning to M-H (Kjellberg Annexation) Ordinance 739—Establishing UMC PUD Ordinance 750—Rezoning Featherstone 5th Addition to R-1 Ordinance 751 —Establishing Edmonson Ridge PUD In recommending adoption of the Official Zoning Map, the Planning Commission will also recommend adoption of the Shoreland Overlay District and Floodplain District map, the boundaries for which are in accordance with requirements of both State Statute and the Zoning Ordinance. While the City adopted updated floodplain ordinances in 2019, the current mapping is still valid. The ordinance does note that preliminary mapping available on the FEMA website is also applicable. At the time FEMA and the DNR notify the City that the pending floodplain hazard maps for Wright County are approved, the City will amend the Shoreland Overlay District and Floodplain District map. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021-001 recommending the adoption of Ordinance No. 7XX for the 2021 City of Monticello Official Zoning Map, including Shoreland/Floodplain companion map, based on the findings in said resolution. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the City of Monticello Official Zoning Map as proposed. This draft represents Monticello's zoning based on a review of available records and ordinances. The City Attorney has advised that the City adopt an official zoning map each year. 1 Planning Commission Agenda-01/05/21 D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution No. PC-2021-001 B. Ordinance No. 7XX, Draft C. 2021 Official Zoning Map, Proposed(dated 12/15/20) D. Shoreland and Floodplain Boundary, City of Monticello (dated 2/12/14) E. Ordinance No. 733 F. Ordinance No. 734 G. Ordinance No. 735 H. Ordinance No. 739 I. Ordinance No. 750 I Ordinance No. 751 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-001 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP IN ITS ENTIRETY WHEREAS,the Zoning Map of the City of Monticello requires amendment; and WHEREAS,the proposed map accommodates and furthers the intentions and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,the proposed zoning is consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive land use plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the proposed zoning map will be consistent with the intent of the proposed zoning districts; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on January 1 Ith, 2021 to review the requests and receive public comment on the zoning map amendment; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission finds that the proposed zoning map has met the requirements for adoption as found in the zoning ordinance and state law; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,Minnesota: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the zoning map amendment to be identified as Ordinance No. 9 ADOPTED this 1 lth day of January, 2021 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: John Alstad,Acting Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director ORDINANCE NO. 7XX CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE 2021 OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS. Section 1. The zoning map amendments attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit"A" are adopted as the Official Zoning Map under Title 10, Section 3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Monticello. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by Council. Copies of the complete Zoning Ordinance are available online and at Monticello City Hall upon request. ADOPTED AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICA TION B Ythe Monticello City Council this 1 lth day of January, 2021. CITY OF MONTICELLO Lloyd Hilgart,Mayor ATTEST: j r Rachel Leonard, City Administrator VOTING IN FAVOR: VOTING IN OPPOSITION: ORDINANCE NO. 7XX EXHIBIT "A" Following are the approved amendments to the Official Zoning Map • Ordinance No. 701 —Rezoning from CCD to Rivertown Suites Planned Unit Development for Lot 1-3, Block 36, Original Plat of Monticello • Ordinance No. 589—Rezoning to from B-2 to B-4 for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of Oakwood Industrial Park I o � � o I R i { o I { / , { J I I O (U G O I }� w O = LQ I O Z fn N I N V I , mmm I < I , I , I I I I I I � J J / t a w - E / O O O =u 9 3 N a N K m U Q O v U U m�DIII �DII Nc�ULL�_ m ma = wc n c c c c9 WO N U Q Q LLO�U�Uc O IJ 111111nnn n n p PilIM >U i i Ell B F T /{ J o 0 0 d _ N a n o a a = N { J o n o o 00 ° 0 0 c a m D E U J Z a d a J C N J N W cl� Q rc rc a rc rc rc rc a n n LL j/ jO � 6 L ' fil�t'J✓ • I.....-.I...x�� y✓�� �B �I * • ��� E� l�! G +�'� .....,_ s+•l r' , ,?gip! r� _ � 1 �� �K jj �- " ua:L""2 I Aa� ;xr — fe x �r j A w O N .•.b __ _— O N_ II nl U C f6 a `m N j CO U N 0 O w U N p a N -gyp -O } 0_ N N CO O O O [If O O o Z > s Z Y LL LL rn 0 > U 0 U ORDINANCE NO. 733 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REZONING THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY TO A-O, AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND TO R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT: LOTS 1-14 BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 1-13 BLOCK 2 AND OUTLOTS D,E,F,G,H,I AND J HAVEN RIDGE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. The following property is hereby rezoned to R-1, Single Family Residence District: Lots 1-14, Block 1 and Lots 1-13,Block 2,together with Outlots A, B, C, and D, plat of Haven Ridge The following property is hereby rezoned to A-O, Agriculture-Open Space District: Outlots D, E, F, G, H, I and J, plat of Haven Ridge Section 2. The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amended consistent with Section 1 of this Ordinance. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time. 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 and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 733 ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 13'h day of January, 2020. Brian Stumpf, May r ATTEST: Go-� Jeff O' e' dministrator AYES: Davidson, Fair, Gabler, Hilgart, and Stumpf NAYS: None. ORDINANCE NO. 734 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ESTABLISHING THE DEEPHAVEN PUD AS A ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, AND REZONING THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY FROM B-4,REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO DEEPHAVEN PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: LOT 1 BLOCK 1; DEEPHAVEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 2.4(P)—Planned Unit Developments, Title 10 — Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following: (22) Deephaven PUD District (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Deephaven PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for multiple family residential land uses. (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Deephaven PUD District shall be multiple family residential uses as found in the R-4, Medium-High Density Residential District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated , and development agreement dated January 131h, 2020, as may be amended. The introduction of any other use from any district shall be reviewed under the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section (0)—Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD and Final Stage PUD. (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to residential uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans. (d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the Deephaven PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement is not addressed by the final stage PUD,then the regulations of the R-4, Medium-High Density Residential District shall apply. (e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner 1 ORDINANCE NO. 734 of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (P)(10). The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. Section 2. The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amended to rezone the following described parcels from B-4, Regional Business District to Deephaven PUD, Planned Unit Development District: Lot 1, Block 1, Deephaven Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time. 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 and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 13th day January, 2020. ian Stumpf, Ma ATTEST: Jeff-O' , Administrator AYES: Davidson, Fair, Gabler, Hilgart, and Stumpf NAYS:None. ORDINANCE NO. 735 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REZONING THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY FROM A-O,AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO M-H, MANUFACTURED HOME PARK DISTRICT: See Exhibit A for Legal Description THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. The following property is hereby rezoned to M-H, Manufactured Home Park District: See Exhibit A. Section 2. The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amended consistent with Section 1 of this Ordinance. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time. 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 and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this day oV1—t';1 - 204 Brian Stumpf, Mayor 1 ORDINANCE NO. 73.5 ATTEST: Jeff ' ' , Administrator AYES: NAYS: 2 ORDINANCE NO. 735 EXHIBIT A That part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said East Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 05 minutes 54 seconds East along the east line of said East Half of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1170.18 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A; thence return South 0 degrees 05 minutes 54 seconds West along said east line of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter,a distance of 1170.18 feet to said southeast corner of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter;thence North 88 degrees 55 minutes 04 seconds West along the south line of said East Half of the Southwest Quarter,a distance of 319.67 feet to the southeast corner of the West 1000.00 feet of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter being the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continue North 88 degrees 55 minutes 04 seconds West along said south line,a distance of 80.14 feet;thence North 0 degrees 05 minutes 47 seconds East, a distance of 514.05 feet; thence North 35 degrees 48 minutes 04 seconds West, a distance of 93.37 feet; thence North 0 degrees 05 minutes 47 seconds East, a distance of 65.87 feet; thence North 35 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 95.47 feet; thence North 0 degrees 05 minutes 47 seconds East, a distance of 436.41 feet to the intersection of a line bearing North 88 degrees 55 minutes 04 seconds West from said Point A; thence South 88 degrees 55 minutes 04 seconds East, a distance of 80.12 feet to the east line of said West 1000.00 feet of said East Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence South 0 degrees 05 minutes 47 seconds West along said east line, a distance of 1170.18 feet to the point of beginning. 3 ORDINANCE NO. 739 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE,BY ESTABLISHING THE UMC PUD DISTRICT AS A ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, AND REZONING THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY FROM IBC, INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS CAMPUS TO UMC PUD,PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: LOTS 1 & 2,BLOCK 1, MONTICELLO COMMERCE CENTER 6TH ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 2.4(P)—Planned Unit Developments, Title 10—Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following: (XX) UMC PUD District (a) Purpose. The purpose of the UMC PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for industrial land uses. (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the UMC PUD District shall be indoor industrial uses as found in the IBC, Industrial and Business Campus District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated , and development agreement dated , 2020, as may be amended. (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to industrial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans, but shall not include outdoor storage or other activities. (d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the UMC PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement is not addressed by the final stage PUD, then the regulations of the IBC, Industrial and Business Campus District shall apply. (e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning 1 ORDINANCE NO. 739 Ordinance, Section 2.4 (P)(10). The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. Section 2. The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amendment to rezoned the following described parcels from IBC, Industrial and Business Campus District to UMC PUD, Planned Unit Development District: Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center 6"' Addition. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time. 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 and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. ADOPTED BYthe Monticello City Council this 24t" day of February, 2020. rian Stumpf, MaJ r ATTEST: Jef eill, Administrator AYES: Davidson, Fair, Gabler, Hilgart, and Stumpf NAYS: None. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 750 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE,BY REZONING THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY FROM A-O, AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT: FEATHERSTONE 5th ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amended to rezone the following described parcels from A-O, Agricultural Open Space to R-1, Single Family Residence District: PID NUMBERS: 155-252-000010 (See attached Legal Description) Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time. Section 3. 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 and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 141h day of December, 2020. ATTEST: Brian Stumpf, or Rache Leone r Adm nistrator AYES: Davidson, Fair, Gabler, Hilgart, and Stumpf NAYS: None. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 750 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Those lots to be platted as Lots 1-12, Lot 1; Lots 1-9, Block 2, and Lots 1-5, Block 3, and Outlot A, Featherstone 51h Addition, City of Monticello 2 ORDINANCE NO. 751 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ESTABLISHING THE EDMONSON RIDGE PUD DISTRICT AS A ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AND REZONING CERTAIN REAL ESTATE TO THE EDMONSON RIDGE PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 2.4(P)—Planned Unit Developments, Title 10—Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following: (XX) Edmonson Ridge PUD District (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Edmonson Ridge PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for residential land uses. (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Edmonson Ridge PUD District shall be single family residential uses as found in the TN, Traditional Neighborhood District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated , and development agreement dated December 14th, 2020, as may be amended. (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those listed in the TN, Traditional Neighborhood District, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans, and as specifically regulated by restrictive covenant as recorded against the lots zoned Edmonson Ridge PUD District. (d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the Edmonson Ridge PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement is not addressed by the final stage PUD,then the regulations of the TN, Traditional Neighborhood District shall apply. (e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change,the proposer shall apply for an 1 ORDINANCE NO. 751 amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (P)(10). The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. Section 2. The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amended to rezone the following described parcels to Edmonson Ridge PUD, Planned Unit Development District: Lots 1-12, Block 1, Lots 1-28, Block 2, Lots 1-19, Block 3, and Outlot A, all in Edmonson Ridge. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time. 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 and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 14th day of December, 2020. Brian Stump , ayor ATTEST: QJ7 Rac el Le t�d, dministr for AYES: Davidson, Fair, Gabler, Hilgart, and Stumpf NAYS: None. Planning Commission Agenda 1/05/2021 213. Public Hearing—Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Office Use in the CCD (Central Community District),Walnut& Cedar Sub- District. Applicant: Laestadian Lutheran Church (Phil Jurmu,Facilities Manager) (NAC) Property: PID: 155-010-031031 Address: 212 West 3rd Street Planning Case Number: 2020-044 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Conditional Use Permit for ground floor office in CCD Deadline for Decision: February 1st, 2021 Land Use Designation: Downtown Mixed Use Zoning Designation: CCD, Central Community District The purpose of the"CCD", Central Community District, is to provide for a wide variety of land uses, transportation options, and public activities in the downtown Monticello area, and particularly to implement the goals, objectives, and specific directives of the Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, the 2017 Downtown Monticello "Small Area Plan" Comprehensive Plan Amendment and its design and performance standards. (The Small Area Plan for the downtown was incorporated into the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update). Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Use: Vacant Commercial Building Surrounding Land Uses: North: Multi-family Residential East: CCD Commercial South: CCD Industrial (Cargill) West: CCD Commercial Project Description: The applicants propose to remodel and occupy an existing building, formerly used for commercial retail space,for commercial office space and occasional 1 Planning Commission Agenda 1/05/2021 related activities, including small conference meetings, etc. ANALYSIS The proposed use would occupy a former retail building as shown on the land use map to the 4 left. This building formerly housed a hardware store,but has been vacant for several months. The Walnut& Broadway sub-district of CCD accommodates commercial office uses as permitted uses on upper floors, and requires a conditional use permit on ground floor occupancies to encourage retail and entertainment use interaction. As noted above, the site sits on a block that is f bounded by multi-residential to the north, industrial to the south, and other commercial flanking the building on east and west sides. The purpose of limiting ground floor commercial office is to avoid interfering or discouraging a continuous flow of retail traffic along the primary shopping corridors in the downtown. This site, being at the edge of the district and bounded by a significant amount of non-retail use, does not appear to conflict with the retail/entertainment objectives of the district. It is in these situations that the CUP for ground floor office uses can be considered appropriate. As such, the primary review criteria for this type of CUP would be consistency with performance standards for the property. The applicants have provided an enhanced remodeling plan for the exterior of the building facing 3rd Street. The current"Quonset" design of the building would be screened with a revised roofline parapet. The building will be further enhanced with new materials and glass presentation to the street/parking lot area. With regard to parking, the zoning ordinance assigns parking for office uses at the rate of one space per 300 square feet, exempting non-productive floor space such as restrooms and mechanical areas. With this configuration, the required parking for this use would be 24 parking spaces. The site is served with a privately owned parking area that adjoins similar parking lots on either side. The lot is striped, but there is no curb delineation between parking areas. The applicant's property shows approximately 24 spaces, and likely room for additional striping if necessary. 2 Planning Commission Agenda 1/05/2021 It should be noted that the requirement listed in the code may be reduced if the applicant participates in the downtown shared-parking program. The City is discussing these options with the applicant since day-to-day parking demand is likely to be approximately half of the current supply. In working with the applicant and others in the area, there may be opportunities to increase efficiency of parking supplies for this block and surrounding areas as well. Beyond these comments, staff believes that the use is appropriate to qualify for CUP approval. Planning Commission will note this recommendation includes no Exhibit Z conditions, as staff believes the use meets the base code requirements for CUP. All base zoning code requirements, such as those for signage and building materials, apply. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021-002, recommending approval of the Conditional Use permit for ground floor office space,based on the findings identified in said resolution. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2021-002,based on findings to be identified at the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the CUP,pending additional information from staff and/or applicant. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends approval of the CUP (Alternative 1), based on the findings as noted in the Resolution. This recommendation incorporates comments from other staff. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2021-002 B. Aerial Site Image C. Applicant Narrative D. Proposed Elevations and Floor Plan E. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Excerpt 3 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-002 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE USE ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY(CCD)ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted a request to remodel and utilize an existing building for commercial office uses; and WHEREAS,the site is zoned CCD, Central Community District,which allows office space on the ground floor in the subject district by Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of Downtown Mixed Use for the area; and WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting compliance with the terms of the applicable zoning regulations; and WHEREAS,the uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the CCD zoning district; and WHEREAS, the uses will not create any unanticipated changes to the demand for public services on or around the site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5th, 2021 on the application and the applicant 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: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the CCD, Central Community Zoning District. 2. The proposed uses are consistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located. 3. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4. The proposed office use meets the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations,pursuant to the conditions attached to the Conditional Use Permit. 5. Parking is found to be adequate based on the available off-street parking on the property. 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-002 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 Conditional Use Permit for office uses on the ground floor. ADOPTED this 5th day of January, 2021 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 2 0 E u c 2- 0 u LO cy n� L u !. T ns O G] Lf? 4-1 � N C M ti a o f6 p r O o•� � w w O �, ` U JQ €� a � = T 07 > o N �+ N L b- o r v o T o 4, r +� V) . C6 p r vj Lz y w N N i N M N J N LAESTADIAN LUTHERAN CHURCH 279 N. MEDINA ST #150, LORETTO, MINNESOTA 55357 763.479.2422 FAx: 763.479.2133 WWW.LLCHURCH.ORG City of Monticello Community Development Department 505 Walnut St., STE. 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Laestadian Lutheran Church 279 N. Medina St. Ste., 105 Loretto, MN, 55357 ATTN: Phil Jurmu, Facilities Manager Angela Schumann and Jacob Thunander; The Laestadian Lutheran Church is the central organization of 32 member Laestadian Lutheran congregations in North America. Locally, there are Laestadian congregations located in Plymouth, Elk River, Rockford and Monticello. In addition,the Monticello church serves as a venue for Monticello School District's Nature Based School. The following is written narrative for the submitted Conditional Use Permit—212 W. 3rd Street, Monticello, MN 55362. The below sections below are intended to describe the proposed conditional use and how it will function on the property located at 212 W. 3rd Street, in Monticello, MN. With approval of the conditional use permit, the intention is tenant improvements within the existing footprint of the current building. Improvements to the exterior includes painting, facade improvements, and creating an entry vestibule. All signage will be in accordance with the City of Monticello's zoning code. The intent for the interior is to create office spaces for 12 employees, who typically work Monday-Friday, with office hours of 8:00 a.m. —5:00 p.m. Up to 4 meetings a week will be scheduled at this location with typical meeting attendance of 8-20 participants. Two-thirds of the meetings will include participants from outside of the employee office structure. These meetings will be held in a conference room expected to be up to 2,000 sq. ft. The conference room furniture will consist of moveable tables and chairs. Besides daytime office hours, meetings are also scheduled during evenings and weekends. This building is located on approximately an 1/2 acre which is paved and striped for parking. The on-site parking is more than ample for our needs. In item iii_ below,we explain how we might be able to collaborate with the City of Monticello on shared parking for the community. There is no intention to have any storage outside of the current building spaces. All of our operations will be inside. I. The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity, rather the expectation is that the conditional use will improve property values in the immediate vicinity. II. The conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety,morals or welfare of persons residing or working near the use. The commercial office work will be focused on support of Laestadian Lutheran Church membership and supports responsible citizenship within our communities. III. The conditional use will not impede the normal orderly development of surrounding property for permitted uses predominant in the area. The changes will not impact the neighborhood, rather with the creation of a cooperative relationship with the City of Monticello, some of the unused parking spaces may be used by members of the community who may be encouraged to walk around the Central Community District (CCD). IV. The conditional use will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or roads, as the traffic to and from this location will be nearly the same as the previous occupancy and ab adequate sanitary facilities will be installed as part of the tenant improvements. V. The conditional use does provide for more than adequate parking and loading and unloading spaces. All on-site storage will be in accordance with City code requirements. VI. The proposed conditional use does not create any additional odor, noise or sight pollution. VII. As there are no existing woodlands, wetlands or shorelines,these sensitive spaces will not be impacted by any erosion. All substantive work on this conditional use will be conducted on the interior of the structure. VIII. This conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria outlined in Chapter 5 for the proposed use. Thank you, Phil Jurmu, Facilities Manager Laestadian Lutheran Church i � : I p, I I �I I� � , i � �� �� co ��o o (1) >- JC:) n co co coI �I I \ ) : (/» !/i \ \ \ \ \§/ ` §§( , }:« : \% |), f} ~0 > ' b EJ> ° a q - ) o _ § e (/ , §\ ; _� r\ :e: :G §§ u: ! \ CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.1 Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure TABLE • CENTRAL COMMUNITY Riverfront •.