Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 04-06-2021 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 6th, 2021- 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Paul Konsor, John Alstad, Andrew Tapper, Alison Zimpfer, and Eric Hagen Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Workshop Meeting Minutes— March 2nd, 2021 b. Regular Meeting Minutes— March 2nd, 2021 C. Citizen Comments D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda E. Consideration to approve agenda 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing—Consideration of a Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary and Final Plat, for Commercial Self Storage in the B-3 (Highway Business) District Applicant: Byron Bjorklund 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of an Administrative Appeal to Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts, Subsection (E) R-1: Single Family Residence District Applicant: Capstone Homes B. Consideration of Adopting 2021 Planning Commission Workplan C. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 2nd, 2021 - 5:00 p.m. Bridge Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Andrew Tapper, and Eric Hagen Commissioners Absent: Paul Konsor and Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Absent: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller, and Rachel Leonard 1. General Business A. Call to Order John Alstad called the special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. Workshop Agenda A. 2021 Planning Commission Workplan Angela Schumann indicated that this item was a continuation of discussion in February regarding the Planning Commission workplan. Schumann explained that staff provided strategies in the comprehensive plan that were specific to zoning ordinance amendment or the zoning ordinance generally. Schumann previously asked the Commission to prioritize those strategies based on their understanding of the Comprehensive Plans goals and policies. The prioritization would help with the recodification of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Once all Commissioners have provided prioritization, staff will tabulate the results and provide a draft workplan for discussion in April. B. Land Use Basics Steve Grittman presented a land use basics training and provided an overview of planning and zoning. 3. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: April 6th, 2021 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes (Workshop Meeting)—February 2nd, 2021 Page 11 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 2nd, 2021- 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Andrew Tapper, and Eric Hagen Commissioners Absent: Paul Konsor and Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order John Alstad called the Regular Planning Commission Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Workshop Meeting Minutes— February 2nd, 2021 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES— FEBRUARY 2ND, 2021. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. b. Regular Meeting Minutes— February 2nd, 2021 ANDERW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES— FEBRUARY 2ND, 2021. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda N/A. E. Consideration to approve agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing—Consideration for Preliminary and Final Plat to Create a Single Lot for an Existing Financial Institution in the Central Community District (CCD) Applicant: CorTrust Bank (Mark Nettesheim) Steve Grittman provided a review of the land use application and noted that the proposal included platting six parcels into one. The parcels currently contains CorTrust Bank (also the applicant), a demolished home, and access/exit. The applicants are not proposing any physical changes to the lots at this time. The applicants had anticipated that they planned to construct some additional Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 11 12 parking on the third parcel to east, which would require additional zoning review. Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions identified in Exhibit Z. John Alstad asked what was adjacent to the parcels on the same block for consideration of platting. Grittman responded that it was a separately owned parcel with a home and garage on it. This was not part of their application. Alstad asked for clarification that there were no known zoning issues. Grittman noted that there are no zoning issues, from the standpoint that applicants are not making any site plan changes at this time. Everything on the site is an existing condition. Eric Hagen asked if combining the lots into one parcel, changes the ability to use the lot in a different way in the future or redivide it. Grittman responded that it would not preclude the applicants from redividing it if they thought they had to for a future purpose. Grittman noted that it clears up a series of nonconformities because the use has driveways crossing property lines and buildings within setback areas. By eliminating some of these lot lines, it makes the properties more conforming. Future redevelopment of the site would stand alone as a request. Hagen clarified that all six lots are owned by the applicant. Grittman confirmed. Hagen asked if at this time there were no entrance and exit changes to traffic flow. Grittman stated that not as a result of the plat. Alstad opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Mark Nettesheim, CorTrust Bank/applicant, noted that they have had the need to increase parking on the site through an additional six to nine spaces. Nettesheim noted that the parking will be located where the demolished house sat, along with green space and sitting area for the community and employees. Alstad asked how long CorTrust has been located in Monticello. Nettesheim answered that CorTrust Bank acquired First Minnesota Bank in August 2019. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Hagen asked in the if all parcels were zoned Central Community District. Grittman confirmed. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-007 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR CORTRUST BANK MONTICELLO, BASED ON CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Conditions for Approval Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 2 1 12 Preliminary Plat for CorTrust Bank Monticello 1. The final plat must show required drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the parcel. Add 12-foot perimeter drainage and utility easement around plat. The easement can be reduced along Pine Street (TH 25) and 4t" Street to the distance between the property line and building if less than 12'. 2. Confirm document for a 10' road easement along Pine Street (TH 25) or 10' of additional ROW. 3. Coordination with the City with regard to future site plan changes to parking and site conditions. Future parking lot expansion will require review by the Engineering and Planning department and additional land use review. 4. Other comments and recommendations of City Staff and City Council. B. Public Hearing-Consideration of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Cross Parking and Access for a Building Expansion in the B-4 (Regional Business) District Applicant: ISG (Andrea Rand) Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use application request. Grittman noted that an existing development occupies the site (ALDI) and when they originally built on that property, they secured a cross parking and access agreement to the neighboring property to the east. Grittman explained that some parking exists on the east parcel and that an access point is located on School Boulevard. It was noted that this was completed because the access point meets directly across from the Walmart access. The City tries to align access points along major roadways. Grittman reminded the Commission that in order to have cross access and parking, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required. The applicants are proposing an expansion of their building which requires an amendment to the existing CUP. Grittman noted that the applicants have proposed an addition on the south portion of their building of about 2,300 square feet. The expansion has some ramifications for the site, including the loss of(seven) parking spaces. They would also designate four spaces of parking on the south parking area for pick-up options. Grittman noted that because of the loss of parking, an increase in demand for the shared parking spaces on the east parcel could occur. Grittman noted that the site overall meets the requirement for parking. Grittman explained that prior to this proposal, they facilitated all parking on site, but with the proposal their demand for parking would be met by the cross-parking on the east parcel. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z. Eric Hagen confirmed that there are sixty-nine spaces that ALDI has on their site and 16 parking spaces are shared. Hagen confirmed that only 79 parking spaces Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 3 1 12 are required following the expansion. Grittman confirmed. Hagen asked if four of those required spaces include the curbside pick-up. Grittman believed that the curbside pick-up parking was in addition to the total required parking and leave an excess of parking spaces. Hagen asked if the existing owners of the adjacent property have any plans to use those additional spaces. Grittman noted that it was unknown what the property owner's development plans were for that property, but it was presumed that there will be a need for that parking area at some point. At the time that the developer comes forward with development plans for the adjoining property, additional zoning review would be required and an understanding with how it relates to ALDI's use of the shared parking supply. Hagen asked for clarification if the CUP applies to both the ALDI property and the adjacent eastern parcel. Grittman confirmed. Hagen asked as a part of the cross parking and access agreement, if there was a rule that one development has priority of the shared area. Grittman noted that it may be reflected in the terms of the easement between the properties. From a CUP point-of-view, we consider that ALDI has the right to use those spaces and the future user of the adjoining property may also have that right but would be required a CUP. This will give the City the ability to measure the parking at that time. Hagen asked if any future use would be subject to the existing use or would need further review. Grittman responded that we would not expect ALDI to change their terms of use. Alstad opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Ryan Anderson, ISG/applicant, noted that ALDI is working on expanding or remodeling all their existing stores in the division where the Monticello store is located. Anderson noted concern with Condition 1 of Exhibit Z, which notes the requirement to update the legal agreement between the two properties. He asked that the item be removed or amended. He noted that ALDI's legal team reviewed the easement document. He noted that the project does not violate the current agreement. The existing access between the properties remains the same and the shared parking remains intact. There also was no provision in the agreement that would require that this document be amended or updated for an expansion of their building. Alstad asked if this expansion was in anticipation of increased business. Anderson declined and explained that due to the changing marketplace, ALDI nationwide has been expanding product line and curbside pick-up options. This would bring their standards up to what their customers come to expect when shopping at their stores. The expansion is more to continue to maintain the same level of business they currently enjoy. Alstad asked what the age of the current building was. Anderson commented that it was built in 2014. Andrew Tapper asked if a simple letter of acknowledgment could be received from the adjoining property owner that they understand the change to the site. Tapper asked staff how much updating are we expecting. Angela Schumann recommended that the condition stand, but would be open to a slight change in Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 4 1 12 the language that would indicate consent from the adjacent property owner as to the terms of the current agreement and that is the recommendation of the City Attorney. Tapper asked if the main objective of the applicants was to not have to re-write the whole agreement. Anderson confirmed and added that the alternative recommendation by Schumann would be an improvement. Anderson noted concern with allowing a landowner, and somebody not directly involved with the property, approval rights over ALDI's project. Tapper noted that the City's zoning ordinance does not have language regarding designated parking areas for curbside pick-up. He asked for a recommendation on curbside pick-up parking to roll those into future code amendment considerations. Anderson noted the newness of curbside pick-up options and the complexity of understanding the total demand for parking. Anderson added that ADA stalls are not excluded from parking counts and he felt that at this time curbside should not be looked at differently either. There were no further comments from the public. Clarification on Item 1 from Exhibit Z and the applicant's recommendation was received. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-008 WITH EXHIBIT Z, ITEM 1 AMENDED TO INCLUDE A WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE ADJOINING LOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE PLANS BY THE APPLICANT, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CROSS PARKING AND ACCESS FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE ALDI GROCERY STORE, BASED ON CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Conditions for Approval CUP Amendment for ALDI Grocery Store PID: 155227001010 1. The applicant updates the legal instrument executed by the parties or provides a written acknowledgement from the adjacent property owner reflecting the changes in off-street parking facilities, duly approved as to form and manner of execution by the City Attorney, to be filed with the City Administrator and recoded with the County Recorder of Wright County. 2. The applicant submits a revised photometric plan as a part of building permit application, verifying compliance with lighting standards. 3. The proposed construction does not appear to be increasing the impervious surface, if the amount of impervious surface changes further review of the existing infiltration basins would be necessary. Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 5 1 12 4. Add note to plans that contractor shall contact Public Works when reconfiguring water service. 5. Other comments and recommendations of City Staff and City Council. C. Public Hearing-Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Repair for Recreational Vehicles and Variance for Additional Signage Allowance in the B-3 (Highway Business) District Applicant: RJ Ryan Construction Steve Grittman presented the staff report for the item and noted that RJ Ryan was representing Lazy Days RV. The applicants are proposing to occupy the Quarry Church site (3939 Chelsea Road), which was originally developed for an automobile dealership. The Church occupied a portion of the site, renting out space to a commercial recreation use and an automobile service facility. The applicant is looking to occupy the entire site, with the existing tenants vacating the premise. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Vehicles Sales, Rental, and Repair for the property. Grittman noted that the applicants originally applied for a variance to allow for an additional freestanding sign on the lot and along Interstate 94 but have since withdrawn that application. Any approval of a CUP would require compliance with the City's sign code regulations. Grittman provided a location zoning map and adjacent land uses. It was noted that several vehicle sales and rental facilities exist within the surrounding area. Grittman explained that some modifications were proposed for the building but would primarily be fagade improvements and changes to accommodate the sizes of the vehicles they service and sell. The footprint of the building would remain as it currently exists. Grittman noted that the parking lot would be restriped to accommodate recreational vehicles and that more than adequate parking would be offered on site for customers and employees. Two small changes to the site plan include the addition of a bulk fuel (propane) tank and a sanitary dump station. Grittman reminded the Commission that a similar system was recently approved for a recreational vehicle dealership south of Chelsea Road (Monticello RV). Grittman recommended approval of the land use application request with the comments displayed in Exhibit Z of the staff report. John Alstad asked for clarification if the site would be used for vehicles or recreational vehicles. Grittman confirmed that the user is a recreational vehicle dealership. Alstad also asked if there were any special consideration or Statues that would need to be considered with the addition of a dump station. Grittman responded that there would be requirements for connecting into the City's sewer system. Andrew Tapper asked that the dump station is a direct connection Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 6 1 12 to the sewer system, and it is not a storage for later drainage. Grittman noted that it was his understanding the dump station would be directly connected to the City's system for treatment. Tapper asked if the propane fill station ran into any concerns being in the B-3 District. Grittman responded that the propane tank use was a specific allowable, accessory use, but it has standards that are applied to it from zoning, fire and building codes. Eric Hagen asked if there was only one way in and out of the property. Grittman confirmed that there was once curb cut in the south east corner. Hagen asked if there were any concerns with traffic with RV's and the width of the curb cut. Grittman was unsure of the width but noted that if they intend to widen the curb cut to accommodate the turning radius of their vehicles, they will need to work with the Engineering Department. At this point, the applicant does not intend to make any changes to that entrance. Tapper noted on the site plan a dotted line outlining an additional curb cut. Grittman thought that the entrance point was from the original Gould Chevrolet development and was no longer active. Hagen noted that this approval would extinguish all other CUPS for the site and asked what other permits were approved for the site. Grittman responded that the church, commercial recreation facility, and an automobile service business all had active CUPS for the site, which staff recommend terminating with this request. Hagen asked what the recent Nuss Truck & Equipment PUD zoning was before their land use application. Grittman commented that the site was located in two zoning districts and had two separate parcels. Hagen confirmed that Nuss Truck & Equipment did not need a CUP because they received approval for a Planned Unit Development. Hagen asked why a PUD was not necessary here. Grittman explained that the developed site was one building on one lot and no other modifications to the property were proposed at this time. Hagen asked if the nearby properties had CUPS or PUDs. Grittman noted the Affordable Storage PUD, Lake Region RV PUD, and Camping World PUD. He explained that Moon Motorsports and Ryan Motors had active CUPS. Hagen commented that the use of land use application permitting in the area goes along well with the application from RJ Ryan Construction. Grittman confirmed. John Alstad opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Amy Carroll, Pope Architects/on behalf of the applicant, introduced herself and noted that they were the original architect for the building when Gould Brother's Chevrolet developed the site. Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 7 1 12 Hagen asked if the intent were to fill the lot, on the west side of the parcel, where the restriping was proposed, with all inventory and customer parking would occur on the southeast portion of the site. Carroll confirmed. There were no further comments from the public. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-009 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE SALES AND RENTAL, WITH ACCESSORY MINOR VEHICLE REPAIR, FOR LAZY DAYS RV, BASED ON CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales and Rental and Accessory Vehicle Repair Lazy Days RV PID: 155184001010 1. The applicant complies with the requirements of the City Engineer in his letter dated February 17th, 2021. 2. The applicant complies with the terms of Section 5.2 (E) 30., Vehicle Sales and Rental. 3. The applicant complies with the operational requirements of Section 5.3 (D) (6) and (7) Automobile Repair— Major and Minor, respectively. 4. The applicant revises their site plan to comply with the terms of Section 5.3 (D) (9), Bulk Fuel Sales and Storage. 5. All prior zoning permits, including Conditional Use Permits for Automotive Service, Public Assembly, Commercial Recreation, and other zoning approvals are hereby extinguished as a part of this Conditional Use Permit approval and the City Clerk shall record such documentation with the County Recorder's Office. 6. Comments and recommendations of other City Staff and City Council. D. Public Hearing-Consideration of a Preliminary and Final Plat for Spaeth Second Addition and an Amendment to Planned Unit Development for the Spaeth Industrial Planned Unit Development Applicant: Ken Spaeth, Spaeth Development Steve Grittman explained the land use application and noted that the existing property was subdivided and placed under a PUD District several years ago to accommodate a series of individually owned light industrial buildings and later amended to allow industrial storage. Grittman provided the location map and noted a PUD was necessary as only two of the eight lots had frontage on Dundas Road. The applicant was seeking an amendment to plat the lower right-hand Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 8 1 12 corner (southeast) lot. The applicants were requesting to split the lot into three new lots along common wall lines. These proposed boundaries would include the entire lot and not just the building. Grittman noted that the remaining buildings and parcels would not be affected by this particular application, with the exception that changes to ownership pattern may impact how the properties expectations for common maintenance are applied. One of the conditions identified in Exhibit Z helps to address this concern and ensures that common expectations continue to occur as part of the PUD. Grittman also proposed an amendment to the language to the PUD District in the Zoning Ordinance. This clarification would ensure that if further lots were subdivided, they would all continue to be operationally the same as it was originally configured. It was not the intent to have individually owned common buildings to have separate maintenance since they share things such as roofs and walls. The applicants have prepared a set of declarations that would apply, and a condition would be that the City Attorney would have the ability to review that document to ensure that the original expectation of common maintenance and access would be maintained as a result of the subdivision. No other changes were requested with the PUD request. Staff recommended approval of the application with comments identified in Exhibit Z of the staff report. John Alstad asked if there would be ownership changes. Grittman expected that there would be. Andrew Tapper clarified Item 1 of Exhibit Z that if someone purchased the property, they would need to abide by the conditions and covenants. Grittman confirmed that they were still subject to the common interests even though they are individual lot owners. Tapper asked that with this condition, the City will not run into any future land use issues. Grittman confirmed, referring to the association and easement documents. Tapper asked if the original intent of the development was to lease or buy the building and not the land. Grittman stated that it was originally intended that one person would own the land and build the building on the subdivided parcel. Under law, they have the opportunity to condo the building and sell a portion of their building. Again, Grittman reiterated that staff are ensuring that all ownership interests are still subject to the common interests of the site and PUD rules. Eric Hagen indicated a letter attached to the staff report from SDK Architects that mentions the building/fire code regarding fire resistance ratings within the walls and changing from S-1 (moderate hazard storage) to S-2 (low hazard storage). Hagen asked if this concern was covered under Exhibit Z, Item 6. Ron Hackenmueller noted the minor change that is covered in the building code. It allows a builder to go from a two-hour wall to a one-hour wall (which is an existing one-hour wall in the building). A property line can be placed per code and as proposed with declaration of covenants. Hagen asked that if someone Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 9 1 12 wants to change use for the building, it's built into the legal instruments executed by the parties, that if any changes need to be made to that classification that it could be done at that time. Hackenmueller noted that if it is changed back to the S-1, a two-hour wall would need to be placed in the building. Angela Schumann further commented that regardless of the PUD or subdivision, anytime an occupancy in one of the units changes, the City has a Change in Use form that is requested that they complete, but they also need to comply with building code. Hagen commented that he posed the questions to understand if the City is concerned with providing too much leniency on the changing uses that could occur in the building and if other permitting may be required. Grittman added that any occupant must comply with the zoning code, including the use, in addition to the building/fire code. Tapper asked about parking. Grittman explained that even though individual owners own lots, they are subject to a common agreement that shares all parking spaces and access in common. Alstad asked if the building is already occupied. Hackenmueller declined. John Alstad opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Scott Dahlke, Civil Engineer Site Design/on behalf of the applicant, introduced himself. He noted that the building already exists on the property and was built with the party walls. The lot lines that they are proposing were measured and defined in accordance with where those party walls were built. Dahlke noted they have one interested party interested in acquiring one of the units shortly after a potential approval by City Council. Alstad asked what the anticipated uses of the building. Dahlke noted that it is for storage. There were no further citizen comments. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-010 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ALLOWING INDIVIDUAL LOT SUBDIVISIONS OF PRIVATE AND COMMON PROPERTY WITHIN THE SPAETH INDUSTRIAL PARK PUD DISTRICT AND A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REPLATTING LOT 8 INTO THREE SEPARATE PARCELS, BASED ON CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Conditions for Approval PUD Amendment and Preliminary and Final Plat for Spaeth Industrial Park PUD Second Addition Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 10 1 12 PID: 155255001080 (Plat) and 155255001080, 155255001070, 155255001060, 155255001050, 155255001040, 155255001030, 155255001020, 155255001010 (PUD) 1. The applicant updates the legal instrument executed by the parties reflecting the changes to ownership and common interest for maintenance, access, parking, and similar association requirements, duly approved as to form and manner of execution by the City Attorney, to be filed with the City Administrator and recoded with the County Recorder of Wright County. 2. The amendment to legal documents are recorded against all lots in the PUD and Spaeth Industrial Park, including the three new lots in Spaeth Industrial Park "Second Addition". 3. As a PUD, future condominium association documents are subject to the review of the City Attorney for conformance to PUD requirements. 4. No other changes under this amendment or plat are made as a part of this amendment. 5. Execution of an amendment to the Development Contract and Planned Unit Development for the Spaeth Industrial Park. 6. Compliance with the comments of the City Engineer as related to all site utilities, including those on the proposed Grant of Easement document. 7. Other comments and recommendations of City Staff and City Council. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report as noted in the agenda. Discussion occurred regarding the City Council's action on the recent Capstone Homes land use application request for amendment to Monticello Zoning Code. The process was noted for which alternative building materials would be proposed by a developer. Schumann noted the importance the City Council placed on having enhanced building materials including brick or stone. If the Planning Commission allows a deviation from the building materials, the City Council is looking for enhancements commensurate with the 15 percent brick or stone requirement. Schumann also provided an overview of the Development Services report noted in the Council connections, highlighting the annual land use application survey results and an update on development inquiries and progress. 4. Added Items N/A. 5. Adjournment ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:36 P.M. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 111 12 Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: April 6th, 2021 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes—February 2nd, 2021 Page 12 12 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 2A. Public Hearing—Consideration of a Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary and Final Plat, for Commercial Self Storage in the B-3 (Highway Business) District Applicant: Byron Bjorklund Prepared by: Northwest Associated Meeting Date: Council Date (pending Consultants (NAC) 4/6/21 Commission action): 4/26/21 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building and Zoning Official, Community & Economic Development Coordinator, Project Engineer, Fire Marshal REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Descriptions: Outlot A, Groveland 5"Addition and lengthy legal PID: 155-253-000010 & 155-125-000040 Planning Case Number: 2021-007 Request(s): Rezoning to PUD, Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development, Preliminary and Final Plat. Deadline for Decision: May 18t", 2021 (60-day deadline) July 17t", 2021 (120-day deadline) Land Use Designation: CC Community Commercial The Community Commercial land use designation is intended to provide locations for everyday retail goods and services generally oriented to city-wide basis. Zoning Designation: B-3 Highway Business District The purpose of the "B-3" (Highway Business) district is to provide for limited commercial and service activities and provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. The Zoning Map below shows the zoning for the parcel. 1 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 SITE 10 ' 07 Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Uses: Vacant Surrounding Land Uses: North: B-3 (PUD Camping World) East: B-3 (PUD Monticello RV) South: R-1 West: 1-1 (Vacant) Project Description: Byron Bjorklund and StorageLink wish to rezone a parcel from B-3 (Highway Business) District to PUD to allow for the phased construction of 11 storage facility buildings on the roughly 5.77- acre site. The parcel is currently vacant and is guided for Community Commercial by the City's Comprehensive Plan and is zoned B-3 (Highway Business) District. The applicant is seeking a Development and Final Stage PUD and the Preliminary and Final Plat as a combined application. The Planning Commission reviews the Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD; however, Final Plat and Final PUD go directly to City Council. ANALYSIS: PUD Development Stage—Site Plan Review Lot Size. The B-3 District provides for no specific minimum lot size but requires a minimum lot width of 100 feet on a public street. The subject property is 5.66 acres in area. The parcel has approximately 428 feet of frontage on Chelsea Road, and 300 feet of frontage on 901" Street NE. The PUD District would not specify minimum areas or widths. 2 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 Site and Building Data. The proposed buildings range from 4,800 to 12,000 square feet in size. The applicants indicate that they will construct the project in phases as demand grows over time. The site layout relies on access from a single driveway off Chelsea Road West. The project includes driveways around each of the proposed buildings which will provide access to the individual storage bays. Building separation is shown to be variable between 30-60 feet, which should accommodate adequate drive space while vehicles are parked using the various storage facilities. This dimension is common for these types of facilities. The plans do not dimension the setbacks. Staff has reviewed the plans and made measurements to an approximate scale. Those measurements indicate the proposed buildings along Chelsea Road, specifically Buildings K and L, have been placed in the front setback area of 30 feet, as close as 22 feet to Chelsea Road right of way. The buildings must be shifted to meet the setback, and all plans revised to reflect this change. Further, Building B does not meet the B-3 District's required 30-foot rear yard setback. It appears to be approximately 22 feet from the common boundary line with the adjoining residential property and will need to be relocated to meet the minimum requirement. In addition, the access gate is setback about 24 feet from Chelsea Road. To prevent cars from stacking into the road it is advised that the gate be set back further from the road based on the City Engineer comments. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans, indicated that an additional fire hydrant is required to meet fire code and any plan revisions necessary to meet turning radius for fire apparatus. Within the project area, the entire developed portion will be paved. The provided site plan does not distinctly detail curb surrounding the perimeter of the paved area. This is a requirement of the ordinance and is a condition of approval. Because the center access drive curves, and the corners of the buildings create protruding corners, it may be valuable for the applicant to consider some pavement striping, or possibly bollard posts in some areas, to direct vehicles and protect building corners. One of the issues with the phased improvement is the likelihood that metal building exteriors and colors (see the materials comments below) will be exposed to the street view as long as the future phases of buildings along Chelsea Road are not yet constructed. To remedy this, staff would suggest one of two alternatives. 3 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 1. The preferred alternative would be a phasing plan that develops the external buildings first, thereby creating the required screening effect, after which views to the internal materials and colors would not be possible. 2. A second option would be to increase evergreen landscape plantings along the Chelsea and 901" Street frontages and building color changes to the exposed buildings with the first phase of construction, creating a screening effect while the second phase is not yet constructed. Either option would satisfy the ordinance standards. Off-Street Parking. The site plan does not propose any designated parking spaces. The applicant has indicated there will be no staff on site and the areas in front of each storage bay are adequate for parking and loading. As such, staff concurs that there is no need for additional off-street parking due to the adequate area to park in front of the storage lockers. Landscaping. A variety of plantings have been proposed on the site, including plantings along the perimeter of the site, and around the perimeter of the building. The following comments are offered for site landscaping. Caliper Inch Requirements. According to the Ordinance, 10 caliper inches (ACI) of tree planting (including at least one evergreen) must be provided for each acre of site area, plus 2 shrubs per 10 feet of building perimeter. Thus, the landscaping requirement for the 5.77-acre site would be 57.7 caliper inches of trees. The plan shows approximately 22.5 ACI of tree planting along Chelsea Road and 901" Street. Thus, an additional 35 ACI is required to supplement the planned landscaping. The shrub planting noted above would result in a total of 120 shrubs, outside of the buffer area. In addition to general landscaping quantities, the applicant must install a buffer planting along the common boundary with the residential area to the south/south-west. The buffer requirement is exclusive of the other planting required on the site. In the buffer planting, the applicant is required to provide a type-C semi-opaque buffer on the southern lot line. The proposed plan shows a proposed 110 ACI of trees along the southern lot line. The requirement for the buffer is 12 ACI of canopy trees + 14 ACI of understory trees and 25 shrubs per 100 linear feet. The applicant will need to plant an additional 84 ACI of understory and canopy trees in addition to 186 shrub plantings in this 4 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 area. Staff would strongly suggest a greater emphasis on evergreen trees, such as the Spruce and Pine proposed in part, to ensure a more effective year-round buffer along the residential boundary. Fencing. The applicant proposes a stucco exterior insulation finishing wall system along the Chelsea Road and corner of Chelsea Road and 901" Street area, which acts as a screening wall along those public edges (also described below). The applicant also proposed a wrought-iron type of gate that would extend along the street frontage and perimeter of the property. It is unclear from the plans, but it appears that no additional fencing—other than existing resident fences—is proposed along the southern buffer boundary. Building Size, Finish Materials. The proposed buildings vary in length and width, depending on their site location. The majority of the buildings are 40 feet in width except for buildings A, B and D which are 50 feet in width. The entry building is 40 feet in width and has a metal gabled roof. The plans show external building materials, primarily EIFS (Exterior Insulated Finish System), a composite material similar to stucco finishes. The entrance building includes a tower on which the facility signage is located, capped by a metal standing seam roof. The base on the tower structure would include a stone veneer finish. Colors include four different varieties of EIFS, from light grey on the tower structure to a tan color, which comprises the bulk of the exterior wall area. Two trim colors (rust and yellow) complement the wall colors. Interior building materials are not identified, presumed to be metal. The interior building areas include primarily orange-colored garage doors but are not generally visible from the street. The code discourages colors which are not earth toned, but internal color schemes which are screened from view of surrounding property would not be subject to this limitation. The architectural drawings appear to show a continuous wall along the Chelsea Road/901n Street exposures comprised of the EIFS materials noted above. The wall as shown in the elevations appears to show some relief along the parapet sections. The site plan shows a series of separated buildings, but the continuous wall is not shown and the extension of the parapet areas from the buildings is not shown. As drawn, it is presumed that the back wall of each of the buildings along Chelsea Road and 901" Street will form the building perimeter and be connected by similar wall structure, but this should be confirmed with the applicant and on-site plans. Lighting. The plans show wall-mounted lighting throughout the facility, with a variety of light intensity. Planning staff would recommend a reduced lighting scheme along the south and east 5 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 boundaries of the proposed buildings. Even though cut-off lighting is required, the foot-candle measurements should be redesigned to be zero at the residential property line. Moreover, along the east boundary, there is no access behind the buildings, which does not appear to justify footcandle levels of more than 1.0, which is the maximum required allowed. Trash/Recycling. The applicant notes that no separate trash handling is provided with these buildings. Signage. The applicant's plans show a total of four proposed signs, one each of which are mounted on each of the four facets of the tower structure. Three of the signs are 79 square feet in area, one each facing opposing traffic on Chelsea, and the third (apparently) facing inward to the project area. The fourth sign faces straight out to Chelsea and is approximately 130 square feet in area. The total sign area is approximately 366 square feet in area, all comprised of wall signage as described. The Sign regulations allow a total of 15% of the wall area facing two streets. It appears that the architectural drawings are not drawn to scale and should be revised. Based on staff's estimates, the total wall area facing Chelsea Road and 901" Street would be approximately 600 feet of building length times approximately 10 feet of height, a wall area of 6,000 square feet. At 15%, the maximum allowable sign area would be 900 square feet. The applicant's plans appear to be in compliance but would require confirmation with actual architectural drawings. The applicant should further verify any sign lighting. The sign facing the residential area may not be illuminated, per zoning ordinance. If development plans are approved, a sign permit application would be required to review for further compliance. Erosion Control and Drainage. The applicant has submitted a plan with a proposed infiltration basin on the southwest corner of the lot. Plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Grading and Utilities. The grading and utilities plans should be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Phasing. The applicant proposes to phase the project, building the entry and the first six buildings on the eastern (the entrance area) portion of the property. The subsequent phase appears to include the balance of the buildings on site. The applicant proposes to pave and grade each subsequent phase separately. As a condition of approval, the applicant is required 6 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 to construct the full buffer yard requirement on the southern lot line, as well as required site ponding. The plan anticipates no outdoor storage, which would be consistent with the expectation for a commercial use adjacent to a residential area. The undeveloped future-phase portion of the project shall remain vacant until development is proposed consistent with the approved plans. Finally, as a commercial self-storage facility, no active business use is to be conducted within the project. The allowed commercial use is to be storage only, with the expectation that tenants make only occasional, short-duration visits to the site. Longer duration visits reflecting other, non-storage use would be considered a violation of the terms of the PUD. Preliminary Plat The applicants have proposed a plat to create a single development parcel from the current Outlot A of Groveland 51"Addition and adjoining parcel which is part of former right of way at the intersection of Chelsea Road and 901" Street. The plat is well above the minimum requirements of the base zoning standards which would have been applicable to the site if not for PUD. It is noted that the plat does not meet the required 12' rear yard drainage and utility easement requirement of the subdivision ordinance. This is noted as a condition of approval, along with any required encroachment agreement necessary for improvements and access in this area. The applicant is required to verify platting of the former right of way meets the County Surveyor's requirements. No other issues are apparent from the perspective of the Zoning or Subdivision ordinances. The City Engineer will comment more extensively on plat-related requirements for engineering and infrastructure standards. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of a Rezoning from B-3, Highway Business, to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021-011, recommending approval of the Rezoning from B-3, Highway Business, to StorageLink Monticello PUD District, together with a Development Stage PUD approval, based on the findings in said resolution, and contingent on compliance with conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021-011 for approval of the Rezoning to StorageLink Monticello PUD District, based on findings identified at the public hearing. 7 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. 2021-011, subject to additional information from the applicant, public, and/or staff. Decision 2: Preliminary Plat 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021-012, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat for StorageLink Monticello, based on the findings in said resolution, and contingent on compliance with conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021-012 recommending approval of the preliminary plat of StorageLink Monticello, based on findings identified at the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. 2021-012, subject to additional information from the applicant, public, and/or staff. Decision 3: Development Stage PUD Approval 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021-013, recommending Development Stage PUD approval for StorageLink Monticello, based on the findings in said resolution, and contingent on compliance with conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021-013 recommending approval of the Development Stage PUD for StorageLink Monticello, based on findings identified at the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. 2021-013, subject to additional information from the applicant, public, and/or staff. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD. The proposed use is quiet, low volume, and compatible with proximity to residential areas. However, significant changes are required to the site plan to comply with the requirements of the ordinance and intent and the use of PUD, including to the impacts of the phasing plan, landscaping quantities, and setbacks of three of the proposed buildings. With those adjustments, the proposed development should be consistent with the requirements and expectations for development on this site. As a result, staff would recommend that at the time of City Council review, the Council table action on the final plat and final stage PUD until such changes meeting the conditions have been made. 8 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2021-011, Rezoning B. Resolution PC-2021-012, Preliminary Plat C. Resolution PC-2021-013, Development Stage PUD D. Ordinance No. XXX E. Aerial Site Image F. Applicant Narrative G. Preliminary Plat H. Final Plat I. Site Plans J. Civil Plans K. Elevation Images L. Sign Images M. Lighting Plan N. Landscape Plan O. City Engineer's Letter, dated March 25t", 2021 Z. Conditions of Approval 9 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 EXHIBIT Z Rezoning to Planned Unit Development Development Stage PUD Preliminary Plat StorageLink Monticello 1. No outdoor storage will be permitted within the project at any time. 2. Revise the phasing plan to construct the perimeter buildings and connecting screening walls as a first phase to screen interior uses. a. In the alternative, the Planning Commission may choose to recommend reliance on building color changes to the exposed buildings prior to the second phase, and/or additional evergreen planting along Chelsea Road to screen the interior of the site prior to second phase. 3. Screening walls shall include both horizontal and vertical relief as depicted on the building elevations/architectural drawings. 4. Resolve discrepancies between site and civil plans and actual proposals, including fencing and screening walls. Where fencing is proposed, it should be decorative in nature, and must not include use of chain link materials. 5. No use of the future phase areas shall be permitted until such phase is developed in accordance with the approved site plan. 6. Revise landscape plan to meet the requirements as outlined in the report, including: a. Additional 35 ACI of tree planting to meet base site landscaping requirements. b. Additional plantings in the buffer area as specified in this report and the requirements of the zoning ordinance, with a greater emphasis on evergreen tree planting to effect a year-round screen. 7. Revise site plan and grading plans to illustrate a concrete curb as required by the code in all areas of the pavement without building coverage. 8. Provide new site and building plans highlighting Buildings B, K, and L meeting the 30-foot rear and front yard setbacks, as applicable. 9. Move the entrance gate further back from Chelsea Road per the City Engineer recommendation as to the appropriate distance. 10 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 10. Revise lighting plans indicating light illumination will be at zero footcandles on the south border of the parcel, and no more than 1.0 footcandles along other property lines. 11. Site signage shall be in compliance with zoning ordinance Chapter 4.5 —Signs. 12. Plat shall be revised to meet the required 12' rear yard drainage and utility easement requirement of the subdivision ordinance. 13. Provide updated elevations and civil drawings showing the revisions consistent with the requirements noted in the staff report and engineer's letter. 14. The applicant shall provide an updated certificate of survey dated within 3 months of the date of this report and prior to final plat approval. 15. Compliance with the comments of the Fire Marshal, which include those requiring and additional fire hydrant to meet fire code, and any plan revisions necessary to meet turning radius for fire apparatus. 16. Compliance with comments from the City Engineer in the Engineer's letter dated March 25t", 2021. 17. Execute any required encroachment agreement necessary for improvements and access in this area. 18. Execution of a development agreement for the PUD and plat. 19. Other comments of the Planning Commission and Staff provided at the Public Hearing. 11 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-011 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING TO STORAGELINK MONTICELLO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the applicant owns property along West Chelsea Road in the Groveland 5tn Addition; 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 Community Commercial (CC) 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 commercial uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 6, 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 a commercial 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, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-011 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 StorageLink Monticello PUD District. ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: Paul Konsor, Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-012 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STORAGELINK MONTICELLO WHEREAS, the applicant owns property along West Chelsea Road in the Groveland 5 h Addition; 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 Community Commercial (CC) 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 April 6, 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 a commercial 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-2021-012 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 StorageLink Monticello, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z of the staff report as follows: 1. No outdoor storage will be permitted within the project at any time. 2. Revise the phasing plan to construct the perimeter buildings and connecting screening walls as a first phase to screen interior uses. 3. Screening walls shall include both horizontal and vertical relief as depicted on the building elevations/architectural drawings. 4. Resolve discrepancies between site and civil plans and actual proposals, including fencing and screening walls. Where fencing is proposed, it should be decorative in nature, and must not include use of chain link materials. 5. No use of the future phase areas shall be permitted until such phase is developed in accordance with the approved site plan. 6. Revise landscape plan to meet the requirements as outlined in the report, including: a. Additional 35 ACI of tree planting to meet base site landscaping requirements. b. Additional plantings in the buffer area as specified in this report and the requirements of the zoning ordinance, with a greater emphasis on evergreen tree planting to effect a year-round screen.' 7. Revise site plan and grading plans to illustrate a concrete curb as required by the code in all areas of the pavement without building coverage. 8. Provide new site and building plans highlighting Buildings B, K, and L meeting the 30-foot rear and front yard setbacks, as applicable. 9. Move the entrance gate further back from Chelsea Road per the City Engineer recommendation as to the appropriate distance. 10. Revise lighting plans indicating light illumination will be at zero footcandles on the south border of the parcel, and no more than 1.0 footcandles along other property lines. 11. Site signage shall be in compliance with zoning ordinance Chapter 4.5 — Signs. 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-012 12. Plat shall be revised to meet the required 12' rear yard drainage and utility easement requirement of the subdivision ordinance. 13. Provide updated elevations and civil drawings showing the revisions consistent with the requirements noted in the staff report and engineer's letter. 14. The applicant shall provide an updated certificate of survey dated within 3 months of the date of this report and prior to final plat approval. 15. Compliance with the comments of the Fire Marshal, which include those requiring and additional fire hydrant to meet fire code, and any plan revisions necessary to meet turning radius for fire apparatus. 16. Compliance with comments from the City Engineer in the Engineer's letter dated March 25th, 2021. 17. Execute any required encroachment agreement necessary for improvements and access in this area. 18. Execution of a development agreement for the PUD and plat. 19. Other comments of the Planning Commission and Staff provided at the Public Hearing. ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: Paul Konsor, Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 3 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-013 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR STORAGELINK MONTICELLO WHEREAS, the applicant owns property along West Chelsea Road in Groveland 5h Addition; 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 Community Commercial (CC) 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 April 6, 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 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 a commercial 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-2021-013 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 approve the Development Stage PUD for StorageLink Monticello, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z of the staff report as follows: 1. No outdoor storage will be permitted within the project at any time. 2. Revise the phasing plan to construct the perimeter buildings and connecting screening walls as a first phase to screen interior uses. 3. Screening walls shall include both horizontal and vertical relief as depicted on the building elevations/architectural drawings. 4. Resolve discrepancies between site and civil plans and actual proposals, including fencing and screening walls. Where fencing is proposed, it should be decorative in nature, and must not include use of chain link materials. 5. No use of the future phase areas shall be permitted until such phase is developed in accordance with the approved site plan. 6. Revise landscape plan to meet the requirements as outlined in the report, including: a. Additional 35 ACI of tree planting to meet base site landscaping requirements. b. Additional plantings in the buffer area as specified in this report and the requirements of the zoning ordinance, with a greater emphasis on evergreen tree planting to effect a year-round screen.' 7. Revise site plan and grading plans to illustrate a concrete curb as required by the code in all areas of the pavement without building coverage. 8. Provide new site and building plans highlighting Buildings B, K, and L meeting the 30-foot rear and front yard setbacks, as applicable. 9. Move the entrance gate further back from Chelsea Road per the City Engineer recommendation as to the appropriate distance. 10. Revise lighting plans indicating light illumination will be at zero footcandles on the south border of the parcel, and no more than 1.0 footcandles along other property lines. 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-013 11. Site signage shall be in compliance with zoning ordinance Chapter 4.5 — Signs. 12. Plat shall be revised to meet the required 12' rear yard drainage and utility easement requirement of the subdivision ordinance. 13. Provide updated elevations and civil drawings showing the revisions consistent with the requirements noted in the staff report and engineer's letter. 14. The applicant shall provide an updated certificate of survey dated within 3 months of the date of this report and prior to final plat approval. 15. Compliance with the comments of the Fire Marshal, which include those requiring and additional fire hydrant to meet fire code, and any plan revisions necessary to meet turning radius for fire apparatus. 16. Compliance with comments from the City Engineer in the Engineer's letter dated March 25th, 2021. 17. Execute any required encroachment agreement necessary for improvements and access in this area. 18. Execution of a development agreement for the PUD and plat. 19. Other comments of the Planning Commission and Staff provided at the Public Hearing. ADOPTED this 6`h day of April, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: Paul Konsor, 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 "STORAGELINK MONTICELLO 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) StorageLink Monticello PUD (a) Purpose. The purpose of the StorageLink Monticello PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the B-3 (Highway Business) District for commercial land uses. (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the StorageLink Monticello PUD District shall be commercial self-storage as found in Section 5.2 (F)(11) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, 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 commercial 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 StorageLink Monticello 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 B-3, (Highway Business) 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 project, including a zoning district amendment. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 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 StorageLink Monticello PUD, Planned Unit Development District: Lots 1, Block 1, StorageLink Monticello. 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 of , 2021. Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor ATTEST: Rachel Leonard, Administrator AYES: NAYS: 2 o - a !F so m • t. : m fill _F�/ ✓per !e � -71 jlk . d ,,/R S2 ♦ p \ �\ 0 \ 1 : — \• l _ - - Storage Link of Monticello Storage Link is a self-storage business specializing in operating clean, well lit, attractive, convenient solutions for storage needs. We currently own and operate 15 facilities in central Minnesota. It has been our privilege to serve the businesses and residents of Monticello for the past 3 years. We acquired the AMAX storage business from Lois and Glenn Potusta in 2018, converting it to the Storage Link platform. We have built the business on hard work, involvement in the community, and success of their operation. Because of the success of the Dundas facility and inquiries we receive daily, we would like to expand to Chelsea Road and 90t' Street. We feel we would complement the existing uses along Chelsea, and enhance the appearance of the current environment. We have carefully worked with our team of designers, architects, and landscape professionals to put forth a project that will both dovetail with the existing uses and enhance the Chelsea Drive corridor. We will plant pine trees along the buffer with the residential properties to match the neighboring commercial properties, and to extend the buffer and continuity of the projects. On the West border, we will create a filtration pond, landscaped and bordered by decorative black wrought iron fencing. Across the front boulevard of Chelsea Road, we will have landscaped green space divided by the regional trail. We will have one entrance to the site from Chelsea Road. Our signage will be affixed to the tower portion of our building near the entrance. Storage facilities are destination businesses, and we operate our facilities with no office or staff on site. All transactions are done electronically or by phone, thus reducing frequency of trips in and out. We use sophisticated camera systems for security, with a 24-hour monitoring feature. We have submitted a detailed lighting plan that provides for security with down lighting to mitigate stray light. We have enjoyed being a partner in the Monticello community and are excited to expand in this vibrant, growing city. We appreciate the willingness and cooperation of all city staff with this process. Byron Bjorklund 101Z1U015 'ON IDVONd IWMSZAM'gWN 1Zldjgs .l'Ol UOJPSul Mex-� xn rrw°'r alo Ulw;o Ml S']48NM p A4uno3'ojja m W{o R117 AanmS SUOLIIPuo3 5ui3SLx3 .r, a 011T)UNOW>1111139VIdOlS g J0 leld tieulwllaad s� Hi m it &95 Jo :9 WIN on MIA- 9 n s2% IS3 is 0 3n gtErl H. 43 .n $y - j 9YJ4 18 D.'F.3•' S AA ^V, 373 A4 3 W :ffl, �m MBII• sa o E ash 10MI1015 'ON 173r011d ]saMSZa3ueN'4]]°N 1Zldjgs .1'Ol UOJPSul Pl]e-I n rrwa'r el°sauulWWa]e15']48NM!°Flu a7'ollm]W°WN FIl7 lcoznae ^iot'//^"S "° °o3;'3a• AelJanp sjuawanwdwj pasodad .., a 01133UNOW NNIl30"Ols g Ja leld/GeulwL Wd 93 �d s_gt yg=� Pg 8 �8= "& ri aUMM a 5 aFacy� 2Sa 3 i 8 a 60 E ffiz€`G a § a J;.9 a i h tie VA �41- (zD LL ...v �° �7i n ]� �ti��'xtG�a�s�`EE•138E 5 3 0 5 All ffi R lh g l x � i s6� 6 ,J $$ I aa JJ aa E88 Y SG 3 oK�v Qz 5 g g c yE �Yjg �v6�8C 'g� bja yg` � Ea$y�gb� � WIN 1<s EmE g 8@ I r € &a E s J fimm-Al O tLLJ ,� wig40 ' I Will pb _> 06 Y• maarew9®gpZ%Wal'4a�1a1�II6L-L£L9Z£ u yleaai,W f aa3rtwd LS£95 N11 S d�`e .d1 Cc ! •0333JIZONI o 41noS andV 4111 TT Is TS `v/W F o �s„yy "13JNdd d3S'13ID d yueme{eay�pcluaplsay aHIPm!W�I!eN8�lemmmma� yn�.�m _a-'i m � i�: � � a o UR SONIQ7IRfl>INI730HZIO.LSQ3SOd02IdLZOZDA �� € 4f \AZrfS 'Yry�O \ I 2 \ Op /Ap .a,� •a.� 1` `0 J y w ✓ 1 i`LL' o I 0 1 0 o t 1 " '0 I �LL o �• �\g to I / I I I ' 04— I' � tS ZN m Is N g o w N 00? �J �jJ LL Q X Q %W W Z O It L I IO �/ w 1�� 41 ---------- cm C J Q r ,L Li w i ,f I W m o73 r cv r CA w 'z r —��O � N U k c f 0 Z y:2 4 � w J U 0 L Q n w0 wa r,) e QW QW cv :�1 �j :➢j\ [ 3115 f809Z C6WZ'I anmo 'iS J0 NN1F30V?JSiS NVId eioeauv�q•ePlaea r,ne5 R,. ZIBZIf s I8¢»a]axxr J/I //11 \\// ao•W.,m�r� IVllIW8f15 ALp Z/B/£ AlllLLn �8 b'lOS3NNW '07301NOW e pueeue aeMy u'a adWM110 N3d LZ b£ U m,„w,m�em�,w=Rca.�i seolslnaa 1.lMV3 NNF30Va01S Z= 0 a� � 3N e� x XY �C2 W X— r �a f Y n � I S N f I II t I X 0'996-3dd'AS 000'9 fl w 0'X96=33d'AS OOO'8 X t o N.Maine 03SOdO8d - IB.Wawa 03SOdO8d 4 1 TH I� I �dl ZZ u 1 \/ N / .I 1 ZL I C.6S6=3dd'AS 000'ZX O x� A,ONIOlIn9 03SOdOild j 11 f .II f I Zn ' N N t I o� £sY oR :11 I I w vI g. N I I Oa a 'il l n -og 1'896-3dd'is 00916 ZZ 11 { 1 ,3,ONicnin9 03SOdO8d II j# -local gmn. l0 1 �h2y .II k Ig a 1 4 m'Y' �� `fy{�µ• 1 yII a ��� r 111 1 x L"LS6 3,1,1 'dS 008A,Main 3 nind '8 .{ �„ O I ms�\ •i m �`z4 m O'L96=3d3 '3S 000'8 ,O,ONI011n9 3dnind s \ \ 9 t \ Z"g, II "c 8 \Vy/ 2'996=3d3 'AS 006'9 .H,ONIOIm 321ninj \ r g. LA \ \ O v Or00- s a' a s' im3'AS o0o'e ss y\6\ \\\ \\ o r.oN�Nlailna 38 and H Mgr a VIP, i¢ N N 0 m NODUN MN� U CC :➢ME C6MZ'I anmo 'iS Jo NN1F30V?JoiS atoeauv�q•ePtaea xne5 f889Z LZIBZM NVId DNI(]V00 :03 N saaata�ax,.�.,W.. a'"'m%mom a a3wno and �z/ez/f NOISOa3 �8 ONIOb'2!9 VlOS3NNIW '0��3011NOW m„wam,=m�,w=ecm.•i seolslnaa 1.lMV3 NNF30Va01S „ Z= 0 a� � 3N e� x Ir Wi a �a �,.• II I I I I 1111 II I I I� I I I O'996=3dd'is 000'B j IN I Im V.Maine 03SOdO8d O*M 3.3.4'AS 000'8 II II ,13.ON10lIn8 03SOdOdd /ryX��Y II m I I I I I I \ I O• \ 1 I I I $ UPUJ \ II • I p I `�/ @ \9S6 / \\ \ I III I I I C.6S6=3dd'AS 000'ZN Y I 0,ONIOline 03SOdONd \ N z I I I oa I I w ¢ ¢ ¢ I I I I I a y ' ''4896=3dd'AS 0096 I I o ,3,ONIOIIl19 0350dO8d YYYYYY I I ` I \ 1 x W N N w '� W 1 o NN s— is �\ I \ � I I - I I O• �i� L"LS6=333 'AS 008'8 I o �m \ Itltltl 11I II 1 A.ONioiinB 3anin3 Iwo-`nMs O'LS6=3dd 'is 000'B I.\JA i �- �Ivx c+• t .0,ONI011nB 3dnlfld w ¢> cw.�os�z ¢o��oo mR , £'99 mm 3 004'9 N ,H,ONIOl108 321n10d II I \ \ ww�J��J ovwimow¢ ___—_0g�____f \ \ gpoNNoJ- -- ? z 3 ow,--?z w¢I—'-'wmZ z ohm z�Nx�v�i pp— X II I i \ \) \ `��•O I d m cp cJ o w cj x sus \�\ \\ \\\ s 9'996=3dd'is 000'9 m I z m U .r.oNIOl108 38nind I ¢ 3d Tzz �E �I r \\\ Os•� ' •�� �'a,��a :�m8 I I i vz¢i�F v¢~i ���o .cos F ;V 1 �I LL1 yy d e _- _i2 ((1pi111 'r €_a I OR ?= E _ I;•,_ r i '� � ,,����}}}}f it .i��k-. s•S. {;. . <. 9 } it I + ; li M. I 1� I • • r (; I ,1 ^,rri t �► r. rr + ,t S� i� �`il �'•N� Ao. h (. o Y E ♦S -A t _ Y _.7�'t�'�y$'�'k"°+1D�[y'lynY:. �. 1. •` rF V _'�{ a �?'•+`;x". _ ,• � � ;MM µse �, •. .�•. '� a i —�, 'I �� �' .''*T� ,� k Y � �� �,a ',.-', A;;ei s �1 - a-„ �s,. � ' � , a � i ■ �§ ���:� '� r: :,y a� }.` �� � .( 1`i: all _ i\� i y� � t %j�M� � � � �I r 4��� � �r' i�i i �w`, J1 s {'*"'r� �FI� .,x W+ ,.y. � i � �I ��, �? r', 4 a, � ' �,"., — ,, ��' --; � ., �, o� =o a o= 80 Y y� l7 Z OZ. p= U w 3 a0 U ^ Q J _ J � �W OQ F Z} Y l7 m w U m W o W a a � " o • o fq � 00 1 zz �o a SV 51 ca LL � J 1- W a � y } z �^ w zzz� g UOZo � J=W J C j O O O O m e N O I I Lk (h W 0 � J 'f v `` Y •�� - 1 W - U N � Q �i�!1111lI�iiiiiiill(( �� 1 o� = j Q o� U sm O H - H �O I �p W O� Q . ws O� r W - I CAI 00 I �yN Z zo � z -V I YJ zo I O I m ! , ' La Q L cm o M � a o z W O o ca L6 LU J y F�w w rn J v 0,0 J=�J M m w 22z> m Q m Q j 0� 0 CY V O Q N O H f toia y�Z w )-o W I I { Z Z Z Z n w U z Z O _ g<w� m a 1' �ozm <> w ✓i'' w �,' �l ► a - yQ d _ w r 'slanal ly6!I Pallelsul�o; WOO'ONI1HsnHIf'MMM Qglgtsuodsw ou sawnsse 6ugy6ll Hif .•9EXbZ-d HD?JV:-!S Laded xnmas ax xx 37NtlIlltl suolliP.m ljo awil nof— o .1 `J N IlH'Jl l 'lsanba�lnoRel;o awg le a�geliene uolw Olul uO Paseq salewgsa w+ IZOZ,L6/£:aled 310"OlS IVOINVHO3W aye umoys slanal ly6g paleinO1e0 :q loafojd a o y U LL O v J4 Na� �IL�too LL� ti N you oO�adE 2 WEU w? wa@ : 2 n : : E r : E vw • w : .. : A s a A - T - m .. .. W .. .. .. ., .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. a : a O� - . A W ,. ., ,.A S a LL . �3 .. . . r a ;crm . A - jEo 2 . : .. : : .. : .. a : rn �zz : .. . : . . . .. . .. a d d w azz . 266 r r r r r r r 3• : r .� r r r n r r u E E m 75 gas � oo 9 .�°..ate•.p�a.e�..� s� '�"��a� "� Ntlld UVOS13%] af101� '1S 30 NNIl3`JVllOIS n�-e -aee AHVNIWIl3Lld JOj O tl10S3NNIW '0113011NOW c J AlIIIOtld NNIl3EWHO1S a fi"Nueia s e O wn»ag4vy etle�spueI _ df oND Nj1'G'U } u v IS4 XAdO Q aoc g Ce IA HZ to IS W c� (o �= as UA �LL g 3w'E z Z Aso„e �§� �om � HIM! �A; ail y l f, 1 �� y� �� y I �'ye ��)� � yqi I gT yti r JThy S ,n �i � S 4 � FT�FFa� F lb iiiii III Jill, ,� a ks�-{ rT Y lya yTl h'I r w5 ( I h I�1511h�i�II�I �I171fi'h'\I III �IIIY'�YA^"I l�l�i�l Ili T��i I IFT� I I IJI .=.F�..=.F�..J�/Ii/'I��il II?7i�y�I I�Ii�li�I�I I�,��Il Ilrll� I I I I � I fi w€ d \ a NI .„ >/LIN o a a > w1 °s°°°�•°p�aoz a�°s s� '�t�'�a� "� S-11V130 3dVOS(3NVl OfIOIO '1S 30 NNIl35VU018 Inez-arz-azs :JO) N O V 10 S 3NNI W '0113011N O W J A11110Vd NNI13`JVHO1S rsrx pad o.a7--.1d 6uluud CD a 1-11'.V ad—p-q cc P dnONE)NEJIS30 =Jv XAIv3COD a� W HIPE a g E N � � 28I o P �� @@ a e s o I H =Z SQ �L d s _ g s gm�ga = b §o s c$ a^ Es? 3p 6 i= m § ,a A g gasg� 0 9 s�° 6 L Ramp = g �z c Y N eg E $ m8m� E $ �E _ $ aW� tie �; � 9 � Qew 2 s -z3g g€ W g e m a£ i � a .x5`s �_w z� a€» F % s - _ e a � a Ps g m go— P! ag &W v's == z � : x � � E ma�� a � � E� m�� a$'•� ��s % a �4 -HP 1= - .E Ezxg � § a 'z= � E o �� €'m w a� axE .� •� � =5 s�= $om to M iwpgEoB E 3 NE Sv= �=m �mg Via' F23oEg - 'e6o$%' E E �m=f8:- _ s >$ eN $ a gyms 2 Ratgff sEQmov _ � g€ a $°E ®agam;sp- -6 �� s = �� - _ 9 1g $s g `� s gm �x §ei a"n s ,� se g .� 8^ e m ge Ev t = z me c gos `a g_ xg mE _ ggxem IDm �_ g `fie om �� s � m y.sg'�E' Elm a�s �m = ;g @= d s"g`�� uoaa"`8 da � a a � a v �E a _jI p n a °` � 5��€ e s e � : e'•h a$ a"• � amE: a��=a Se a �M �W_- ,� ��� ��„ate�;�i>�:�9._a�: .* 43 a s� -- 9aae7=e34 ""F E `995 95�57@deg?575:953'�9955�:5�°a93� x see . m a '�• a m e o m s 8 •. m 8 8 3 E E a S9 ... .�gE rtsrt ertrtrtxrtrtrtrtrtx€se ,0 i '��w°`=a ed ''s sa q..; as >a dde as s 23 w� E 3 p saza S � � Efl A�� '� 'a� ".9 2:'S§�9999999 9 �a��3��� �ga 8 S•z•�e ::�a..s�aa:sia sa::ea�ia ss% :xa o 3 3fill j# �' Jib ;gS{$ shy of o _&°° a W� a � 7 � lS �mi ? �i� 3 x a & a� °5 All .,3d4 ���k1 4 a g ozz a €_e§ =I z e ?"? ? 5I ➢, 4,'s4�5g 5e g S„'sa - s E. m n 0 10 m �E� � g ` 1.9 e3 5 115 z O 5 5 9 O 55 � ,@5 O a U W n Ef r ` � 65 =e 1i 3 3 S U �2 ➢ _ o � R uW q..s sa z COF wad§ a�se o "a z J F Z � Jg€ w s $ as nmi J ti ga w °z Ll o g 11,11 y g@ w y v� it p EL P �45 ° gg in a LL wsb March 25, 2021 Matt Leonard City Engineer/Public Works Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: StorageLink Preliminary/Final Plat& Civil Plans— Engineering Review City Project No. 2021-007 WSB Project No. R-017840-000 0 0 Dear Mr. Leonard: v z We have reviewed the StorageLink Facility concept plans dated March 8, 2021. The applicant m proposes to construct a storage unit facility on the 5.6 acre parcel located at the corner of Chelsea Rd and 90th St NE. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Monticello's general CO engineering and stormwater treatment standards. We offer the following comments regarding these matters. M Preliminary/Final Plat Comments: a 1. See comments provided by City staff. Traffic & Access: 0 2. Based on the proposed site plan the anticipated traffic generation for the first phase a assuming approximately 42,500sf would be 65 daily trips, 5 AM peak hour trips and 8 PM Z peak hour trips, and; for the future phase assuming approximately 41,800sf would be 64 Z daily trips, 5 AM peak hour trips and 8 PM peak hour trips. The total traffic generation at full development would be 129 daily trips, 10 AM peak hour trips and 16 PM peak hour trips. 0 M F 3. Chelsea Road is classified as a Minor Collector roadway in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Chelsea Road has an estimated existing ADT of 2,800vpd and projected 2040 ADT of 7,400vpd east of 901h Street. ui 4. The proposed access to the site is located approximately 450ft east of 90th Street and z would not impact the existing westbound left turn lane from Chelsea Road to 90th Street. w > With the low traffic generation and moderate traffic volume on Chelsea Road there would a c not be a need for turn lanes in to or out of the site at the proposed driveway. z w x 5. A sight line analysis should be completed at the intersections of Chelsea Road and the proposed site driveway. Provide a detail/exhibit. K:\017840-000\Hdmin\Docs\2021-03-15 Submittal\_2021-03-25 LTR StorageLink Prelim Plat-WSB Plan Review.docx City of Monticello—StorageLink Preliminary/Final Plat&Civil Plans—WSB Engineering Plan Review March 25,2021 Page 2 Site & Utility Plan (Sheet C1): 6. Show more clearly the extents of the pavement removals for the trail, curb, etc. at the access to Chelsea Road. 7. The applicant is not proposing water/sewer services to the buildings. 8. Note and show the hatching of the bituminous patching on Chelsea Road for the replacement of the existing curb with surmountable curb/valley gutter. Show the limits of all removals and replacements. The bituminous shall be replaced in-kind. 9. The proposed entry gate should be installed further into the site a minimum of 50' from the curb edge on Chelsea Road to allow enough space for a pickup and trailer to sit fully off of Chelsea Road (high traffic volume). 10. Watermain 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. 11. Watermain looping and/or additional hydrant locations may be required through the site to provide adequate fire flow supply. The building department will review the hydrant spacing; all points of the building need to be able to be reached with 300' of hose from a hydrant. 12. 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. 13. 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. Grading & Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C2): 14. Provide proposed contours and grade percents/arrows from the building openings/garage door side to the inverted crown. 15. The site proposes grades that are 3:1.A maximum slope of 4:1 is allowed onsite adjust grading plan accordingly. 16. Correct the HWL label on the grading plan, this number should be listed as 953.49. 17. Label and identify the pond EOF and EOF route. 18. The pond on the adjacent parcel to the east has an EOF route through this site. Due to this site's development, the new EOF will be through the east parcel's site at an elevation of 956.96. This elevation affects the buildings adjacent to the eastern parcel ponding area. Please adjust building elevations to at least 1.5 ft above the EOF to achieve the required freeboard or provide an alternate EOF route that is lower than the route through the adjacent property. City of Monticello—StorageLink Preliminary/Final Plat&Civil Plans—WSB Engineering Plan Review March 25,2021 Page 3 19. Show the use of erosion control blanket where the slopes are 4:1 or steeper. Show/note locations for inlet protection. Provide the necessary details for proposed BMP's. 20. Grading is directed to the westerly edge of the pavement on the first phase. Either extend the paving to include a portion of the inverted crown or construct a portion of the inverted crown within the pavement limits shown. Include additional paving in and around the catch basin structure proposed to collect runoff from the first phase. Storm Sewer Plan (Sheet C1): 21. With final design, provide 10-year storm sewer design for the proposed storm sewer system using the rational method as identified in the Design Manual. Stormwater Management 22. The site is outside of the DWSMA and is not subject to requirements of the City's Wellhead Protection Plan. 23. The site needs to provide onsite volume control for runoff of 1.1" over the new impervious area. New impervious area is 177,367 sf, which equates to a volume of 16,258 cf. The infiltration basin proposes to store and infiltrate 1.5 ft of runoff, equivalent to a volume of 36,207 cf. This volume exceeds the required amount. By meeting the required volume control standard, water quality standards are considered met. The following information is required for the infiltration basin: a. Pre-treatment measures are required prior to discharging to the volume control BMP. b. An operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater BMPs is required and should be submitted with the stormwater report for review. 24. An infiltration rate of 0.45 in/hr was assumed for the infiltration basin design. At this infiltration rate the 1.5 ft of infiltration volume will draw down within 40 hrs which is within the required 48 hr draw down. 25. This parcel was planned to drain to a regional pond located east on Chelsea near the large wetland complex. The regional pond will provide rate control for the site based on a curve number of 80. Additionally, onsite ponding is providing for rate control. Calculations provided indicate the site is meeting the city's rate control requirement. SWPPP: 26. 