• • Cedar Office,Entertain- Retail, sup- Retail, sup- • ment and ported by ported by large space supported open space, • • retail users, by limited supported Housing 2nd services and retail retail and by retail service services Additional Use requirements applicable per S.2 of this ordinance. Uses: Residential Uses Single Family P* CUP -Upper floors only Multi 3 du or under P* CUP* P Upper floors only Townhouse CUP CUP* CUP P "Townhouses on Broadway east of Pine only Multi 4-12du CUP CUP CUP CUP Multi 13+ du CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Ground-Floor CUP* P P -Allowed on ground floor for townhouses on Broadway east of Pine Commercial Brew Pub <10,000 sq. ft. P P P P Brew Pub >10,000 sq. ft. CUP P CUP P Commercial Day Care CUP CUP P Commercial Lodging P CUP CUP P Entertainment/Recreation, CUP* CUP* CUP* CUP <I0,000 sq. ft. only Indoor Commercial (including theaters) Entertainment/Recreation Outdoor Commercial Event Centers CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Subject to 5.2 (F)(14) Funeral Services CUP Personal Services P P P P CUP Places of Public Assembly CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Production Brewery/Taproom P P P P Micro Distillery/Cocktail Room P P P P Professional Office -Services and CUP* P P P P Upper floors Retail preferred Commercial Office CUP*- not P/CUP*on P/CUP* P Upper floors allowed on ground on ground preferred ground floor floor floor Financial P P P P Drive thru by CUP Restaurants, Bars <10,000 sq.ft. P P P P CUP Restaurants, Bars >10,000 sq.ft. CUP P CUP P CUP Page 360 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 8: RULES& DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots COMBINATION USE: The combination of two principal uses. COMMERCIAL LODGING: Commercial Lodging means a building or group of buildings in which sleeping accommodations are offered to the public and intended primarily for rental for temporary occupation by persons on an overnight basis,not including bed and breakfast establishments or a rooming house. Such uses may include microwaves and refrigerators for each guest unit. COMMERCIAL OFFICES: A commercial use involving predominantly administrative, clerical,or professional operations. Commercial offices may include professional and administrative training,but shall not include direct retail commercial transaction activities. Professional training may include classes and training offered by professional or administrative entities to consumers of professional services. COMMERCIAL SELF-STORAGE: A land use characterized by a variety of sized spaces available to the general public for rent on short-term periods, and for which size of individual spaces are less than 1,000 square feet in area. Commercial Self-Storage facilities are limited to storage use only,with no separate business activities permitted as part of the use. COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURES (see `ANTENNA, TELECOMMUNICATION') COMMUNICATIONSBROADCASTING: Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of broadcasting and other information relay services accomplished through the use of electronic and telephonic mechanisms.Antennas, antenna support structures and satellite dishes are included in this definition. Typical uses include television studios, telecommunication service centers,telegraph service offices,or film and sound recording facilities. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: Those departments assigned by the City Administrator to oversee the various aspects of development within the City. Such departments may include but are not limited to planning,building safety, code enforcement, and engineering. COMMUNITY GARDEN: A public or private facility for cultivation of fruits,flowers, vegetables or ornamental plants by more than one (1)person or group. CONDITIONAL USE: A permitted use that,because of special requirements or characteristics,may only be allowed in a particular zoning district after review by the City and granting of conditional use permit which imposes conditions deemed necessary to make the use compatible with other uses permitted in the same zone or vicinity. Conditional uses that Page 478 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Agenda—1/05/2021 2C. Public Hearing—Consideration of a Map Amendment(Rezoning) to Planned Unit Development,Development& Final Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary and Final Plat for the Construction of a Machinery & Truck Repair & Sales Use. Applicant: Nuss Truck & Equipment (Phil Watkins). (NAC) Property: Legal Descriptions: West Parcel: Outlot A, Otter Creek Crossing 6th Addition East Parcel: Lot3, Block 1, Otter Creek Crossing 5th Addition Planning Case Number: 2020 - 026 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary and Final Plat, and Development Stage and Final Stage PUD Permit Approvals. Deadline for Decision: February 5th, 2021 Land Use Designation: LIP (Light Industrial Park) Zoning Designation: IBC Industrial Business and B-3, Highway Business* The purpose of the "IBC" Industrial Business Campus District is to provide for the establishment of limited light industrial business offices, limited light manufacturing, wholesale showrooms and related uses in an environment which provides a high level of amenities, including landscaping,preservation of natural features, architectural controls, and other features. 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. *There is some question from the record as to the correct current zoning of the two parcels in question. The Zoning Map shows these two districts. 1 Planning Commission Agenda—1/05/2021 Site Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Uses: West Parcel: Vacant East Parcel: Vacant Surrounding Land Uses: North: I-94 East: Vacant Industrial South: Industrial West: Commercial (Ryan Auto, incl. 1 vacant parcel) Project Description: Nuss Trucking and Equipment wishes to acquire the two abutting parcels totaling approximately 10.5 acres to allow development of a facility for sales and service of truck, machinery and construction equipment. Specifically,the applicants wish to construct a new 45,575 square foot building on the property. Both parcels (east and west) are guided for light industrial use by the City's Comprehensive Plan and are zoned"IBC", Industrial-Business Campus to the west, and B-3 to the east. The proposed applications would combine the two parcels into a single development lot, rezoning that parcel to PUD, Planned Unit 2 Planning Commission Agenda—1/05/2021 Development, and then process both Development Stage and Final Stage PUD approvals. The project includes construction of the building noted above, establishment of sales display area along the north (I-94), east, and south (Chelsea Road) frontages, and an outdoor gravel-surfaced storage area for equipment being held for sale, service, or inventory along the west boundary of the site. ANALYSIS: Purpose of Planned Unit Development(PUD)/Land Use. For this project, the primary purpose of the PUD is to accommodate the development of a proposed use that shares some aspects of both commercial and industrial land uses. The land use designation of"Light Industrial Park"is described in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK(LIP) The Light Industrial designation accommodates uses such as process and production manufacturing which uses moderate amounts ofpartially processed materials, warehousing and distribution, research and development, medical laboratories, machine shops, computer technology,professional and corporate offices and industrial engineering facilities. Characteristics such as noise, vibration and odor do not occur or do not generate significant impacts. Hazardous materials handling and storage may also occur but must be stored indoors or screened from the public right-of-way. Activities such as the handling of hazardous materials and outdoor storage are limited. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that some mix of commercial office and service uses may be appropriate within the LIP category, and identifies the correlative zoning district as the I-1, Light Industrial District as the appropriate district to reflect the goals of this land use designation. Under the Industrial Uses in the zoning ordinance, "Machinery/Trucking Repair and Sales and Industrial Services"is a Permitted use in the I-1 and I-2 Districts (not allowed in the IBC),with the following required performance standards: (H) Machinery/Trucking Repair& Sales and Industrial Services (a) The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. 3 Planning Commission Agenda—1/05/2021 (b)A drainage system subject to the approval of the Community Development Department shall be installed. (c) The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Section 4.4 of this ordinance. (d) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with an opaque buffer (Table 4-2, Buffer Type "D') in accordance with section 4.1(G) of this ordinance. (e)Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 4.1(F) of this ordinance. (f)All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with Section 4.5 of this ordinance. (g)Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. Section 4.1(G): Standards for Perimeter Buffers Section 4.1(F): Standards for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping. (h)No outside storage except as permitted or conditionally permitted in compliance with Section 5.3(D)(26) of this ordinance. (i)All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request,finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. (j)If the business repairs semi-trucks or other large machinery, a specific area shall be designated for the exterior storage of the things being repaired and/or other vehicles and equipment accessory and incidental to the vehicle or machinery being repaired or serviced. Proposed Site and Building Plans (Development and Final Stage PUD). The applicant has elected to run their Development and Final Stage PUD requests concurrently. Building Size. The applicant is proposing a building on the center/east portion of the property, with a building footprint of 32,700 square feet. The building itself consists of a west side (comprising 18,700 square feet) of one-story shop and service bay area; and an east side of two stories, totaling 14,000 square feet on the ground floor and slightly less above on the mezzanine level. Overall building square footage is shown as 45,575 square feet. For the east two-story section, ground floor uses include office, storage,retail, and restroom/mechanical spaces. The mezzanine level is dominated by storage, with an area of employee lounge. When this project was considered at the joint concept review meeting, some members of the City Council expressed interest in seeing a larger building on the property. The 4 Planning Commission Agenda—1/05/2021 building size was discussed within the context of the standard commonly applied to Vehicle Sales & Rental uses,which requires a ratio of building square footage to overall lot area. The ordinance for Machinery & Truck Repair and Sales uses does not include this ratio requirement. The applicant's current structure includes mezzanine space (as noted) and an area of future expansion is shown on the site plan, extending the building to the west at an unspecified future date. In terms of building to lot area coverage, the proposed use represents approximately 7% of coverage, not including the mezzanine square footage. Including the mezzanine brings the percentage to approximately 10%. Building height is 27.5 feet to the peak of a slightly sloped roof. The roof pitch is approximately 4.5% on the standing seam metal roof, and overall sidewall panels of stucco-coated insulated steel panels. Seven drive-through service bay doors occupy the north and south building facades of the west section, with an additional recessed dock door also facing south (Chelsea Road). While the building meets the minimum zoning requirements for materials, staff would suggest additional architectural enhancements would bring the facility closer to the intent of Planned Unit Development, which is to accommodate flexibility in some areas through enhancement of others. Along Chelsea Road, other buildings have added masonry wainscot treatments, or architectural features emphasizing main entrances and building corners, etc. This recommendation is also consistent with the comments made as part of the Concept PUD review. Site Surfacing/Landscapes. The site is proposed to include a landscaped strip around the perimeter of the property, and a planting area abutting the exposed areas of the office/retail portion of the building. Beyond these areas of green space, pavement would dominate the site (bituminous in most cases,with a concrete apron area leading to/from the service bay doors). The exception is an area of outdoor storage/equipment parking along the west boundary encompassing approximately 1.7 acres which would be "surfaced"with pavement millings. The applicants have requested this area and surface material as being accommodating of the types of heavy equipment being kept on the property. This westerly area is proposed to have a separate access point from Chelsea Road. As noted in the engineer's report, staff is recommending that this access point be removed, and combined with the nearest access point to the east on the property, including realignment of that access to avoid conflicts with the access points on the property to the south of Chelsea Road. According to the zoning ordinance, landscaped islands are typically required to break up large expanses of parking area. In industrial districts, the maximum extent of unbroken parking area is 50 spaces. The north boundary along I-94 shows an 5 Planning Commission Agenda—1/05/2021 equipment display/parking area up approximately 70 spaces. Per zoning ordinance requirement, at least one landscaped island should be installed in this expanse to break up the line of parking. While other areas of the property fall below the 50 space threshold, the site would benefit greatly from additional green space, particularly as an element of PUD design enhancement, and due to the site's visibility to the two major roadways. It is noted that the site plan and landscaping plans do vary, with the landscaping plan illustrating an island delineator in the center of the northerly line of parking along I-94. Staff would recommend the site plan reflect this landscaping area consistent with the landscaping plan. Fencing. The site plan also illustrates a chain-link fence that would surround the entire property at the property line, and also enclosed the westerly outdoor equipment storage area. Notes on the submissions suggest barbed wire enclosures would be included on a portion of this fence. The zoning ordinance does not permit barbed wire except where specifically approved as a part of a separate security plan. Staff does not recommend the barbed wire in this highly exposed location due to concerns over aesthetic impression from both I-94 and Chelsea Road. Other security measures should be considered for sensitive areas. Moreover, chain link fencing in the industrial districts is allowed with the provision that such fences are covered with dark green or black vinyl/paint color. This requirement should be specified as a part of any approval considered for this PUD. Landscapes. As shown on the submitted landscape plan, tree and shrub planting is proposed around the site,particularly along the west side of the site adjoining the open equipment parking/storage area. The zoning ordinance requires a total of 4 caliper inches of tree planting per acre in industrial areas, resulting in a minimum planting of 42 caliper inches of trees on this parcel. The proposed plan shows planting quantities in excess of this requirement. Planning staff would note,however, that the trees surrounding the open storage/parking area on the west should be evergreen varieties planted approximately 15 feet on center to effect a more complete landscape screen of that area. For the east boundary, the applicant will need to plan for what the zoning ordinance identifies as a"C"buffer—with the accommodation that the buffer planting is reduced by half since the adjoining property is not yet developed. As such, the applicant is required to maintain a minimum 10-foot landscaped space, with a total of 28 caliper inches of overstory trees, and 33 caliper inches of ornamental trees over the 482 foot long side property line. These landscaping recommendations bring the site into conformance with code requirements and respond to the comments of Planning Commission and Council during the Concept PUD review. 6 Planning Commission Agenda—1/05/2021 As a final note, the current landscape plan does not conform to the civil design plans used for engineering purposes. The final site plan should be resolved and the landscape plan redesigned accordingly. Trash/Recycling. The applicant has proposed an area adjacent to the west side of the building for outdoor storage of small parts and trash enclosure. Per ordinance requirements, this area must be finished with materials similar to those used in the principal building. Lighting. As required, a lighting plan has been submitted for review. The vast majority of exterior site lighting is to be freestanding fixtures (20)located within the site's off-street parking areas. Such fixtures are to measure 25 feet in height which satisfies the maximum height requirement of the Ordinance. The majority of the proposed fixtures appear to be identified as 27.5 feet in height. These fixtures/poles should be adjusted to meet the requirements of the ordinance. According to the Ordinance, the maximum allowed illumination level for industrial uses, as measured at the property line is 1.0 foot-candles. This maximum illumination level is exceeded in a few areas of the plan. The lighting plan should be modified to meet this requirement. SLyngge. The applicant has not submitted a final sign plan. As a condition of PUD approval, all signs erected upon the subject site should be subject to sign permit. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. The submitted grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review comment by the City Engineer. The City Engineer's comments are provided in the Supporting Data. Preliminary and Final Plat As noted, the applicant seeks to replat the proposed lots into a single development parcel. As a part of the plat, the applicant will be seeking the vacation of a drainage easement that crosses the property, and creation of new drainage and utility easements surrounding the property. The proposed plat details the required perimeter drainage and utility easements and the vacation of an internal 20' easement for stormwater purposes is subject to the review and recommendation of the City Engineer. There are not planning issues related to the plat, apart from the PUD site planning reviews, including comments related to access design. The City Engineer addresses additional civil design issues related to the plat as a part of his report. IT should be noted that stormwater management design is currently a subject of review and discussion between the city and applicant. The applicant has provided a final plat for review, which will be the subject of City Council review and decision. 7 Planning Commission Agenda—1/05/2021 The plat has been sent to MnDOT for review, as it is adjacent to I-94. As of the date of this report, MnDOT's review comments have not been received. Therefore, compliance with MnDOT's comments is a condition of approval. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1 —Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development 1. Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2021-003 recommending approval of a rezoning to PUD,Nuss Planned Unit Development District, based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution PC-2021-003, based on findings to be identified by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on the Development Stage PUD, subject to submission of additional information from applicant or City Staff. Decision 2—Preliminary Plat 1. Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2021-004 recommending approval of a Plat, consolidating the two subject properties into a single development parcel, subject to the requirements of Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution PC-2021-004, based on findings to be identified by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on the resolution, subject to submission of additional information from applicant or City Staff. Decision 3 -Development Stage PUD Approval 1. Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2021-005 recommending approval of a Development Stage Planned Unit Development for the application, subject to the requirements identified in Exhibit Z of this report, and based on the findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution PC-2021-005, based on findings to be identified by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on the Development Stage PUD, subject to submission of additional information from applicant or City Staff. 8 Planning Commission Agenda—1/05/2021 C. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION In previous review of the PUD Concept Plan, City Officials found the proposed land use and requested Zoning Ordinance flexibilities (potentially allowed by the PUD)to be generally acceptable. In this regard,the formal request for PUD zoning and Development Stage PUD approval is consistent with previously received City feedback with regard to land use and general site planning expectations. The purpose of Planned Unit Development is the accommodation of flexibility from certain zoning standards, based on other enhancements to the use or performance standards that result in a more effective way to achieve the City's land use goals than the application of the routine zoning regulations. In this case,the applicant's plans rely on PUD to accommodate an industrial use that could be viewed as permitted but with some variance requests for specific requirements. To meet the objectives of PUD, staff has recommended modifications that reduce the number of variances that would be applicable to the plan. In this regard, staff recommends approval of the rezoning,preliminary plat and Development Stage PUD subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2021-003, Rezoning to PUD B. Resolution PC-2021-004, Preliminary Plat C. Resolution PC-2021-005, Development and Final Stage PUD D. Draft PUD Ordinance E. Aerial Site Image F. Applicant Narrative G. Civil Site Plans,including: a. Project Location Plan b. Site Plan, PUD Development Plan c. Grading and Drainage Plan d. Sanitary Sewer& Water Plan e. Storm Sewer Plan f. SWPPP g. Existing Conditions & Removal Plan h. Details H. Preliminary Plat L Building Elevations and Floor Plans J. Landscape Plan K. Photometric Plan L. Final Plat M. City Engineer's Comment Letter, dated December 17, 2020 N. Concept Stage PUD Minutes Z. Conditions of Approval 9 Planning Commission Agenda—1/05/2021 EXHIBIT Z Rezoning to PUD,Preliminary and Final Plat, and Development and Final Stage PUD Nuss Trucking and Equipment 1. Addition of landscaped islands or similar spaces throughout the paved area, including at least one such island along the north boundary of the site. 2. Addition of evergreen trees screening the outdoor storage parking area on the west, and buffer plantings on the east, all as noted in this report and consistent with city code requirements. 3. Revised landscaping plan is submitted based on the engineered final site plan. 4. Addition of architectural enhancements to the principal building emphasizing additional/alternative materials treatments and principal entrance features. 5. Elimination of the westerly access point, and consolidation with the 2nd access point as noted in the City Engineer' report. 6. Elimination of the references to barbed wire, and reliance on alternative security measures on the property. 7. Addition of dark green or black vinyl coating on the chain link fencing,per ordinance requirements. 8. Specification of the exterior materials for the storage/trash area to be similar to those of the principal building. 9. Modification of the lighting plan to a maximum of 1.0 footcandles at the property line and 25 foot tall poles. 10. Submission of a signage plan consistent with the requirements of the City's sign ordinance. 11. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation related to grading, drainage and utilities. 12. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer's report dated December 17, 2020. 13. Compliance with the comments of MnDOT's plat review. 14. Comments and recommendations of other City Staff and Planning Commission. 10 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-003 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING TO NUSS TRUCKING INDUSTRIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the applicant owns property along West Chelsea Road in the Otter Creek 51h and 61h Additions; and WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted a request to plat said property into one development parcel under a PUD; and WHEREAS, the site is guided for industrial uses under the label Light Industrial Park(LIP) in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS,the proposed PUD, along with the companion Plat, are consistent with the long- term use and development of the property for industrial uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5, 2021 on the application and the applicant 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: 1. The Rezoning provides an appropriate means of furthering the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the site by putting the existing and proposed improvements and parcels to industrial use. 2. The proposed improvements on the site under the PUD Zoning are consistent with the needs of the development in this location as an industrial area. 3. The improvements will have expected impacts on public services, including sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and traffic which have been planned to serve the property for the development as proposed. 4.. The PUD flexibility for the project is consistent with the intent of the City's economic development objectives, as well as with the intent of the PUD zoning regulations. 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-003 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 rezoning to Nuss Trucking Industrial District. ADOPTED this 5th day of January,2021,by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-004 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NUSS TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT ADDITION WHEREAS, the applicant owns property along West Chelsea Road in the Otter Creek 51h and 61h Additions; and WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted a request to plat said property into one development parcel under a PUD; and WHEREAS, the site is guided for industrial uses under the label Light Industrial Park(LIP) in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed PUD, along with the companion Plat, are consistent with the long- term use and development of the property for industrial uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5, 2021 on the application and the applicant 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: 1. The Plat provides an appropriate means of furthering the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the site by putting the existing and proposed improvements and parcels to industrial use. 2. The proposed improvements on the site under the Preliminary Plat are consistent with the needs of the development in this location as an industrial area. 3. The improvements will have expected impacts on public services, including sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and traffic which have been planned to serve the property for the development as proposed. 4.. The PUD flexibility for the project is consistent with the intent of the City's economic development objectives, as well as with the intent of the PUD zoning regulations. 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-004 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 Preliminary Plat for Nuss Trucking and Equipment Addition, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z of the staff report as follows: 1. Addition of landscaped islands or similar spaces throughout the paved area, including at least one such island along the north boundary of the site. 2. Addition of evergreen trees screening the outdoor storage parking area on the west, and buffer plantings on the east, all as noted in this report and consistent with city code requirements. 3. Revised landscaping plan is submitted based on the engineered final site plan. 4. Addition of architectural enhancements to the principal building emphasizing additional/alternative materials treatments and principal entrance features. 5. Elimination of the westerly access point, and consolidation with the 2nd access point as noted in the City Engineer' report. 6. Elimination of the references to barbed wire, and reliance on alternative security measures on the property. 7. Addition of dark green or black vinyl coating on the chain link fencing,per ordinance requirements. 8. Specification of the exterior materials for the storage/trash area to be similar to those of the principal building. 9. Modification of the lighting plan to a maximum of 1.0 footcandles at the property line and 25 foot tall poles. 10. Submission of a signage plan consistent with the requirements of the City's sign ordinance. 11. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation related to grading, drainage and utilities. 12. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer's report dated December 17, 2020. 13. Compliance with the comments of MnDOT's plat review. 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-004 14. Comments and recommendations of other City Staff and Planning Commission. ADOPTED this 5ch day of January, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 3 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-005 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY STAGE AND FINAL STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR NUSS TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT ADDITION WHEREAS, the applicant owns property along West Chelsea Road in the Otter Creek 5th and 6th Additions; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to plat said property into one development parcel under a PUD; and WHEREAS,the site is guided for industrial uses under the label Light Industrial Park(LIP) in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed PUD, along with the companion Plat, are consistent with the long- term use and development of the property for industrial uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5, 2021 on the application and the applicant 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: I. The PUD provides an appropriate means of furthering the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the site by putting the existing and proposed improvements and parcels to industrial use. 2. The proposed improvements on the site under the PUD are consistent with the needs of the development in this location as an industrial area. 3. The improvements will have expected impacts on public services, including sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and traffic which have been planned to serve the property for the development as proposed. 