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. 27. Provide a SWPPP with final construction plans. 28. A full review of the erosion/sediment control plan will be conducted with final construction plans. City of Monticello—StorageLink Preliminary/Final Plat&Civil Plans—WSB Engineering Plan Review March 25,2021 Page 4 Standard Details Plan: 29. Add the City details for hydrants, gate valve,watermain offset, erosion control blanket, storm structures, pipe bedding, and others pertinent to the proposed construction and erosion control items. 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 Planning Commission—04/06/2021 3A. Consideration of an Administrative Appeal to Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts, Subsection (E) R-1: Single Family Residence District Applicant: Capstone Homes Prepared by: Northwest Associated Meeting Date: Council Date (pending Consultants (NAC) appeal): 04/06/21 4/26/21 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building and Zoning Official REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Descriptions: Haven Ridge Planning Case Number: 2021 - 008 Request(s): Administrative Appeal Deadline for Decision: May 17t", 2021 (60-day deadline) Land Use Designation: The Low Density Residential designation is intended for detached homes, usually on lots from 7,000 to 14,000 square feet. Housing in this designation includes single-family detached residential units as well as detached accessory structures. Other compatible uses, such as schools, nursing homes, private parks and religious facilities may also locate in this designation. Zoning Designation: R-1 Single Family Residence District The purpose of the "R-1" single family district is to provide for low density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Uses: Single Family Residential/Development in Progress Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single Family Residential East: Agriculture South: Agriculture 1 Planning Commission—04/06/2021 West: Single Family Residential Project Description: The applicants, Capstone Homes, previously sought amendments to the City's building materials requirements for single family housing related to roof pitch and fagade materials. After consideration of the request, and a review of alternatives, the City amended the ordinance to modify the roof pitch requirements for certain features and exempting glass (along with garage doors) from the fagade calculation for brick or stone. The City ultimately retained the 15% brick/stone coverage requirement, acknowledging that by including glass in the calculation, the 15% number was effectively reduced. As a part of this amendment, the City approved an process for builders to seek a waiver of the brick or stone requirement via an administrative appeal to the Planning Commission, acting in its role as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Capstone is now seeking a series of appeals under this new clause related to housing they are proposing to construct in the Haven Ridge subdivision on the south edge of the community. They have submitted materials that create a series of requests, differentiated by the rationale they use to support the exemptions. Those materials include a summary of the modifications by unit style (rambler, split-level/multi-story, 2-story, and "Large" 2- story). In addition, their narrative describes the changes they propose based on the model name and style, which relate to the graphic exhibits illustrating each of the models and styles. ANALYSIS: As discussed during the proposed ordinance revisions, the intent of the brick and stone requirement was a part of a number of zoning requirements intended to encourage higher value housing in the community, and avoid featureless subdivision and housing design. Consideration of variation from the brick/stone requirement under the recently amended ordinance presumes that other enhancements of equal impact and value would replace the reduced brick/stone fagade treatment. 2 Planning Commission—04/06/2021 The applicant uses four basic characteristics to support its request: (1) Usable front porch and 25% alternative material designs; (2) Usable front porch and a reduced level of brick/stone below the 15%threshold; (3) Covered stoop, some stone, and 25% overall alternative materials; and finally, (4) Total exemption due to size and value. The fifth category of the applicant's models would adhere to the 15% brick/stone requirement. It should also be noted that the applicants propose to revise all of their split entry model designs to meet the minimum 15% brick or stone requirement. As a first observation, it would appear that any of the proposed models could be revised to include adequate amounts of brick and stone to meet the 15% standard. The applicants suggest that the marketplace has driven them to seek this appeal as some buyers prefer architectural styles that do not include brick or stone of that quantity, or at all. Staff's recommendation, included in the summary table below, suggests that a moderate amount of brick/stone below the 15%threshold be permitted, but only in the situations where the applicant's model includes the usable front porch and that at least 25% of the front fagade are covered by alternative material designs (including the brick/stone, as well as the board and batten and shake materials). In addition, planning staff would suggest that the brick or stone be reduced to no less than half of the current requirement (7.5% of the fagade), and that the alternative materials make up the remainder. With this as a threshold, the applicant should be able to accommodate both the City's intent, as well as nominally modify it's designs. In combination with the reduction created by the change to subtract window glass from the base calculation, the requirement for brick and stone is significantly reduced from prior code, but retains a presence in ways that will continue to meet the materials upgrade expectations of the City. The Commission should be aware via the *asterisk in the design compliance column below that at the time of the preparation of this staff report, staff was still completing the final measurements for compliance to the recommended standard. Living Design Model Bedroo Area Stories/ Reason for Staff Compliant ms/ Sq.Ft. Type Exemption Recommendation with Staff Baths Rec.* Birchwood II 313R, 1,559 1 2Ba Elevation A Applicant will revise Approve X the drawing to illustrate 15% brick/stone 3 Planning Commission—04/06/2021 Elevation B Includes 15% NA X brick/stone material variety Elevation C Includes usable porch Add 7.5%stone and 25%alternative materials Elevation D Includes usable porch 25%alternatives X and some stone with total; including a additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Cedar II 213R, 1,630 1 2Ba Elevation A Includes usable porch 25%alternatives X and some stone with total; including a additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Elevation B Includes usable porch 25%alternatives X and some stone with total; including a additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Elevation C Includes usable porch 25%alternatives X and some stone with total; including a additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Creek View III 313R, 2,471 2 3Ba Elevation A Covered stoop (no Require 15% porch), some stone stone and additional material variety Elevation B Includes porch and 25%alternatives X some stone with total; including a additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Elevation C Includes porch and 25%alternatives X some stone with total; including a additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Foster II 313R, 2,266 2 3Ba Elevation A Includes usable porch Add stone to 7.5% and 25%alternative materials Elevation B Includes usable porch 25%alternatives X and some stone with total; including a 4 Planning Commission—04/06/2021 additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Elevation C Includes usable porch 25%alternatives X and some stone with total; including a additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Hemlock III 3BR, 1,786 1 2Ba Elevation A No exemption Approve X requested Elevation B No exemption Approve X requested Elevation C Includes usable porch 25%alternatives X and some stone with total; including a additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Patterson 313R, 2,173 2 3Ba Elevation A Includes usable porch 25%alternatives X and some stone with total; including a additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Elevation B Includes usable porch 25%alternatives X and some stone with total; including a additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Elevation C Includes usable porch 25%alternatives X and some stone with total; including a additional material minimum of 7.5% variety stone Brookview III 413R, 2,788 2 3Ba All Elevations Usable porch (or 25%alternatives stoop on one model) total; including a larger square footage, minimum of 7.5% higher values stone; 15%stone for model with covered stoop Mulberry III 4 BR, 2,609 2 3Ba All Elevations Usable porch (or 25%alternatives stoop on one model) total; including a larger square footage, minimum of 7.5% higher values stone; 15%stone for model with covered stoop 5 Planning Commission—04/06/2021 Water Stone SBR, 3,401 2 II 3Ba All Elevations Usable porch, large 25%alternatives square footage, total; including a higher values minimum of 7.5% stone Cheyenne IV 3BR, 1,589 1/Split No exemption Revise X 213a requested plans/Approve Linwood II 3BR, 1,540 1/Split No exemption Revise X 213a requested plans/Approve Primrose III 3BR, 1,609 1/Split No exemption Revise X 213a requested plans/Approve Rockport III 3BR, 1,283 1/Split No exemption Revise X 213a requested plans/Approve Wesley 3BR, 1,842 1/Split No exemption Revise X 213a requested plans/Approve ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Proposal to approve an Administrative Appeal from the single family building materials requirements specific to the Haven Ridge subdivision proposed by Capstone Homes. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021-014, approving the proposed Appeal, as recommended by Staff, based on the findings in said Resolution and on the Conditions identified in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021-014, approving the proposed Appeal, as submitted by the Applicant, based on the findings in said Resolution. 3. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021-014, based on findings identified in the report and following the public hearing. 4. Motion table action on Resolution No. 2021-014, subject to additional information from the applicant and/or staff. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION City staff recommends Alternative 1 for approval of the administrative appeal, subject to staff's recommendations. The applicant has demonstrated an intent to meet the architectural requirements of the city by revising their split-entry model homes to meet the 15% requirement and illustrating what staff believes is an appropriate mix of materials and brick/stone on a number of other models. However, staff would recommend minor enchancements to the few (six) models noted. 6 Planning Commission—04/06/2021 SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution 2021-014 B. Applicant Narrative C. Applicant Outline of Design Modifications D. Model Home Designs E. Ordinance No. 755 Z. Conditions of Approval 7 Planning Commission—04/06/2021 EXHIBIT Z Conditions for Approval Capstone Homes Administrative Appeal For Alternative Building Materials in Haven Ridge 1. The applicant modify building plans for exemption from the 15% brick and stone requirements as approved by the Planning Commission. 2. Comments and recommendations of other City Staff and City Council. 8 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO APPROVING AN APPEAL FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR 15% BRICK OR STONE FACADES ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN THE HAVEN RIDGE SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to construct single family housing in the Haven Ridge Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residence District, in which single family homes are allowed as permitted uses; and WHEREAS, the applicable zoning regulations require that at least 15% of all single family dwelling facades are comprised of brick, stone, or similar materials; and WHEREAS, the regulations provide for an administrative appeals process in front of the Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, by which builders may request a waiver of the brick or stone requirements, under certain circumstances; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to waive the 15% brick and stone requirement for several models to be constructed in the Haven Ridge subdivision; and WHEREAS, the proposed modifications are supported by various enhancements to the applicant's housing, including usable porches or covered stoops, modified levels of brick or stone below the 15%threshold, additional alternative fagade materials including board and batten or shake patterns in varying amounts; and WHEREAS, the proposed modifications meet the City's long-term interest in supporting enhanced building material quality and neighborhood design; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the matter at its regular meeting on March 61", 2021 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 1. The proposed modifications are consistent with the intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed modifications are reasonable, given the conditions in the area, and on the subject property. 3. The applicant has carried its burden of showing that market conditions support the variations from the standard and provided adequate alternatives that continue to meet the expectations and intent of the City's land use regulations. 4. The proposed modifications will otherwise meet the general intent of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 5. The proposed modifcations will not create undue burdens on public systems, including streets and utilities. 6. The proposed modifications will not create substantial impacts on neighboring land uses that are not within the expectations of the current zoning allowances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, Minnesota that the proposed Variance is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant modify building plans for exemption from the 15% brick and stone requirements as approved by the Planning Commission. 2. Comments and recommendations of other City Staff and City Council. ADOPTED this 6" day of April, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: Paul Konsor, Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 2 CAPSTONE H O M E S March 15, 2021 Angela Schumann Community Development Director 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Architecture Administrative Appeal Ms. Schumann, We are grateful for the efforts of City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council to revise the City's Zoning ordinance to allow for lower roof pitch on architectural features and the inclusion of windows for the stone and brick calculation. In compliance with the newly adopted Zoning ordinance, Capstone will submit all elevations of split and multi-level house plans for Haven Ridge (1"Addition) with 15%stone or brick on all front elevations to be calculated by new ordinance standards. These plans will include the Cheyenne, Linwood, Primrose, Rockport, and Wesley. The Birchwood A and B and Hemlock A and B would also be offered with 15% stone. We would like to submit an Administrative Appeal to request that the Planning Commission approve the following elevations that we currently offer at our neighborhoods throughout the Twin Cities, as they are shown, with no minimum stone requirement. All the new homes Capstone offers are high quality, professionally designed plans that complement and add character to our neighborhoods, while offering the variety that buyers in today's market appreciate. Our homes historically appreciate in value as we build out our neighborhoods. We would request that the Planning Commission exempt the requirement of 15%stone or brick requirement for the following elevations (please see attachment with house plans and elevations). In context of this request a porch is a covered area in front of the house that accommodates two chairs. 1. Birchwood D, Cedar A, B, C, Hemlock C, Creek View B, C, Foster B, C, Patterson,A, B and C: Multiple elevations mentioned here offer a porch as an architectural feature, in addition to a combination of style materials that offer an enhanced architectural design and curb appeal. With each elevation offered under this circumstance,you will note each of these elevations offer a porch with some stone and an additional material style. Here you will see 12 elevations that bring high- quality options to our buyers, thus increasing the diversity of offerings to enhance the neighborhood curb appeal. 2. Birchwood C and Foster A: These two elevations offer a porch as an architectural feature. Both elevations offer more than 25%secondary style of material. As designed, they offer a clean classic look, also known as the Farmhouse Look and is extremely popular with buyers in the market today. CAPSTONE HOMES, INC. 14015 SUNFISH LAKE BLVD, SUITE 400 1 RAMSEY, MN 55303 0: 763-427-3090 1 F: 763-712-9060 We are proposing that only two of 42 elevations to be offered at Haven Ridge would be offered with this Farmhouse Look. 3. Creek View A: While this 2-story elevation does not have a porch; it does have architectural features that include a covered stoop and a secondary material style in addition to stone in the elevation's design. The two secondary materials/styles would combine to cover at least 25%of the front building facade and would be calculated less the square footage of the windows and garage doors. You will note this is the only elevation of 42 being offered requesting this exemption combination. This combination of architectural features would provide a quality standard that would nicely compliment other homes in the neighborhood. 4. Brook View, Mulberry and Water Stone: We would like to request that all elevations for these three house plans be approved as designed. These plans are large 2 story homes being offered at Haven Ridge that range in price from $380,000.00- $493,000.00 with total square footage of these homes ranging from 2,600 to 3,400 square feet. They are high-quality designs with multiple material styles, architectural enhancements and porch or a stoop. As mentioned above, I have attached a summary of the descriptions above by house style along with elevations of the house plans for reference and review. As we have mentioned previously, we are pleased to be working with the City of Monticello and Haven Ridge, LLC to provide new home options to home buyers looking to move your City. We hope to be building new homes in Monticello for many years to come. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the requests above further. Best, `� ( � � 40 m l�D?2f�-- Heather Lorch Land Manager Capstone Homes 2 CAPSTONE H O M E S Haven Ridge House Plans Architecture Administrative Appeal 1. Ramblers: a. Birchwood: i. Elevation A and B—15% Brick or Stone ii. Elevation C- Porch to exempt stone to achieve Farmhouse Look. iii. Elevation D - Porch and multiple materials/styles to exempt 15% Brick or Stone. b. Cedar: i. Elevation A, B and C- Porch and multiple materials/styles to exempt 15% Brick or Stone. c. Hemlock: i. Elevation A and B—15% Brick or Stone ii. Elevation C- Porch and multiple materials/styles to exempt 15% Brick or Stone. 2. 2-Stories: a. Creek View i. Elevation A—A covered stoop with two secondary materials/styles would combine to cover at least 25%of the front building facade and would be calculated less the square footage of the windows and garage doors. ii. Elevation B and C—Porch and multiple materials/styles to exempt 15% Brick or Stone. b. Foster: i. Elevation A- Porch to exempt stone to achieve Farmhouse look. ii. Elevation B and C- Porch and multiple materials/styles to exempt 15% Brick or Stone. c. Patterson i. Elevation A, B and C—Porch and multiple materials/styles to exempt 15% Brick or Stone. 3. Large 2-Stories: a. All Elevations as submitted. Stone requirement exempted. i. Mulberry: • Price Range: $380,000-$441,000 • Total Square Ft 2600+ ii. Brook View: • Price Range: $404,000-$464,000 • Total Square Ft 2775+ iii. Water Stone: • Price Range: $433,000-$493,000 • Total Square Ft 3400+ All Split and Multi-Level All House plan elevations - 15% Brick or Stone Current Plans Split and multi-level plans offered include Cheyenne, Linwood, Primrose, Rockport and Wesley CAPSTONE HOMES, INC. 14015 SUNFISH LAKE BLVD, SUITE 400 1 RAMSEY, MN 55303 0: 763-427-3090 1 F: 763-712-9060 BIRCHWOOD I I - Elevation A and B-15%Brick or Stone Elevation C -Porch to exempt stone to achieve Farmhouse Look. Elevation D -Porch and multiple materials/styles to exempt 15% Brick or Stone. `g 7g Y r I o , ®®®®®®® ®®® ®®®®®®® ®®® A� ELEVATION A •q i \ a��'i+� 4� s .anR. 10 - n777777 1-cr__ ®®®®®®® ®m® ❑®o�mmr mmm rnr r� m®®®OEM Comm ❑moc®ml- mnm, rormonF cF m®mmmm❑ cmo ommc®®c m � ELEVATION B ELEVATION C ELEVATION D 3 BEDROOM 2 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 1 , 559 SQ FT LIVING SPACE _-- .. . ■ DINING 1°.T �E wo II-a GREAT ROOM F, MAMIR 8W1E LL BEDROOM w.na mTLA;m Ixa.las FAMILY ROOM `emV i�- 24-5.23-5 r erucx eaR I I .wrmu ..; .�• ..a ".l� E `_w 4 M4F 3 i KrrCWEN I �u._.... . WALL MAB. AN1RY R.I. n4 BATH oua. -wwow �qR� BEDROOM n} 0 IINFIN, ir�M.' Io-1 x qdl WPMLAUI'�. UNPIN. :•STORAGE I` �-, unuTY ROOM iY BATH eFrcN --------------- GARAGE I"x 22.6 umm xio.27/746 FLEX/ BEDROOM-2 STORAGE IOi•IFO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F'ORCN 0 0 MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - CEDAR II - Elevation A,B and C- Porch and multiple materials/styles to exempt 15%Brick or Stone. ,"�9s - 4 arir Rt+'3''T.- v,, a, ®®®®®®® ®®® ELEVATION A p t a � r t k, .•s I-I-I r i I I ', i r7r✓cnTr-r¢m L rnn_ r1-1 �i Ir ' i i -rr-I r e inn nr n r-nn. — nl�n_�nnrre� nnn 1 ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 2 BEDROOM 2 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 13,630 SQ FT LIVING SPACE Lars�ER �DEse� • :t' DINING GREAT ROOM PLLT "'O�"• wlNoau•i; p�x l0-3 12-1.21v MASTER SUITE_ MAS. wNoau FlltURE FUTURE I�aNcm -�I2-4x 14v BATH __ FAMILY ROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BNAcIc BAA = - 20B x 20-8 10-6 x tl-I IOi x 149 -. r oPraNAL li --- __--_VP.REPtACE�'}'' El KITCHEN ROOR NALF LAUND. W.I.C. LINE WALL ' �li • EAtH IIIII EI'4T bpp• %; FLEX ROOM FOYER DN BEDROOM-2 IIIII --- - UNPIN. WMoow+: ---- 10-8 z 11-e UNFRL UTILITY 10b x 11-a STORAGE.�.,. ,1 LINE 'S MUD LINL E PORCH GARAGE 90,0 x 22/2V i i I I I I I I I I I I I MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - HEMLOCK III - Elevation A and B—15%Brick or Stone Elevation C-Porch and multiple materials/styles to exempt 15% Brick or Stone. . f � y. 0. ®®®®®®® ®®® ®®®®®®® ®®® 3013 ELEVATION A k rrr- r rr Ali — F r ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 2 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 1 , 786 SQ FT LIVING SPACE DMING I"au �ica aPr. • I;`;: MASTER SUITE BEDROOM GREAT ROOM"• ia�x ns Z FAMILY ROOM I 131 x R9 it �;' 240 x 144 I aPr. - ,�w+caur KITCHEN I%x H-I TH'--i Rrt. ON W.I.C. BA ^:W.I.C.' ^' PANt. eorFn MAS. ' ------ BATH OFFICE/ =-MUD./ 'w+caun q�RE UNFM. BEgQOOIy rp W.L4 _XT EXERCISE/ STORAGE ID-�x Wo THEATER ie-I x u-e FOYER ---------- BATH GARAGE gym. noo x wns uwaN UTILJ - - - STOP. BEDROOM rl Ir i I I 111 x IpA i I I I I I I PORGH I I I I of MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR REEK VIEW III - Elevation A - Covered stoop with two secondary materials/styles would combine to cover at least 25% of the front building facade and would be calculated less the square footage of the windows and garage doors. Elevation B and C - Porch and multiple mate ri s/styles to exempt 15%Brick or Stone. , MrM2 mm m_ m m - mmmr�mEE mmm mmmmmmm mmm ELEVATION A warn r r ®11111111®®Im moo® ©oc� ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 21471 SQ FT LIVING SPACE ------------ wIN��W =2j 1/2 [ ., KITCHEN �,1 Ias x Iw r` • DINING BEDROOM Q BEDROOM 9 1 MABTB2 ry q�nFg '�I FIrtuRE •�.�. GREAT RDOM 141 x 60 R-I x Ibl w x�i �"'�� BEDROOM wlNrow:: I1-a x Bo BATH 31 FAMIL7 ROOM lip'R I d nx x n-i eR a MUD `�,�r. zI-a x uo 3/4�' SVA] TRY �• GPT `'�r�. ��SOFFIT LAUND. I•, •ppT. roF'T.'_ RnIM WINDO.Y'; WINDOW 4'' F_ -UP eoFplT- nB-.N. wa.u.E MASTERTSUME GARAGE --Irix lse _ FLEX ROOM FOYER - __- LOFT BATH UW% UTIL _____ wMC�lu';"; 10-8 x IOd B-B x II-8 STOR. PORCH MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - FOSTER II - Elevation A - Porch to exempt stone to achieve Farmhouse look. Elevation B and C - Porch and multiple materials/styles to exempt 15%Brick or Stone. � h ` .... ., aWw t.. k ` La ®®®®®®® MUM s4� ®MEE11D ®®® ME[= ® ®®® ELEVATION A ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 21266 SQ FT LIVING SPACE -------------- YIINOOW g� ''I'�EGF�B WINDOW X KITCHEN I/2 --i --- _MASTER SUITE_ W.I.C. LOB - yls�X 16-7 �`.{t FUTURE GREAT ROOM b-5 aw+cx ena—— 1R-Vx '-~ EY ROOM .[__a p BEDROOM 14.6 x Ibl DINING M-t sn I� II-3 x II-4 T x F, MUD BATH ce'�91NC6 - un�r ,'•df r W_LO. OPT.-i N WALL FUT.ti � aEP`uaE• IMP DN PANTR aervcu.� ICI � �, I%H . cNABE �D LNFrN BEDROOM a'1 Ly.--., W.I.G. UTID Iz-lo x Izo ul+. C amX• BEDROOM-3 4 ss x n� GARAGE la na x s STOR. 90-0 x z ,c`o I I PORCI"I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - P A T T E R IS 0 N - Elevation A, B and C—Porch and multiple materials/styles to exempt 15% Brick or Stone. .ASS•s, ELEVATION A 4 v ®®T, nnnnnnn nnn: ®®®®®®© ❑n� nn-1 lnnl-1 nn ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 1 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 21173 SQ FT LIVING SPACE �oPT. -------------------------- KITCHEN F�: I'^ FUTURE W�aaix 10-3 x 18-2 - GX EOM DINING - -- W.I.G.14-0 LOFT 4 .` �.OPT.FIREPL4CE 10-3 10.9 x 18-2 -OPTIO94L VAULT- l3-T x 1&4 I��' WR�Daulb n R1Tl1RE �, :� MASTER SUITE -.� FAMILY ROOM �i�ii -opT, E .OPTIONAL L10 z n-0 -.• 190 x 18-2 BNAdC BAR 'OPr. i HALF G bpi. ... =1 WI/DWx ;FULL ,— 4 WINOOIIY ;DALE R.L nEGN. III 1 III 3/4n cuaeE MUD DBE.BOWL 3 BMKb MASTER �—�: BA UNPIN. 1/2eemw �� gym•OINK UT, STOR. P®. FOYER F X LAUND. GARAGE 1 LARGER PORCH 310 x 22E/20iR2.0 6NW'R. BEDROOM-2 BEDROOM-3 !.----------------------_ 10-4 x 12-2 10-4 x 12-2 ------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - BROOK VIEW III - All Elevations as submitted. Stone requirement exempted. AN ELEVATION A I - _ ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 4 BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 23, 788 SQ FT LIVING SPACE KITCHEN w.l.P. wR�u Ilb x IT-II GREAT ROOM DINING - w.l.c. BmROOM 9 BArH� BEDROOM•4 MASTER BEDROOM _ 113 x I?O II-6 z I}O BATH gnupE 1b1 z 10-4 FAMILY ROOM :. Earwax � 30A x li-II r ewaW3x R• _ ;�•. ,FLacE Nac eaR r - MUD I/2 W.I.C. wxsw� W.I.C. DN soisrt DN 1; wALLa I IIP BOisrt VAIILtED LF GARAGE 15-] MASTER SUITE LAUNDRY FLEX ROOM LAU ----------------- 90.0 z TLm-b I oPt. .•�_,�� - � B-0 z LAl1ND.81NK •• e,j uNriNE�D 10-11 x 11-8 µs BEDROOM-2 STORAGE/UTILITY W.I.C. wmloow eEa* PORCH MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - MULBERRY III - All Elevations as submitted. Stone requirement exempted. S I® F MR191®MIE® 1 EP]M ELEVATION A Fg i 1 ELEVATION B ELEVATION C ELEVATION D 4 BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 23, 607 SQ FT LIVING SPACE uRc�x eNowex� r i wNoow -_t --- --- ------------ -- wir�ivow n'� KITCHEN w�Nvow SE, W.I.C. ',. 10-6 x 13 9 GREAT ROOM MASTER iiITI,RE ii1TWE MASTER SUITE 1T-9 x 16-4 1D,NMG� H-a x*4 $ATH f �, FAMILY ROOM BEDROOM i . ---LT 2511 x IB4 n 10-10 x 13-8 ,� FiR�uce _aaR• roPTioNu uuNwx BEDROOM n FiaeP�Ace •OPT. AN. qpT. FOLDING II-10%114 u WINpOIU• ____ WINOOIII � CgINTER , lAl)NDFY I/2 MUD STOR, W I c uALF ,. siNx uxc BATH ---- -________- Meath. FOYER __ •`�, .�7 �^ '1 BATH GARAGE LOFT ,.:� ur�k4 ,I__; x 21$/21-0 n-0.M-10 BEDROOM•3 UTIL./ FLEX ROOM n-10 x 1F0 WMoa+: BEDROOM-4 ----- 17(Jx134 12-0 10-6 STOR. PORCH ' - MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - WATER - R II All Elevations as submitted. Stone requirement exempted. ate, x tl' Y F ®®® ®®®®®®® ®®® ®®®®®®® ELEVATION A �7 .I I IM h r� r pi r 77.1 A --- gym® ®®m��® nnml rmmlmmnrnam Ir (- nrf rrrr ��CIf011 m�f1101➢�I�I ID:IIDEIrrGC7EDDOIDIEUM 1 IIIII.III a-a ®m® ®®®®�®® ¢om rno®gym®® ELEVATION B ELEVATION C ELEVATION D 5 BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 3 ,7401 SQ FT LIVING SPACE OFFICE/ Tyo DINING GUEST 1"x 10+0 °- BEDROOM OBE 9 LOFT MASTER aNRE MASTER WITS w ' 13-0 x 10-3 143 x Ib9 BATH FAMILY ROOM GREAT ROOM .___ ____ FAMILY ROOM ;� IFb x 13-D INaGR GR �I x 13+3 = _X 3"x a 0 W.LC, oPx'a. :' 1' t•I a I eH1cH wLf u l IIIaLLs wLr uau uals ulaLL BA _......... ___ ---- -. `-;;i W.LC• KRGNEN1 UP MUD . 1 1 ::I H4 x w WI.G. 0 LAUNDRY I i qa 0.°eSt xirsr W.LP. li ' 3/4 nL_ cuaee ;; � GARAGE BEDROOM 10-1.1040 V `_,�•••••�� i FORMAL 30-0 x 37/22-0 uNnN. DINING I�g ��-� BEDROOM°3 UTIL/STOR. ROOM '0i lo-e x 12� BATH li 114 x 13-10 II II PORCH �__, _ d MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR HEYENNE IV - All Elevations- 15% Brick or Stone MIR Rai �Fl 1 ELEVATION A .v r .E In lr TT IFT rn m I. f 77,mn17TT FT �®®1K]II-D JrCou-ETrrr a'I�� I� ®�i n-�El IMOO®®�-MTD �P ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 12 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 13, 589 SQ FT LIVING SPACE KITCHEN 10-4 x 16-5 BEDROOM-2 BEDROOM-3 „ a DINING ' 10-2 x II.6 11.8 x 10-11 i, ,L 1 FUTURE I Q w7uRE 3/4 a BEDROOM STORAGE I�� 73 0 x I16 •OPTIONAL•�{' " � ,�.I�;�. 5N K BAR W L w.l.c. •OPT.'-l: v WLTm F'ANt. LIN. ------- w.La r------ OPT. HALF � LARCaER .• WALLe 5HW'R. -- UNPIN. UNPIN. LIVING ROOM AT roPncNeL vA11Ln FUTLRE __�_,__) UTIL./ STORAGE 13.6 x I6•T 13-3 x 15-0 --�—j- LAUND• .OPTIONAL- --OPT. MAS. rwsrER sul -- ATN 12.5 x 44 BEDROOM 5 � 11-1 x 14-9 W.I.C. CRAWL nnl' SPADE �U FOYER •OPT. DBL.BOWL 51NK5 GARAGE aao x nieo•o --------------- i I I I I I I I I I I MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - LINWOOD II - All Elevations- 15%Brick or Stone t° s x _ m ll ®®®®®®® ® ® a." ®m®®®®® ®®® ELEVATION A I F 1 7 -I 1 1 1 ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 2 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 1 , 540 SQ FT LIVING SPACE KITCHEN 9-I x I'I-3 BEDROOM 03 BEDROOM#2 FUTURE DINING FAMILY ROOM N_ IF5 x IT3 22-6 x I60 OPT. •: FIREPLACE _ 18LAND w/ LIN. -- W.I. SN K BAR ANT BATH � VAl1LT _ _ CRAWL___ NALF n BPACE� __ 7R•I•_ _- _ ., FIREPLACE _ • x.S OPT.VAULT ;�fj% ;; ••' LIVING ROOM MASTER SUITE_ FUTURE IA-O x 1" ^ Ix•a x 14-1 UNPIN. BEDROOM FOYER MAS. LAUND./;; �, lo-e x 104 OPT.