4.. The PUD flexibility for the project is consistent with the intent of the City's economic development objectives, as well as with the intent of the PUD zoning regulations. 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-005 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 Development and Final Stage PUD for Nuss Trucking and Equipment Addition, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z of the staff report as follows: 1. Addition of landscaped islands or similar spaces throughout the paved area, including at least one such island along the north boundary of the site. 2. Addition of evergreen trees screening the outdoor storage parking area on the west, and buffer plantings on the east, all as noted in this report and consistent with city code requirements. 3. Revised landscaping plan is submitted based on the engineered final site plan. 4. Addition of architectural enhancements to the principal building emphasizing additional/alternative materials treatments and principal entrance features. 5. Elimination of the westerly access point, and consolidation with the 2nd access point as noted in the City Engineer' report. 6. Elimination of the references to barbed wire, and reliance on alternative security measures on the property. 7. Addition of dark green or black vinyl coating on the chain link fencing,per ordinance requirements. 8. Specification of the exterior materials for the storage/trash area to be similar to those of the principal building. 9. Modification of the lighting plan to a maximum of 1.0 footcandles at the property line and 25 foot tall poles. 10. Submission of a signage plan consistent with the requirements of the City's sign ordinance. 11. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation related to grading, drainage and utilities. 12. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer's report dated December 17, 2020. 13. Compliance with the comments of MnDOT's plat review. 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-005 14. Comments and recommendations of other City Staff and Planning Commission. ADOPTED this 5ch day of January, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 3 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE,BY AMENDING SECTION 3.8,ADDING THE "NUSS TRUCKING INDUSTRIAL PUD",A ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3.8—Planned Unit Developments, Title 10 —Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8 (13) Nuss Trucking Industrial PUD (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Nuss Trucking PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for industrial land uses. (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Nuss Trucking Industrial PUD District shall be machinery/truck repair and sales as found in Section 5.2 (F)(11) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section , subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated and development agreement dated , 20 , as may be amended. (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to industrial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans. (d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the Nuss Trucking Industrial PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement is not addressed by the final stage PUD, then the regulations of the I-1, Industrial District shall apply. (e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (P)(10). The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new 1 ORDINANCE NO. project, including a zoning district amendment. Section 2. The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amendment to rezoned the following described parcels from its current district(s)to Nuss Trucking Industrial PUD, Planned Unit Development District: Lots 1, Block 1,Nuss Truck and Equipment Addition. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time. 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 and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. ADOPTED BYthe Monticello City Council this day of , 2021. Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor ATTEST: Jeff O'Neill,Administrator AYES: NAYS: 2 0 asdnnai� �r�d►dalan�as 1 , T LLn T U W p a31N3 r 73 10 Q _ r �113iNG18 r u� c� w D T LO (6 MO C r 60 p p T to E 7 u� c � U 4x a 4-' LO +' i u� 0 p p .� m 0 cl T p N O G C LO f N Q Q p r � r Q r O two r i ` N LO O r L V) r r p r pO 0 O p © r of � U o N N -Y p c!1 N `uLO co p L 07 U LO r o r 0 Q !' o Na1a2 +� 4� bQ c'6 O Nuss Truck & Equipment - Roseville 2195 W. County Road C2 TRUCK & Roseville, MN 55113 N[USS EQUIPMENT 651-633-4810 / 800-704-0935 Fax 651-635-0928 www.nussgrp.com Hello Monticello City Council, Planning Commission members and Staff, We are pleased to present a revised proposal for a new Nuss dealership. As we discussed 9-28-20, the Nuss family has been serving the transportation industry since our original Mack dealership location in 1959. We sell and support many industry tools for almost every type of manufacturing, infrastructure, construction, food and beverage, furniture, medical, all levels of government including snow plows, wheel loaders, dump trucks, excavators and more. We would potentially acquire 10 acres on Chelsea Road early next year if our land use is approved. The proposed lot is between 2 vacant properties currently and has no wetlands. Building plans would be for a new 32,700 SF (footprint) with total 46K SF dealership location built next 1-2 years with compliant signage. Per staff request we are submitting a PUD. NTE is a vehicle sales business similar to the adjacent Ryan Auto dealership. Our vehicle inventory show floor is our outdoor sales lots. The request is to have the subject property zoned as vehicle sales instead of the current B3/IBC. The plan is for extra screening with trees for the West area with a mixed use parking, loading / unloading lot without new inventory display. The east display portion we are looking for minimal screening / buffer for inventory visibility. Our plan used the same planting schedule as the Ryan dealership with some trees shifted west for additional screening. The existing drainage easement would be vacated and a pre development drainage plan / system needed on neighboring E/W lots. After our meeting in September we have come upon a few challenges with the project. The proposed site has one of the lowest elevations along Chelsea Road combined with a relatively high storm water inlet pipe to the existing Chelsea Road storm system. The building elevation will need to be raised approximately 6'-8' above the existing grade for proper drainage and will also have a large amount of top soil removal (1'- 2') resulting in $450-$500K of fill and compaction costs. The project would also require the city to update the present storm water treatment capacity to accept rate, volume and water quality of the facility. Nuss would likely have additional assessments above the 152K development fees to upgrade the existing system to handle the required capacity. After seeking preliminary bids for construction we have been told most trades will be seeing a 10%-30% price increase for 2021 mainly due to building material costs. With over 1 mil of new unplanned cost increases we would be unable to also afford an additional 7K-8K SF of building footprint up to 40K. The facility would be over 27' tall and would have 2 floors and total useable SF of over 46K as planned. We look forward to working with you on this project Sincerely, Phil Watkins, VP Customer Support, pwatkins(a)nussgrp.com 612-308-4253 BURNSVILLE. DULUTH • EAU CLAIRE • MANKATO. ROCHESTER a ROSEVILLE. ST. CLOUD NYId NOLLY001 103POUd = lase 3rvu luu.»ualn l [as miivozenH aS ae a3��3H� o zscsswua=.nri V W ^ c a= ,s A'als 9a 3JISe as JP 03MJ1530 ^ o D ? H r aMNrT%NIaNeT TIAIJ ;� nvu p O O d9699.30-uu&v'99sa9u9W N 7 �> 3�� protl bfP4D 969@ a5 na n•.xwm o o 7 W 3° Y 103POUd 1N3•Y3AOUdYq 3118 CS v w z a 1N3Wdin63 9 )1onu-L SSl1N wn�wneK�o� aro'o�"wu W ° '� uu ew Ra q,vned m. OZ CO Zl 3[4tl n'wi a-�'mM°vi wvl rrw.+Cae.w i � a z� g W a ¢3 INN Lu �i J 0 ac>cs c�c>cs c� U z Z O ,L. b ° U W = o Wes _ Z z o ° W r a as W B U CD Z W o W CD A CL LU y y y $� 17 LU j Z pp _ $ ; :• Z _ v $ 8 szso�r Pc��ce�Ma�o�e— !B°� uau�t I yiwlt 4S AB Q3MJ3HJ NYId 3118 znEs sss°V.a°°od�°" 3ms rv�uaa° 3�vms rvi;azeoa Z a x„�a �nuasanr,va unrr.� :,e a3axuaa as ae o�ns3o o F a u 3 Zgess o70osmgW'WIe°N�qt _ pwtl t..PgJ cage arocnz °x e.a oz :.wa O N M a5 .�e xu�a iil 1n a O o n g 103POUd 1N31113AObklkV 3118 w z W 1N3Wdlnb3 s Tonal SSnNoz ca z1 o w OLU ot ct U. N W - __ . .�. o W F oa ry a p c O _ O % u1 W - - m - Sso N m p ¢ a ET - x' - ¢ - E�m szo a N o W�o 1 a o o N uj LU Q b' I' .. .. 'U: . ....< .. k O s� .Ils 7 1 _ " d . a a I ... o8-t6;'• V 0- Oos, P� ICI r 3 � 7 O. 5 - III.. :...:. ° .. O _ Q 11 x . F U V- [0 no O:W I - S�aro ml . 4 k M' z�iau 9 ' _ O II I o� Y n n� - 8- xoe � s �S W< 1 - �c r N 2F e=a1 e0v W O - Y 4 roa 'Al mom r .......... .....<.... m� II9 Y Ob, EF� I� W b j, px�po�. sod so �G n. - N =a< O: =oar �- --- z 3Zo�a a p6Eo G ° o Y' 3.909 I 1 o b P 0 o oiz '��ia z$n�o�°z 14V In I 3�ind3s dawoisn� 0� s G� � ��6mo O»O ma m�oze Tmo _- p� � I 0 O 0 0 0 o pj3= -- -- - ------ --------- 1. _ z ---- 1 ---- -- g � M-s8.so sb s o 1 aEaae�°_W - - C W/ wW I W/ wW I OS A9 03NJ3H] ob Nd7d 3OYNIVHO 4 ONIOYNO r9 3�vas maa3n 3ms ivvaozaoH V 14 W n his N�fSH 3.ZfS g--- CIS nE�3N953a n \ \1 cc� '� sPoM �umaaut�ua�tnt� :.,a o�rn3ae o `� a a9999 910--M'-H-13—ft p o` N _° p--H—1-40 999c '""m ozi4oiz� as a uvao N Cl ;"o u IDWONd LNBV43AOhkW1 BIM �IY7�1OS o rn w z W 1N3Wdjno3 8 monhu ssnN as a oz m zi a w c � s � W ¢�a P I x n > 2. > wvi3 n E LL - 0 5Rview xa 0 a �'I i g � I _ 6£ - - �A �m� 1 o a . a zt I i o o �P �M =EP m v _E. iEo o N v F� II of Ia 1 \w EMT Ifs m i sss ry o i a o ece _ r � av I o ss�146 as / os I m° �a aav PE. EEv— oEv o wee a law,_,°,„w as AB 03NJ3HJ F o NYId tl31YM 9 tl3M38 AtlY1P/Y8 z csggsrva�a°eod 3lYJs luu.»ualn 31YJ5 miivozenH YZ ¢N ao _`_ "_e—t M va W ?_ 'x w a �MII33NI N3 uAI.J :/E QiY 63t1tl as Z9699-soae996y'o9so9uonIL proH—.i qo 6696 N O 3 0 $ 103POUd IASW3AOUdW1 Bile bz CSc w z W 1N3Wcwn63 9 )1onu-L SSl1N ,�9n�K � c;'o�;W; W "� ew Aa q�vned m. OZ CO Zl 3[4tl �Naeu'n'wi a->�'mM s'vi wvl rrw.+Cae.w i � � a f Q,yQ .www a a ; W a do- p o�x w x 00 v — —— --- —— ------ ,E i I� � I �. =gym moP m - - 1 x _ Q _ v m m W Am W M� I U _ V III ofvE a m d a�n � _ �Eo Z a� 1=6mxi osP� m= mm I o� oo u aa° as I °vv of -- — -- — — -- -- — — 1Ag — � F E I 6 E _ r 86 o� m_ o- as ro I NZ, II _m v oE -E _ E i — ----- -------- 046 -- - P�I _ _ r a46 -_ ____ _ ___ V aE _ - II - L �Ev Zoa _ oc �� ac moc o we,a law,_,°,„w as AB 03NJ3HJ NYId tl3M38 Wtl018 zscs ssswaoe roe�wtl 3WS lYJ1lN3A 37YS NIWZWI o a U W n `A'all9a airs e—— as .�a3MJ�53o a - H a aMNaaNIaNa TIAIJ ;fig�y nvu ; u 3 d9699 eaoaewryry•o969C W 69@ 'ON4®' oa/m/z, as na n•.xwm \�/J 7 W 3° Y 133POUd 1N3•Y3AOUdW1 3118 o 0 w z a 1N.gj, 3 9 )1onu-L SSl1N " ew Aa q,vned m. OZ CO Zl 3[4tl n'wi a-�'mM°v,wvl rrw.+Cae.w i � � a Y Q > do- W 0 a C7 I 11J X III III W I o ---- — �- _--- " a' -- P - - - r - - -- - — f° � IIII - I'IIIII , =a�m 6 I 9 « h \ < o v as N® tn - ° �m I � a io v ❑ ° w QL In I I o " W §aM nPkP °E- hP `� s v Eta on �I A ^^ pl _v me t 0 oa - "8 ❑ ^R a ��n 0 o r ml a � - _ ,A _ ❑ °f°O - -BAR zm. - p ` < Il - - - - w/w° mga , _p " -- o Oas� h ��o rg� -moo - - - 2'E - W°+� aR,;aaal E _ 9oIj� - o v f�p -- - - - = ° - - _ - - �12 �__��2 YEo / w �R e - -aEE- u /yYs° w a8 a - p - P _ Ea = - a / ° " � s - � E - E E E \ II 5d�m - _6 �E I ° E� - y �- _ l� x swRrto\p. 'ERG^^�Fs � uA?•-�I i - �O�=��h�imO — - II W -o Ea a u ego e I E 1 pe a a s— W�m _ a v v Z �� - - �s - W ass - a a ml I� E - m �1 1 Rco p.8m i n a e R o HIM i Noo �mW__ I �1 1 E. F --- / - DEE �E n A w)—=wW i Wig—=wW'i as we a3N�3N� F dddMS �84o essrv�oe aodVorv�— 3J J5 M([N3.1 3M5)tlINOZ/NOH f 0 (�z n rn is N�ISHN HZIS g—. W as necc a3Nss3a m 1l\,I..`l R c 3 m M �NMHHNI�NH]IAIJ :19 OBro63tkl p • d a 3 eases aeoa...roux sssc as 11 Nuveo v w3" a= IDWOUd LN3w3AOhkW BIM w z a 1N3Wdjno3 8 monhu ssnN oz m zf 3 a w c Lu LU Q 3 a o 0 0 ew o Q4 mLU w a a a c a } _ a� O a m o a =as a o= o - - - 0 O NON\mow Z d . t I� - z 0 , x ° - - _E z 0 co sum o m.�w F a - `� - - 4 z C7 p - o00000 U) 0 0 w Om 0 o w° a a ° �.'�� _ ,-„�. ��-----o—_—-- •�„ � IIIIII� ` ;� it Z � — 94I 'e a� =\ \ l I f.a t` Q U II �i�oz a `° �� - � � ��wo � \'•ram\ w� e I o•..•.,..� � �� � A V ��� oar I I P\ s sus E � �mm �Pb s I � o M \ I o o go� III's as — _� _ • s _ = o � � � \ III 4111 a — — v. eQ x 1 I � � s I m 6 1 � a V II-ez o�lll� 6 rl = F\ e - c �o� - - s — Po_ o s a ' - I �.�e..o oa `ems :o so.eEaa e �r — ——— —————————————— sFs Qz a - =-_�g ��_�ada W ass --- j- = d� z'os m\ o II - oe Y - _ _ 5 _ - a€ MI hffi NYId IVAOW3tl wee a -ny'u„` t)S AB 03NJ3HJ y+I a6 ti o 9 NOLLICM"ONLLSIX3 �scsggsrv.a°eod `" 3lYJs lnJualn 31YJ5 JvlivoZetlH I` ¢n - �MN.43NI N3TIAI.J 45 JP 03MJI530 ^ 1 O x a^ d9899 eao"uu&v'o9so9uoW copia a3areva p r�\/ c o u v 3_@J° pootl 6�r�9698 7 v a a5 na n•.xwm v E 7 W 3° Y 103POtld 1N3•Y3AOtldW1 3118 'OS o c w z a 1N3Wcwn63 9 )1onu-L SSl1N O 0 W "� en Ra q�vned m. Z z Zl 3 w W � a ui a `� J o owz IU lLL O 1-00— o Z \ p� EL tv _ w wwwww o i 1 0 A i i P J x J III W�wa ° 0 j w / W 3 �I m -��------ --------- -----ss f i� __ _ _ _-- ———-- ---- —— -____ _ 1 d __ Pmo a — — — _ —_ — ----- ------ — — — ----- _ 1 — as _ 5 8 M BL 80.9i5 F - ZI Z = �_oa o_o��ooa oarca om�ma���,rcm W laai wee£ law S NIWZ w°£ as AB 03NJ3HJ 3rv�s irruaa, 3iv�s mraozuorr 7 - �,suua�vr,va uu� as ¢ a^ Z9899-soaeuum'o9so9uo/y r cov 3 I° pooa—.i qo 6696 as na n•.xwm o V V N O 3 0 $ 103POUd IASPV3AOUdW1 3118 CS w z W 1N3Wdin63 9 )1onu-L SSl1N o�9n c;'o�;W; W "� ew Aa q:vned m. OZ CO Zl 3 w �Naeu'n'wi a-�'mM s'vi wv�rrw.+Pae.w i � M€ 9-n� •E $@ ui .e s@d id rg� g�Sil 1I-An IM I �9 ya dWp _ f o ¢mod LL o dN G - £ �� eEx�T ��=E"��� �� ••_ t 90ii id � a�� Z jg FIE g5 3 F 9�d 9i f li i o d S Ys8 s 99 s,s o© ©o© oe it � i a — !� a € ' _ 17E P Ell - g §3 iee L � f� Emlg go L y g 3k e� 72 5 �• £ 8 � / 1e �ev -U c1e ge Bpi @� �s 43 �f HI �� r eH @ n A w)—=wW i Wig—=wW'i as we a3N�3N� of F SWIM rec�essrv�oe aodVorv�—� 3J J5 M([N31 3M5)tlINOZ/NOH z 0 M U W n rn is N�ISHN HZIS g—. as mcc 03N91S30 c 3 Po M �NMHHNI�NH]IAIJ :19 03HY63tkl p —V O 58699 vI—YY0 bryBuoW p r p—H—1-40 88SC as ae N.uvea V m 0 7 W 3 Po u_ IDWOad LN3Wl BIM "�Yy�l"OCj o w z a 1N3Wd111L73 8 monhu ssnN as a oz m zi 3 a w c Z z a p U r cc at/ _ Uko 01 ILLavi CO `/ / O dN N� wo F w - cc Q �o� / a�� l 00 (5 �i z y a _ ga, 9, - Q z - o�w r m Sao Zo "_ �m a,wa W- - .E j ♦ a �' III II j o -R €t I I m II t" aLu m p 13 ids W 94 W LU IL m Q m a m I any-o&Y LL mill Lu F _ — y — � W CC L�. Pp' O all Lzu LU W — 9� > s F r Q I�u�u a `� �u�lili o a a W II a ¢a m J 6 U 0 r 1 - w aa= LL b W a _ � o17�./ � wa " x To y ,\ M% m o I H W Cl) Y T � 2 O T Q 0w0 LU (n06 Z Y 2 U = VU � Z) cY) Z Cf) c1r) Z F f go 0 03�. \\\ � g / O �w \j �o ,a3 ! err T N O t!f � t19 � c of I I I I N g - I- - - - - - - - I- - p1 - - `--- _ - - I fL 1 1 1 1 If� N .0 01l N w a 1 El E co o ' � ❑ C g u ❑ ff - JF e ❑ ❑ Fl o = El e - �l C p� ICJ � o El El E F70 o II 0 d? w E ❑ — ❑ ❑ 1:1 El ® s El 1:1 0 - o ' 0 C c IL d � � OI c_ Q m I I I I I of I I I I I OI I m I I M 8 O O J O W _ O LL O Z a O O W O L_ H W Cl) Y T � 2 O T Q 0w0 LU (n06 Z Y 2 U = VU � Z) cY) Z Cf) c1r) Z F f go 0 03�. \\\ � g / O �w \j �o ,a3 ! err T N O t!f � t19 � c of I I I I I I I I I r I I It N I I I I I I I - p1 - - - - - - -J - - - - - - - - �--- - - - - � - -I, - - --- - - - - M - - - N .o-ALL N ° O � Q w 0 ° El ❑ 0 ❑In w o o u -- ❑ ❑ ,. — e El e I o ❑ J0 El ❑ L�J EEo El E o w F70 a a o� ❑ o ❑ o s o= 0 w— 0 C o � � ®a ®® �� � �� � ��I �� �� �� �� a� eo��,,pp-vv--���, �a o ��� a �� � ar� � � s � � a ��a !n ❑�@ � � � � � � � a � � � � � � � � � � � � ff � � � � � � m a �� A�� � � o.o. � �= �$� �� � � � � �� eee �� �� '� ���� �� � �� �� � � I I � � �� II II II � � I II II II I I � a a �� �� � �� Ali �'� —� H _, ��� �- � ao � �I ��o � � ���'� z 8�� ' � � � woo,odzolw MMM se-„�:moos aaoa-ets-ass b) NW Wll33IlNOW oaoa-ets-ass Id) aw z v bbEss Nw'aIdlVdd Naaa " o J�fl?11 SSf1 N o os[]ims -� Q30a/SI calpa )ossvda(]EININEbb�l sq:/,q'—C] NVI(I AIIS saidl�o d9d�d W =juawwoo � z09101:4�,-Iojj vm, ° . . . . : . . . . : . . . : : . . . . : . . . . : . . . . : . . . . : . . : : . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eases ce Eo . . . a Q dl CD CD U CD CD ,. ,. =U U U - xxxm° . . . . . . °>>> �O O �< U, ® : S m U o LL g >4 QZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o m. . . . Q L w., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q o I oi _oD 6 tr III .I. _ o L s 1 _ I I L 4 � l - - -- o II - - iz o5a .. -6. 0 o-p p O 'oQ�Q I o� ��6 0o o o '^_ a0 0 a o-0 0 a 0 0 0 o Q 'o U a oaa a�� 0 0 0 0 0 i •A"90:off S C'.. \ u��� n <�_ 4 X a LL Q o s aAr .E s� E A s = J sl x z �� I Efr �� ffif ce"s I e ffi wsb December 17, 2020 Matt Leonard City Engineer/Public Works Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Nuss Equipment Preliminary/Final Plat & Civil Plans— Engineering Review City Project No. 2020-026 WSB Project No. R-016793-000 o Dear Mr. Leonard: z We have reviewed the Nuss Equipment concept plans dated December 7, 2020. The applicant ED proposes to construct a 49,000 square foot vehicle storage/repair building and a 7,000 square foot sales/parts office. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Monticello's general CO lt engineering and stormwater treatment standards. We offer the following comments regarding 4 these matters. ua Efl Preliminary/Final Plat& General Comments: a 1. There is an existing 20' drainage and utility easement bisecting the property. The applicant has noted this as being vacated with the proposed plat. The City is fine with vacating in the original location, but a 20'wide easement will then be needed adjacent to the westerly property line. Traffic &Access: UJ 2. The site would generate approximately 237 daily trips, 24 AM peak hour trips and 28 PM peak hour trips. The addition of the proposed traffic would not have an adverse impact on roadway capacity or operations. 3. The site plan submitted proposes three access locations. The middle access is located in l- close proximity to the existing access on the south side of Chelsea, but not aligned with D it. Eliminate one of the access points and either shift the middle access further west or align it across from the existing access to the south in order to reduce adverse impacts U) with vehicular movements. W Z) W Site Plan (Sheet CU a a 4. Line up the pedestrian curb ramps for the proposed sidewalk across the W access/entrances. Move the sidewalk to closer to roadway to eliminate the curvy X alignment, with a minimum of a 4' boulevard between to the back of curb. 0 K:\016793-000Wdmin\Docs\2020-12-11 Submittal\_2020-12-17 LTR Nuss Equipment Concept Plan-WSB Plan Review.docx City of Monticello—Nuss Equipment Preliminary/Final Plat&Civil Plans—WSB Engineering Plan Review December 17,2020 Page 2 5. Note and show the hatching of the bituminous patching on Chelsea Road. The bituminous shall be replaced in-kind. Grading & Drainage Plan (Sheet C2): 6. Below are General Stormwater Requirements for the Site: a. The applicant will be required to submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements in the City's Design Manual b. This site was designed to drain to the regional stormwater pond on the south side of Chelsea Rd. within the MBC site. The pond will provide rate control for the site based on a curve number of 88. c. The new site will need to provide onsite volume control for runoff of 1.1" over the new impervious area, Pre-treatment measures are required prior to discharging to the volume control BMPs. d. An operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater BMPs is required and should be submitted with the stormwater report for review. e. The site is outside of the DWSMA and is not subject to requirements of the City's Wellhead Protection Plan. Sanitary Sewer&Watermain Plan (Sheet CU 7. Watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer utilities shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City Subdivision Ordinances and the City's General Specifications and Standard Details Plates for Street and Utility Construction. 8. Watermain looping may be required through the site to provide adequate fire flow supply. The building department will review the hydrant spacing, but at minimum add one additional hydrant to the north side of the site. 9. The building department will review the site for emergency vehicle access/circulation. Fire truck circulation will need to accommodate the City's ladder truck, provide an exhibit showing turning movements. 10. Add a note to the plans stating that the City will not be responsible for any additional costs incurred associated with variations in the utility as-built elevations. These elevations shall be verified in the field prior to construction. 11. Note class of watermain pipe. 12. Turn off the existing/proposed contours on this sheet. 13. Confirm if proposed sewer flows will constitute the need for an 8" pipe. 14. Where the watermain crosses either sanitary or storm sewer, note "Maintain 18" Separation, 4" Rigid Insulation". Storm Sewer Plan (Sheet C4) and: 15. Reroute the storm sewer that runs directly adjacent to the west of the building as this area is indicated as future building expansion. City of Monticello—Nuss Equipment Preliminary/Final Plat&Civil Plans—WSB Engineering Plan Review December 17,2020 Page 3 16. The following segments of storm sewer are undersized according to the provided calculations, this will result in ponding in the parking lot during the 10-yr storm event: • MH-16 to MH-14 • MH-14 to CB-13 • CB-13 to CB-11 • CB-11 to STUB • CB-35 to CB-34 • CB-34 to CB-33 • CB-33 to CB-32 • CB-32 to CB-31 • CB-31 to STUB 17. Provide the Flow (Q) to each catch basin in the storm sewer sizing spreadsheet. 18. A detail was included for subgrade draintile. If draintile is proposed, show and note the location on the plan. Stormwater Management 19. This parcel was planned to drain to a regional pond in the Monticello Business Center (MBC). The pond in MBC will provide rate control for this parcel for a curve number of 88. The weighted curve number for the proposed site is 93. A curve number of 88 would correlate to 82.5% impervious or 8.67 acre of impervious for this site. Additional onsite rate control is required to meet rates for a site with a curve number of 88. 20. Volume Control measures to capture and retain 1.1" of runoff from the impervious surface are required to meet the water quality requirement. Sequencing out of the volume control requirement is outlined in the City Design Manual where it is not feasible for projects to meet the volume control standard. Provide soil borings for the site so that groundwater elevation can be reviewed. SWPPP (Sheet C5): 21. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to construction commencing. 22. How the use of erosion control blanket where the slopes are 4:1 or steeper. 23. A full review of the erosion/sediment control plan will be conducted with final construction plans. Existing Conditions& Removal Plan (Sheet C6): 24. At minimum, note the existing invert information for the sanitary and storm sewer structures where the service stubs connect. 25. Note the width of the bituminous removals on Chelsea Road. Show the saw-cut line as more of a straight cut. Standard Details Plan (Sheet C7, C8): 26. The applicant is responsible for designing the pavement sections to meet the requirements of heavy trucks/equipment. City of Monticello—Nuss Equipment Preliminary/Final Plat&Civil Plans—WSB Engineering Plan Review December 17,2020 Page 4 27. In the inset for the sidewalk typical section (light duty concrete pavement), reference the City's standard detail (#5012) and update the materials/thicknesses. The detail requires either 6" of class 5 or 12" of select granular borrow. 28. Add the City details for hydrants (#2001), gate valve (#2003), and watermain offset (#2005), erosion control blanket (#6011), The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City's standards. Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Feel free to contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions or comments regarding the engineering review. Sincerely, WSB L James L. Stremel, P.E. Senior Project Manager 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 State Planned Unit Development proposal for a Machinery& 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 Meeting)—September 28th,2020 Page 1 14 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 1-2 (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 project 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 Meeting)—September 28th,2020 Page 2 14 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 13- 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 Meeting)—September 28th,2020 Page 3 1 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 project 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, 20 1 Attest: Angela c u 0an, Community Development Director City Council&Planning Commission Minutes(Special Meeting)—September 28th,2020 Page 4 14 Planning Commission Agenda 1/05/2021 2D. Public Hearing—Consideration of a request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance affecting architectural standards in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Applicant: Capstone Homes. (NAQ Property: Legal: NA Address: NA Planning Case Number: 2020-045 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Request to amend the zoning ordinance related to building design in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, by (1) exempting certain small roof areas (porches and gables, etc.) from the main roof-slope requirement of 5:12 pitch; and(2) eliminating the requirement for stone/brick etc. on front elevations. Deadline for Decision: February 21, 2021 Project Description: The applicant is a home builder preparing to construct homes in the first phase of Haven Ridge. The applicant seeks to amend the zoning ordinance to accommodate alternative house design options by modifying two code sections currently applicable to all single family homes in the R-1 and R-2 districts. The applicants contend that these two current requirements serve to limit home options based on changing architectural preferences. ANALYSIS As noted above,there are two requested changes. The first is to modify the roof slope standards that currently require a minimum 5:12 pitch on all roof planes. The code reads as follows: REQUIRED YARDS(in Mau Minimum Minimum Roof Interio r Street Rear Height Minimum Floor Areas Building Pitch&Soffit Front {stories 1 (sq ft) Width (vertical rise/ Side(1] Side [3] feet) (ft) horizontal run) Single 10 2.S stories 1.050foundation/ r!it [2]Family 30 20 30 35 feet 24 no minimum Building 2,000finishable[4] soffit [I]: For interior lots in R-I and R-A districts,an attached accessory structure may be allowed to meet a 6` setback,provided that the sum of both side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet.. [2]: Interior side yard setbacks for single family homes on lots of record with a lot width 66 feet or less in the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello shall be at least six(6)feec [3]: The required rear yard shall consist of a space at least 30-feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands,ponds,or slopes greater than 12 percent. ]4]: Finishable square footage is exclusive of attached accessary space. 1 Planning Commission Agenda 1/05/2021 This section is clipped from the R-1 table of standards, but the identical roof pitch requirement is in the R-2 table. The applicants have requested the following language as an additional note: Roofgables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature. The advantage of this addition is that small appurtenant roof extensions such as those included in the applicant's illustrations rarely conflict with the original objective of the ordinance, which was to ensure that architecture reflective of higher-end housing predominated in the community, was intended to discourage the development of housing with a"cheaper"look. Staff would note that a carte-blanche exemption for these types of roof areas may have the effect of encouraging design that complies only with the technical aspects of the code, and results in a reduction in visual impacts. As such, staff would suggest the exemption with a limiting factor, such as: Roofgables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature, provided no such exempted roof areas shall comprise any more than 20% of the total horizontal roof area of a sinzle family structure. With this limitation, staff believes that the proposed amendment would facilitate increased design flexibility while avoiding overuse of the exemption to the detriment of the code intent. The second proposed amendment relates to the required building materials on single family homes. The relevant section reads as follows: Section 4.11 (C) (2) R-1 and R-2 Districts A minimum of 15%of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts, less the square footage area of the garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone.Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 5%. The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roof pitch or other features. As noted, the applicants propose that this language be amended by deleting references to the brick and stone, and insert alternative language requiring a variety of facade 2 Planning Commission Agenda 1/05/2021 treatments with a variety of possible materials. The redlined version would read as follows: 0 ,.,;th bgiaf ^M Stone. The front facade of any structure in the R-I or R- 2 Districts shall include two or more different types of material which can include, but not be limited to, Vinyl Lap, Vinyl Shakes, Vinyl Board& Batten, LP (or similar)Lap, Board& Batten, Shakes, Stone, Stucco, and/or Brick. The primary type of material applied to the front facade shall not exceed 85%of the front facade of the building, less the square footage of windows, doors and garage doors. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roofpitch or other features. Presumably, this language would be read and written to include cement board or other common materials used in residential construction. The building materials requirements of the ordinance were written and adopted following the City's concern that new building construction was concentrating around lower-valued entry level homes, and that the standards in place at the time did not encourage higher-value home building. Thus, at that time, the City adopted(or reinforced) its requirements for larger single family lot areas and widths, along with the building requirements currently at issue. Changes to building design and preferences, suggest the applicants, make these materials regulations no longer necessary. It may be that this builder has a number of house styles without the brick or stone that meet the City's expectations. However, by amending the code as suggested, the City may be accommodating the architecturally featureless homes from another builder that the existing codes were designed to avoid. To accommodate this design change, but maintain some protection against a lowering standard of home construction,the City may incorporate the applicant's new language as a specifically approved alternative,while retaining the current requirements for the standard case (and adding some specificity to the recommendations. Thus, staff would suggest the following: Except as may be allowed in Section (0(2)(a) and(b) below, a minimum of 15%of the front building facade of any structure in the R- I or R-2 Districts, less the square footage area of the garage doors, 3 Planning Commission Agenda 1/05/2021 shall be covered with brick or stone. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. (a) The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing includes usable front porches of at least sir (6) feet in any length and width and no less than 80 square feet in area;extraordinary roofpitch on the principal roofline of at least 8:12; or other features approved by the Planning Commission prior to building permit. (b) In lieu of the specific brick or stone quantities otherwise required in Section (C)(2), front facades may include materials which consist of(1) Vinyl, (2) Cement Board, (3) Stucco, and/or (4)LP(or similar) and which include at least three (3) styles of such materials, including Lap,Board& Batten,Shakes or other style. The Community Development Department may approve other materials that meet the intent of this Section. For this section to apply, no less than 15% of each of at least three such style components (lap, shake, etc.)shall be used on the front facade. These changes would accommodate the applicant's request, and retain the City's interest in ensuring that other housing will be built to the standards which have been in place for many years, and applied to all homebuilding over that period. The intent of staff's alternative is to acknowledge the potential for changing house designs in the marketplace, but avoid home value issues faced by the City during past phases of building. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021-006 recommending adoption of Ordinance No. 7XX incorporating staff recommendations, based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021-006, as presented by the applicants but without staff changes, based on findings in said resolution. 3. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2021=006, based on findings identified by the Planning Commission after the public hearing. 4. Motion to or other or to table action,pending additional information from staff or applicant. 4 Planning Commission Agenda 1/05/2021 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes the amendment to the roof pitch provides some needed flexibility in accommodating roofline character along the facade. However, staff believes the current ordinance for building materials requiring brick or stone to be an important component in the city's efforts to create neighborhoods and housing with character and quality. If the Planning Commission is inclined to allow some flexibility in the brick or stone requirement, staff recommends Alternative 1, which incorporates staff's recommendations related to the applicant's proposed amendments. Some modification of the current language—both related to roof pitch and building materials—can be appropriate,provided the City retains the ability to require higher quality homebuilding when the features proposed by this applicant are not present in other building designs. The changes are designed to incorporate flexibility,while adding some specificity to the code to avoid overuse of the "loopholes"that could undermine the City's housing objectives. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2021-006 B. Draft Ordinance C. Current Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Excerpts D. Applicant Narrative, including modification E. Applicant Illustrations F. Sample Existing Monticello Housing Facade Images 5 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-006 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ROOF PITCH AND BUILDING MATERIALS STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS,the City has been requested to amend portions of its building standards applicable to single family homes; and WHEREAS, the applicant contends that changing homebuilding preferences require amendment to current ordinance standards; and WHEREAS,the proposed amendments would increase options for new home construction in the City; and WHEREAS,the amendments have been crafted t increase variability, but also to protect the City's objectives of higher-end house construction; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would clarify certain aspects of the existing applicable code language; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5th, 2021 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: 1. 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 amendment raises no extraordinary issues for the City's regulation of single family home construction. 3. The ordinance incorporates applicable provisions of staff comment as applicable. 4. The proposed use is expected to have no negative impacts on municipal public services. 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY,MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-006 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 5th day of January, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: Chair ATTEST: 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 REGULATIONS RELATING T BUILDING ARCHITECTURE IN THE R-1 AND R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS: Section 1. Table 3-5, R-1 Development Standards is amended to add the following as a footnote to Minimum Roof Pitch and Soffit requirements: (5) RooLgables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature,provided no such exempted roof areas shall comprise any more than 20% ofthe total horizontal roo area ofa single family structure. Section 2. Table 3-6, R-2 Development Standards is amended to add the following as a footnote to Minimum Roof Pitch and Soffit requirements: (4) Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature,provided no such exempted roofareas shall comprise any more than 20% ofthe total horizontal roofarea ofa since family structure. Section 3. Section 4.11 (C)(2)is hereby amended to read as follows: Except as may be allowed in Section (C)(2)(a) and(b) below, a minimum of 15%of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts, less the square footage area ofthe garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. (a) The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing includes usable front porches of at least sir (6) feet in any length and width and no less than 80 square feet in area, extraordinary roofpitch on the principal roofline of at least 8:12:or other features approved by the Planning Commission prior to buildinz permit. (b) In lieu of the specific brick or stone quantities otherwise required in Section (C)(2), front facades may include materials which consist of (1) Vinyl, (2) Cement Board, (3)Stucco, and/or (4)LP(or similar) and which include at least three (3) styles of such materials, 1 includinz Lap,Board&Batten, Shakes or other style. The Community Development Department maV approve other materials that meet the intent of this Section. For this section to apply, no less than 15% of each of at least three such style components (lap, shake, etc.) shall be used on the front facade. Section 4. This amendment shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Approved by the Monticello City Council this day of , 2021. Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator 2 CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (E) R-1:Single Family Residence District REQUIRED YARDS(in feet) Max Minimum Minimum Roof Height Minimum Floor Areas Building Pitch&Soffit Front Interior Street Rear (stories/ (sq ft) Width (vertical rise/ Side[1] Side [3] feet) (ft) horizontal run) Single 1,050 foundation/ 5"/ 12" Family 30 [2] 20 30 2 35 feet stories 24 no minimum Building 2,000 finishable [4] soffit [1]: For interior lots in R-I and R-A districts,an attached accessory structure may be allowed to meet a 6' setback, provided that the sum of both side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet.. [2]: Interior side yard setbacks for single family homes on lots of record with a lot width 66 feet or less in the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello shall be at least six(6)feet. [3]: The required rear yard shall consist of a space at least 30-feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands, ponds,or slopes greater than 12 percent. [4]: Finishable square footage is exclusive of attached accessory space. ■ An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the R-I district. Accessory See Section 5.3(B)for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. Structures The minimum floor area for all attached accessory structures shall be 550 sq.ft. ■ See footnote[I] above as related to setbacks for attached accessory structures on interior lots. Other Section 3.3. Common District Requirements Regulations Section 3.4(B). Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts to Consult Section 4.1 1. Building Materials (not all Section 4.8. Off-Street Parking inclusive) Section 4.1. Landscaping and Screening Standards t:20 foot setback from a street abutting a side yard 5 UNITS pER AC 5 FdE MqX z:Single family home conforming to front yard gA LOT setback SE DENSITY�3.1 UNIT �2'0W SF AVERaG� 3:30 foot front yard setback S/CROSS AC►�E 4:io foot side yard setbacks on ,b� .. shared interior lot lines a 5:10,000 SF minimum lot size;max density Of 5 units per acre 6:30 foot rear yard ram' setback 7:6 foot interior side yard setback for lots of record in the _ Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello >a MiAiMt' �R'► S:Minimum lot width of 70 feet �� 8 Page 90 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.1 1 Building Materials Subsection (C) Residential District Requirements (2) New materials In recognition of the ever-changing marketplace for new finishing materials,the Community Development Department may authorize the use of materials not listed herein if it is determined that such a material is substantially similar or superior to one or more of the approved building materials. (C) Residential District Requirements (1) All Residence Districts No metal siding shall be permitted wider than 12 inches or without a one-half (1/2)inch or more overlap and relief. (2) R-1 and R-2 Districts A minimum of 15%of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts,less the square footage area of the garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 5%. The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches,extraordinary roof pitch or other features. (3) R-A and T-N Districts A minimum of 20%of the front building facade of any structure in the R-A or T- N zoning district,less the square footage area of the garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70%stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 10%. (4) R-3 District and other Districts with Multiple Family Housing A R-3 District and other districts with multiple family housing shall be subject to building material standards as follows: all building walls facing a public street shall be covered with stone,brick,cultured masonry simulating brick or stone,or other enhanced materials acceptable to the City Council to an extent not less than 20%of the exposed wall silhouette area. In addition,multiple family structures of thirteen(13)or more units shall,when lap horizontal siding,be constructed of heavy gauge steel or cement-board,with no use of vinyl or aluminum permitted. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 333 CAPSTONE H O M E S December 21, 2020 Angela Schumann Community Development Director 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 RE:Zoning Ordinance Amendment Application Ms. Schumann, Capstone Homes is looking forward to offering new homes to the residents of Monticello at Haven Ridge. Capstone Homes has been building homes for over 30 years now in Minnesota and has become one of the largest privately owned homebuilder in Minnesota. We are humbled and grateful that in 2020,the Capstone team designed, drafted and constructed over 300 homes in the Metro area. With this experience in mind, Capstone Homes would like to request consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment for the R-1 and R-2 categories. We would like to request the ordinance to be amended in 2 areas regarding architecture. The first request is that Table 3-5, Chapter 3 of the Zoning Ordinance be revised to include the following: The primary roof pitch shall be a minimum of 5112. Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature. Revision of the roof pitch requirements allows for enhanced architecture that increases the value and the character of the homes and neighborhood. We would also like to propose that the requirement of stone or brick on the front elevation be eliminated entirely. Many of today's buyers are drawn to a simpler design. One such design is the known as the'farmhouse look'. To allow for a simpler, but not lower quality design, we would like to propose that Chapter 4, Section (C) (2) of the Zoning Ordinance be updated to include the following: Front Facades shall include three different types of material which can include but not be limited to Vinyl Lap, Vinyl Shakes, Vinyl Board& Batten, LP(or similar)Lap, Board& Batten, Shakes, Stone,Stucco, Brick. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this some standard. We look forward to working with you,your staff, the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss this amendment to the Residential District Requirements and working with all of you in the years to come. Regards, Heather Lorch Land Manager CAPSTONE HOMES, INC. 14015 SUNFISH LAKE BLVD,SUITE 400 1 RAMSEY, MN 55303 0: 763-427-3090 1 F: 763-712-9060 - P A T T E -R S 0 N a iR,.A yi ue yY V 'r G fPo tWEtc�`C�.� Yellow Shaded Areas: ro 4/12 Pitch ®®® �r ELEVATION A ®®MMIM M ®gin ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 1 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 2 , 173 SQ FT LIVING SPACE ------------ KITCHEN WIN— FUTURE wlNoaw• 10.3 x I5-2 BEDROOM GREAT ROOM W.I.G. LOFT %� roPr.FIREPLACE 1-6 x I0-3 •_ 140 x W-O 10-S x I5-2 LT1; .OPTIONAL VAULT- 13-1 x Ir,4 FUTURE-OPT ' MAST SUITE wlwaur •" FAMILY ROOM :': PRET'I.AGE OPTIONAL � ER I3-0 x I1-0 - IS-0 x I0-2 HALF �--5i- it •. 1 KNACK BAR •OPT.�i1' Q OPT.—%!i� •'�• d.� 3 �' WINDOW' WALL _-- LL WINDLVh � WALL ^ Io R.I, r�CN• I. I I I I I Iil 3/4 � a+aee MUD z ---- O " MASTER J MK8 I/2 aelcw BATH T. BA UTIL./STOR. FOYER .or r.--y;^� X LAUND. WINDOW GARAGE 1 LARER FORGH 31-0 x 22-6120-61 ------------- ------------- 22-0 BEDROOM-2 BEDROOM-3 ---------------------- IO-4 x I2-2 IO-4 x I2-2 MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR WESLEY - A "0 of , a.p Yellow Shaded Areas: ®® 3/12 Pitch Y - — ©ro©C - ®®®[IID®®IE-JJ�Mm®® ®®®®®®� ®® rFFjmmmmmmm ®®® ELEVATION A r P., �Il III ®®® If r r rm IJ — ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 1 2 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 11, 842 SQ FT LIVING SPACE I _ 'KITCHEN sax 110 DINING FUTURE 10-1 x h-0 FUTURE —Fm BEDROOM•2 BEDROOM-3 ,7y FAMILY ROOM LL 5EDROOM•1 ii LL 5EDROOM-2 10-4 x 10-3 12-2 x 10-3 M-11 x 20-2 10-11 x 10-1 II-1 x 10-1 NACK BAR A NAOK PT.G. 41REPL4GP '�� � n � LIN. iOPT. nn cur----_----T___------ Ji i.• ii .• iF — . FLooR LINE MATH 6T LAUNDRY'��`w-O PT. _ -- x OFFICE' - ct' RI.'Y 'i UNFrN U _ LIVING ROOM __ _ UP, oPrIONAL --- 1B,4TH�. OPT. UTILITY/ 14-0 x II-B BTORAGE 14Ax15! Up DN HALF -- '��AJ:i-__..i�_=.� wAus r-� W.I.0 ___.___ roPi. CRALLL 8PA0E Y FOYER; wlimow• OPTIONAL R TO LOWEWE FR FLOOR OPT. OBL BOWL LARGER MAS, e PORCH VAULTED a 'R BATH` MASTER SUITE 1a10 13-5 GARAGE W.I.0 30-0 x 22-6/24-0 --------------- I I I I I I I I --------- ---I MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR HEYENNE IV - Ycllow Shaded Areas: ®® _ 4/12 Pitch ELEVATION A Lai pip Fill] ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 12 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 13, 589 SQ FT LIVING SPACE /,'•�-•OPT. II .'v� I V KITCHEN ,�;� FIR�LACE• �.}.:.:.J' 1 10-4 x 163 BEDROOM•2 BEDROOM•3 DINING 1^`E 10-2 x 116 II-5 x 10-11 RI,IL i a FUTURE 11-0 x� __ BEDROOM El FUTURE -:3/4 STORAGE ;fit I�Iq�y7 143 x 15-0 eLANo uv� W,I,C, SNACK BAR •OPT. . YALLTm PANT. LIN. I'------- w,l.G, ------- wl HALF LARGER WALLS BHW'R. UNFIN. UNFM. LIVING ROOM AT -gPVONALv6uL L• FUTURE -- UTIL,/ STORAGE 136 x I6-1 MASTER SUITE 13-3 x 6 -OPTIONAL--0 -- LAUND, WIINNDgU° nas. -- ATH I4A x 144 BEDROOM�5 1x149 W,I,C DRAWL �i�i SPADE FOYER roPT. DBL.BOWL 61NKb GARAGE 28-0 x 22/20-o --------------- I I I I I I I I MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - PRIMROSE III - ELEVATION A Bill ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 12 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 13,609 SQ FT LIVING SPACE PANT. KITCHEN 6.6 A TH BEDROOM•3 _S____, ;WR'�_.LI•.TG''•_ I1�i RIT UR E10-3x10-2 BDROOMF =DINING n-T x 11-4 FAMILY ROOM II-T x 16-6 190x19-2 SATW ISLAND W UNFIN SNACK BAR BEDROM �.I� '''e►' t•__. 'OPT. J WINDOW mii VAULT �� bPT. HALF " WALLS .-_.......................... � �. UP z ---------I� --J LIVING ROOM BATH -- FUTURE I30 X 0$ X BEDROOM -- FO'ER oPT. 12O x 10-1 czAwL GARAGE •DBL.BOWL --_------ BPAGE 29-0 X 26-8R4$ SINKS MASTER SUITE ISO x 120 OPT.VAULT PORCH --------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - LINWOOD I I115 iki _AY , S' immimmim Lml mulw ^y ®®®®®®® MEO sci ®®®®®®® ®®® ELEVATION A ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 12 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 13, 540 SQ FT LIVING SPACE KITCHEN a-1 x 11-3 BEDROOM 43 BEDROOM•2 FUTURE DINING 10-2 x 12-8 124 x 10-8 FAMILY ROOM III x 1�3 22 6 x 16-0 oPr.�'I%' FIREP_ACE u_ W.I. SNACK BAR ANT EATH 1__ __VAl1LT__NALF _ ^ `cRAWL� ♦ 1O' OPACE ♦ ♦ __ „/f'—oP'r. ♦ ...RJ FIRED ACE w" W.LG. ♦. !1ST c/ 3/4=_--- aPr, LIVING ROOM MASTER SUITE_ f" FUTURE 14-0 x 1" /� 12-4 x 14-1 UNFIN, BEDROOM LAUND./u j L FOYER BRATS. �. UTIL. � 1o.e x 10-P OPT.J BENCH eWU'R I LIN. OPT. OBL.B?lL BINKB PORCH GARAGE 30-0 x 22/20-0 --------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR F 0 S E R I I - Yellow Shaded Areas. mpp 4/12 Pitch eA ®®®®®®® Elm IT]IT] ®®®®®®® In[m]® ELEVATION A .I ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 21266 SQ FT LIVING SPACE ------------ OPT. LARGER N-OPT. LOrT e DINING —K�xCH - MA.BATH;; W.I.G. g11 FUTURE 's=?le.l. wTurzE a, EN 1/2 GREAT ROOM l0-5 x 131 � FAMILY ROOM i �'0'TMI(n BEDROOM :I MASTER SUITE ,� I1-9 x IK 22-5 x 16-2 18LANG - - 2I-10 x BNAOK BAR AULT N OPT. `--s -- „� „ REPLACE• ' • T I r. MUD NALv uuu BATH GBL bINKE• 'af-„ 't=, WALL I PUT" N UP DN PANTR cil NASE _LAUND BEDROOM•2 y:-_.OPT. W"I.G. UNFIN" FLDt ROOM @ ; UTIL./ x IFb ,FOYER -10 x 13-0 LM. e 8MK• BEDROOM•3 STOR. GARAGE 30-0 x T1/]O-0 WAX, I fi ----------i---------t MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - BIR HW D - d' ELEVATION A "+'"�' •v+ r�,:__, ��� ,�,��3 Y''i � � �°e�, �r5�`grYsffi'•q+".°S o- ELEVATION B ELEVATION C ELEVATION D 3 BEDROOM 12 BATHROOM 1 2 STALL GARAGE 11, 559 SQ FT LIVING SPACE OPT. . „•OPT. WINDOW"" IVAULT � ^WNDOW DINING - 140 x II-10 GREAT ROOM - MASTER SMITE IP-I x IT-3 12-3 x 13-3 OPT. •OPf.���° WMDOWn, ISLAND IF%2EPLAGE�._ OPT. SNACK BAR 1 i ^•WNDOW I KITCHEN I E t I"x 90 I ANT MAB• DAT0 UTIL. •opt. •WINDOW MUD/ ---- LAND W.I.G. BEDROOM.L -_ 10.1 x 10-11 SOFRT BENCH BATH FOYER GARAGE 20-0 x P46 BEDROOM R2 . 106 x 11-0 I II I I I I I PORCH 0 0 MAIN FLOOR - CEDAR - R II � r r k rYF } Yellow Shaded Areas: �v 3/12 Pitch mod. MUM®[ITT®® ®®® ®®®®®®® ®QfI[T tn� ELEVATION A rrq '' I� nununum,l unm . I I CC�'�®CTC4® ©L7QIfD ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 2 BEDROOM 2 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 13,630 SQ FT LIVING SPACE �� wuloaw� •a'T• R" DINING GREAT ROOM anT ^wroow wMoaw;;; v�x 10-3 Q-T x sw MASTER SUITE MAS wiurzE FuruRr FuiuRr ie�nev v v-a x Iso BATH -- FAMILY ROOM n BEDROOM BEDROOM SNACK BAR I RO-5 x RO-5 1O x W 10-6 x 14- _ I � i OPTIONAL , FIREPLACE - KITGNEN LAUND W,I.C. .0=__.`.3 yy4•� w.l c. lux 0-1 IJNE wA1L 5 ii ____ IIIII •':' eAtw - IIIII 13ATi.T roPr.• FLEX R DN ROOM FOYER �} BEDROOM-T `��^y UNPIN. oaul�� 10-e x II-4 � 10$x II-8 UNFI '--�7i UTILITY wM STORAGE oeNCN F��a MUD PORCH CsARAG E 30-0 x T!/X MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR Fl AM 3 �r w n • _C �� � � �y� II�III r i v t ■■ I r• 1- 7 Yy t I, 'D 1 J TI 7�� !4 .a ' a �'"�t•Ste, K I✓' i i e � , � _ � , •, �-'`� � _ ...:r. la�y� ��,�-�/�-.�yY:•ice ';� 5s7���4f�3.:0.�a sJ'��'.�l�L�.tir�� ��'�C'� �_ z�� �� � � � ',� �x� rl !_ �- i '1 jtC�V�l � �� � C1 .. i�:�,s '. :� �1 n .; � . �" t ,.: 1 �' ;�' ; f k �� zY. ` ,• � �, :. I ��,�� - ^!�e,: �' �� 1 ,-�� --— �I! � �_y -. - _ ! r - __ � _ � - � k EF . ____ _ M`' ,� �v ,Il S �J' � � '. �: .� � � ; t „u° i f✓� �J 1 M � llllllll I IFS f,f I Y�yyr I'i�11J 0JJi:�� I { tit r, I t.-lk}iti t,.ki. A i' r4 _ i Planning Commission Agenda—01/05/21 3A. Community 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 • Consideration of a Request to approve a Map Amendment(Rezoning) from A-O (Agricultural Open Space)to R-I (Single Family Residence) District, Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Development& Final Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary &Final Plat and Development Agreement for Featherstone 5th Addition, a 26 Lot Single Family Development. Applicant: Novak-Fleck(Horst Graser) Approved unanimously on December 10, 2020 as part of the consent agenda. • Consideration to approve an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for the Expansion of Outdoor Storage and Changes to Facility Operations for an existing Bulk Fuel Sales & Storage Use in an I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District. Applicant: Beaudry Oil& Propane Approved unanimously on December 141h, 2020 as part of the regular agenda. City Council adopted the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. • Consideration to adopt Resolution 2020-90 for Annexation as petitioned by LSW Investments, LLC and consideration of a request to approve Final Plat, Final Stage PUD,rezoning to Planned Unit Development and related Development Agreement for Edmonson Ridge. Applicant: LSW Investments, LLC Approved unanimously on December 14", 2020 as part of the regular agenda. 2021 Planning Commission Work Plan Planning Commission is asked to review the Monticello 2040 Implementation Chapter for purposes of beginning work on the 2021 Planning Commission Work Plan. https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/vertical/sites/%7B46185197-6086-4078-ADDC- OF3918715C4C%7D/uploads/CouncilConnection_12-14-2020.pdf Also included for reference is the 2020 Work Plan with staff's notes on progress. Staff will prepare a draft work plan for Commission using these two resources for review and discussion at a workshop in February. Council Connection hiips://www.cl.montice llo.mn.us/vertical/sites/%7B46185197-6086-4078-ADDC- OF3 918715 C4C%7D/uplo ads/CouncilConnection-12-14-2020.pdf I CITY of Monticello Planning Commission 2020 Goals & Objectives Workplan Monticello December, 2020 Update The Monticello Planning Commission is established to advise the Mayor, Council and Community Development Department in matters concerning planning and land use matters;to review and make recommendations regarding the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, subdivision and zoning ordinances and other planning rules and regulations; to establish planning rules and regulations; and to conduct public hearings. 2020 Statement: The Planning Commission will support efforts to develop and implement the Monticello 2040 Vision +Plan. The Planning Commission will work collaboratively with the City Council and other City boards and commissions in its work to achieve the Plan and the strategic goals of the city. Administrative & Training • Attend in-house Land Use Basics training. • Complete the Basics of Land Use and My Roles as a Planning Commissioner through Government Training Services • Understand land use application process. All above items remain incomplete. Set schedule for 2021 with full slate of Commissioners. Comprehensive Plan General • Support and participate in the community-wide planning for the Monticello 2040 Vision +Plan process. Complete. Land Use • As the City's primary planning agency, actively lead and participate in 2019-2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use update process. Complete. o Evaluate Places to Work/Industrial land area inventory and site development challenges in support of increasing and diversifying the tax base and providing living wage employment opportunity. o Develop recommendations for residential density identification, including lot size and configuration,within the City's growth area in support of Comprehensive Plan goals. o Analyze and recommend land use planning designations for Silver Springs and Interchange planning areas. 1IPage o Review in more detail the commercial land inventory and recommend zoning classification in support of the City's long-range goals. o Evaluate impacts of advancing technology,including driverless vehicles, on land use. Transportation • Receive an update on the City Capital Improvement Plan-the City's guide to capital investment within the community; determine any required actions steps associated with priority capital projects. Complete for 2020,2021 update in February • Provide input in anticipated 2019-2020 Transportation planning initiatives,including planning for the northwest interchange and the transportation network to serve annexation area, including collector routes such as Fallon and 85th. Complete per Monticello 2040 Plan. • Respond to and encourage community participation in the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning Partnership as necessary and directed by the City Council. On-going. • Develop an understanding of Complete Streets policies and potential for integration into site planning and development. Incomplete. Park&Pathway • Evaluate development proposals for consistency with the adopted Pathway Connection Guide Map in support of the City's goal of a more walkable and bikeable community. Complete for 2020 per Monticello 2040 Plan. Prepare direction for 2021. • Provide necessary support to an anticipated 2019-2020 Comprehensive Plan update to the Park&Pathway plan,with specific detail on the downtown park and open spaces. Complete. Economic Development • Develop an understanding of and support the EDA's role in redevelopment,housing and economic development,including: o Marketing of vacant property and redevelopment sites o Affordable housing o Rehabilitation of housing o Downtown development/redevelopment programs Above are on-going efforts. Discuss implementation per Monticello 2040 Plan. Culture&Community Health Develop an understanding the role of health in community planning and support integration of health principles into the Monticello 2040 Vision+Plan. Concepts incorporated in Monticello 2040 Plan. Discuss implementation per Monticello 2040 Plan. Zoning Ordinance • Complete a review of the City' s home occupation ordinances. • Complete a review of the City's noise ordinances. 2 1 P a g e Research & City Department Update Topics As resources and time allow, the Planning Commission will consider research and information related to the following topic areas, which are listed in priority order. Planning Commissioners are asked to insert topic area idea below: Topic 3 