— BATH UTIL i BENCH, &NU'R �I LIN. DBL BOWL PORCH SINKS GARAGE 100 x 22/20-0 --------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR - PRIMROSE III - All Elevations- 15% Brick or Stone t 4 14 ® ®®®®®®® ®®® ®®®®®®® ®®® ELEVATION A m�5mmirmmm mmm ore c_ r rr- rr mmmmmmo mmm mmmmmmm mom r m®�nnnr_ Lrr ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 12 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 13,609 SQ FT LIVING SPACE rK O �i EN a FUT 6.6 ATH B�RO OM 03 FUTURE _I.0 �' BEDROOM �, �I FUTURE DINING 12-1 x 11-4 I�---- !' FAMILY ROOM _ II-T x V-6 ii--- 19-0 x 19-2 D W/ BEDROOM 02 UNFIN• SNACK BAR �� 12-0 x 10.1 UTIL./LAUND.p m -OPT, ..--------------------J' WINDOW VAULT r ��SILIVING ROOM BATH13-0 x 18-6 FUTUREEDROOM 12-0 x 10-1GARAGE FOYER OPT.•DBL BOWL -0 x 26-8/2" SINKSMASTER SUITE 18-0 x 12-0 OFT.VAULT PORGI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR ROCKPORT III - All Elevations- 15%Brick or Stone ®' J ®®®®® ® ® ® ELEVATION A ®I■ - I®I® I n1 f L- f f i•"- r rr I 1r ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 2 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 1 , 283 SQ FT LIVING SPACE KITCHEN BEDROOM-3 BEDROOM-1 "'O�' UNFIN. FIREPL40E• 8-5 x 12-1 9-3 x II-4 10-0 x 10-1 - FUTURE STORAGE DINING BEDROOM wnURE o-a x i&9 'OPTIONAL'OO 10-5 x 12-1 My BEDROOM FAMILY ROOM II-I x 13-10 El16-5 x 1�-1 ANT •, ii ISLAND iW-__. w SNACK BAR IL.I.C. y �• -'I•OPT.-�:! WINDOW.'------------------J ii � VAIJLTm HALF BATH WALLS __ �� ••. L-II 0 •OPT.VAl1LT q�E LIVING ROOM MASTER BLLI7E 12-1 x 11-5 -- --BATH; I1NFlN. U MAs. ---1ZA x ia4 - -- UTIL/ 12-4 x 16-10 ii 771 LAUND. CRAWL x SPACE FOYER ---_._-_- GARAGE 30-0 x nn0-0 Ir --------------- i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR WESLEY - All Elevations- 15%Brick or Stone z 0, 1-4 1 ■ _- ®®® I n 77777 nn ® nnlnnf nnn f f^n Innnrnnn nnn s>3 nnnnrnnn mm� ELEVATION A rF . 'hx �1., f u l l I_I I C I-1 I � ❑f'➢0®m�DI �Cm� ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 1 2 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE 1 , 842 SQ FT LIVING SPACE W.I. 'KITCHEN sax 1T-0 DINING --- - RmrRE FUTURE 10-T x IT-0 BEDROOM-2 BEDROOM•3 _,-} FAMILY ROOM LL E OM h LL EI-we n 10-4x 10-3 12.2x 10.3 ''(� 19.11x20.2 10.11x 10.1 11.1x 10-I ISLAND a/ ' EPiICK BAR I�L. r }� fiRBeLACB _r s= LM. 'OPT• ^" vM1LT �'' �� ______ WINDOIIh„� FLOOR LINE— - WINDOIII BATH ' OPENING '• UP OFFGE' b2 x c-T LAUNDRY --- •.� TQ JIy L fqbL LIVING ROOM - UP --- TH; ,'', TORAG 140 x II$ __ 145 x _____ STORAGE UP DN ma'sCBp N W.I.C -y� OPf. LRAIIL EPAOE FOYER; �'�WMDCW BTOAN TO LOII@2 RDOR OPT. DBL BaUL LARISM MAS.PORCH O1NK8 VAULTED eNwR BATH ! MASTER SUITE IS-10 x 13-5 GARAGE W.I.0 300 x 226124-0 --------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ---------- MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 755 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS RELATING TO 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) Roof gables 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 o a single amily structure as measured from a bird's-eve plan view. 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) Roofzables 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 structure as measured from a bird's eye plan view. Section 3. Section 4.11 (C)(2) is hereby amended to read as follows: 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 windows and 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 Planning Commission may approve optional facade treatments prior to building permit when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roof pitch or other features. 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 1 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 22"d day of February, 2021. Lloyd Hilgart, Mayo ATTEST: Vennifer Schreiber, City Clerk AYES: Davidson, Gabler, Hilgart, Hudgins, and Murdoff NAYS: None 2 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 3B. Consideration of 2021 Planning Commission Workplan REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Staff is requesting that Planning Commission review and adopt the 2021 Planning Commission Workplan. The purpose of the Planning Commission workplan is to connect the work of the Commission to the overall goals of the city and community. The workplan outlines activities of the Commission which lie beyond its required review of land use applications. The workplan is reflective of the direction of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan and the input of the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt the 2021 Planning Commission workplan as drafted. 2. Motion to recommend changes to the 2021 Planning Commission Workplan as directed by the Commission. 3. Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Subject to any comment of the Commission, staff recommends adoption of the workplan. SUPPORTING DATA A. 2021 Workplan, Draft 1 CITY (_.OF Monticello Planning Commission 2021-2025 Workplan Monticell o DRAFT 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 2040 Vision + Plan, subdivision and zoning ordinances and other planning rules and regulations; to establish planning rules and regulations;and to conduct public hearings. Purpose Statement: The Planning Commission will support efforts to implement the Monticello 2040 Vision+Plan. The Planning Commission will work collaboratively with the City Council,other City boards and commissions,and community stakeholders in its work to achieve the Plan and the strategic goals of the city. Organizational &Training Activities: • Attend in-house Land Use Basics training. • Complete the Basics of Land Use and My Roles as a Planning Commissioner through Fusion Learning Partnership. • Understand land use application types and process. • Continue to support regional planning as identified by the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. o Implementation Chapter, Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation ■ Strategy 1.10.1-Consider the outcomes of regional planning initiatives and participate in processes resulting from the efforts of the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning Partnership. • Initiate and/or facilitate organizational projects in support of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. o Implementation Chapter, Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation ■ Strategy 1.1.1- Facilitate biannual meetings to serve as a "Development Forum" with interested property owners, realtors, builders and developers to discuss long-term planning, real estate market conditions, ■ Strategy 1.1.2 - Develop and publish a 'Development Opportunity Map' for use by the public, property owners and development community that identifies vacant and potential development opportunity sites, as well as pending and approved projects with the City and MOAA. Comprehensive Plan Activities: • Support the implementation of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan through implementation of the Goals, Policies and Strategies identified within the Plan. 1 � • Support the priority projects set by the City Council, including the small area planning for Chelsea Commons area and reinvestment in Block 52 in Downtown Monticello. Zoning Ordinance/Map Activities: • Complete the recodification of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, including consideration of amendments as recommended in the Goals, Policies and Strategies of the Implementation Chapter of the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. o Review and revise the zoning ordinance consistent with the 2021-2022 Zoning Ordinance Strategy priorities set by the Planning Commission per Attachment A. • Consider amendments to the Monticello Official Zoning Map in support of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan guided land use, including, but not limited to the following. o Implementation Chapter, Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation ■ Strategy 2.7.1-Amend the Zoning Map to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map and identify areas where mixed-density residential uses are appropriate. Subdivision Ordinance Activities: • Complete a review and amendment of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, including consideration of amendments as recommended in the Goals, Policies and Strategies of the Implementation Chapter of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan as follows. o Implementation Chapter, Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation ■ Strategy 2.5.1 - Implement measures to slow down or"calm"traffic on local streets by using design techniques and measures to improve traffic safety, provide eyes on the street, and enhance the quality of life in Monticello's neighborhoods. ■ Strategy 3.8.2 - Require pedestrian and bike connections in new commercial development. ■ Strategy 6.5.1-Conduct regular review of parkland allocation and ensure sufficient amount of land is designated for parks and recreation activities in the City as the population increases. Research &City Department Update Topics As resources and time allow, the Planning Commission will consider research and information related to the following topic areas. Topic Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Status of municipal infrastructure Tree preservation—Zoning ordinance section 4.2 2 � 2021-2022 Monticello Planning Commission Workplan:Monticello 2040 Vision+Plan Zoning Strategies ATTAC H M E NT A CHAPTER 3: LAND USE,GROWTH&ORDERLY ANNEXATION Goal 1:Growth&Change Policy 1.7: Zoning to Manage Growth Strategy 1.7.1 - Use Floor Area Ratio(FAR) and building height standards in commercial, industrial, and mixed- use areas to control the intensity of development. Use residential density standards (units/acre) in residential Goal 2: Complete Neighborhoods Policy 2.1: Neighborhood Diversity& Life-Cycle Housing Strategy 2.1.1 -Adopt zoning regulations that allow for a wider diversity of housing types, identify character defining features and encourage a center of focus for each neighborhood. Strategy 2.1.2 - Encourage opportunities for residents to stay in Monticello,with additional options for estate residential, senior living, and other life-cycle options. Goal 3: Commercial Centers and Corridors Policy 3.1: Connected Neighborhood Shopping Centers Strategy 3.1.1 -Amend zoning to allow small, neighborhood serving shopping centers and commercial uses in the Mixed Neighborhood (MN) land use designation. In the MN designation surrounding Downtown,these uses would typically be very small up to 1,000 square feet,while other areas designated MN may have larger neighborhoods which necessitate larger neighborhood centers. Policy 3.5: Redevelopment&Adaptation of Commercial Corridors Strategy 3.5.2 - Broaden permitted land uses in commercial centers to adapt to changing commercial demand while activating these spaces. Consider educational, medical office or other compatible uses. Policy 3.6: Commercial Building&Site Design Strategy 3.6.2 - Review and consider amendments to the City's commercial parking requirements based on changes in shopping and consumer behavior. Encourage the use of shared parking in along corridors and commercial centers, rather than independent parking lots on each commercial property.This can reduce the total land area dedicated to parking, result in more efficient land uses,and create a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Policy 3.8: Commercial Uses&Public Health Strategy 3.8.1 - Promote tood access by amending zoning regulations to allow retail and service based tood uses in all commercial districts and some residential districts as appropriate.These uses may include food stores, markets, community gardens and farmer's markets. Goal 5: Active Employment Centers Policy 5.4: Employment Generating Land Use Design & Regulation Strategy 5.4.1 - Utilize and maintain higher floor area ratio and building height allowances in certain industrial areas for manufacturing and warehouses than for other building types, due to their unique function and space requirements. Strategy 5.4.3 -Continue to support quality site design for industrial uses as an investment in the community and employment districts, including materials, landscaping and architecture. Policy 5.6: Industrial Land Use Compatibility Strategy 5.6.2 - Improve the visual quality and sustainability of industrial areas through requirements such as screening of storage areas, landscaping, prompt elimination of trash and roadside debris, and ongoing maintenance of buildings and properties. Chapter 8-Community Character, Design &The Arts Goal 2: Site Design&Architecture Policy 2.1 High Quality Design Strategy 2.1.1 -Through zoning and PUD applications,encourage the location of infill new commercial, residential, or mixed-use developments where appropriate and needed to provide definition to the street and promote pedestrian activity. Strategy 2.1.5 -Continue to evaluate the zoning ordinance for opportunities to enhance design through landscaping, signage and building materials in all districts. Page 1 Planning Commission Agenda—04/06/21 3C. 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 for Preliminary and Final Plat to Create a Single Lot for an Existing Financial Institution in the Central Community District (CCD). Applicant: CorTrust Bank (Mark Nettesheim) Approved unanimously on the March 8, 2021 as part of the consent agenda. Consideration to approve an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Cross Parking and Access for a Building Expansion in the B-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: ISG (Andrea Rand) Approved unanimously on the March 22, 2021 as part of the consent agenda. Consideration to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Repair for Recreational Vehicles, with Accessory Auto Repair—Minor in the B-3 (Highway Business) District and termination of prior Conditional Use Permits for Lot 1, Block 1, Gould Addition. Applicant: RJ Ryan Construction Approved unanimously on the March 22, 2021 as part of the consent agenda. Consideration to adopt Resolution 2021-24 for amendment to Planned Unit Development, a Preliminary and Final Plat and Development Contract for Spaeth Second Addition and to adopt Ordinance No. 757 for an Amendment to Planned Unit Development for the Spaeth Industrial Planned Unit Development. Applicant: Ken Spaeth, Spaeth Development Removed from consent agenda. Approved unanimously on the March 22, 2021 following a request to re-confirm association requirements and on-going maintenance and compliance with the PUD within the association documents. Council Updates Council Highlights— https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/highlights Council Connection (March) — https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/vertical/sites//o7B46185197-6086-4078-ADDC- OF3918715C4C/o7D/uploads/March 22 Council Connection.pdf 1