Planning Commission Agenda 05-04-2021 AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 4th, 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—April 6th, 2021
b. Regular Meeting Minutes—April 6th, 2021
C. Citizen Comments
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
E. Consideration to approve agenda
2. Public Hearing
A. Public Hearing—Consideration of Amendment to the Nuss Truck & Equipment
Planned Unit Development for amendment to buffer yard landscaping
Applicant: Nuss Truck and Equipment (Phil Watkins)
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of a request for one year extension of a variance to required 10'
side yard setback in the Mississippi Wild Scenic Recreational River District in the
R-1 (Single-Family Residence) District
Applicant: Sandra K. Lichty
B. Consideration of an Administrative Appeal to Monticello Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts, Subsection (E) R-1: Single Family
Residence District for Haven Ridge 2nd Addition
Applicant: Capstone Homes
C. Consideration of an Update on the Land Use Application Process
D. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report
4. Added Items
5. Adjournment
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 6th, 2021- 5:00 p.m.
Bridge Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, John Alstad, Andrew Tapper, and Eric Hagen
Commissioners Absent: Alison Zimpfer
Council Liaison Absent: Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Paul Konsor called the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at
5:00 p.m.
2. Workshop Agenda
A. Land Use Basics
Steve Grittman completed his presentation to the Planning Commission
regarding land use basics. This was a continuation of the previous special
meeting.
B. 2021 Planning Commission Workplan
Angela Schumann provided a recap of how the workplan was formulated. She
noted that it was important for the Planning Commission to have a baseline of
information including role and authority of the board and resources
(comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and natural
resources assessment and inventory) to develop a workplan. Staff also provided
resources from the League of Minnesota Cities.
Schumann noted there are four primary components of the workplan:
organizational, comprehensive planning, zoning ordinance, and subdivision
ordinance. The comprehensive plan strategies that are listed on the draft
workplan were the highest prioritized strategies related to the zoning ordinance
as ranked by the members of the Planning Commission.
No decision by the Planning Commission requested as the item would be on the
Regular Agenda. The workplan is intended to align the work of the commission
with the broader goals of the City through the comprehensive plan and the goals
of the City Council.
It was noted that the workplan could be amended over the year if needed.
3. Adjournment
Paul Konsor adjourned the meeting at 5:51 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 (Special Meeting) Page 11 2
Recorder: Jacob Thunander
Approved: May 4th, 2021
Attest:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 (Special Meeting) Page 2 2
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 6th, 2021- 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, John Alstad, Andrew Tapper, and Eric Hagen
Commissioners Absent: Alison Zimpfer
Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Paul Konsor called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at
6:00 p.m.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Workshop Meeting Minutes— March 2nd, 2021
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE WORKSHOP MEETING
MINUTES— MARCH 2ND, 2021. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
b. Regular Meeting Minutes— March 2nd, 2021
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES— MARCH 2ND, 2021. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
Charlotte Gabler asked to add general discussion regarding B-3 Zoning.
Item 3A. was moved to be discussed prior to the public hearings.
E. Consideration to approve agenda
DUE TO A NEED TO MAINTAIN QUORUM OF COMMISSION FOR ACTION, THE
COMMISSION MOVED ITEM 3A TO THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA. JOHN
ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
2. 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
Andrew Tapper recused himself from discussion and action on this item.
Steve Grittman introduced the item on behalf of Capstone Homes, who is
seeking to vary the brick and stone requirements for the Haven Ridge First
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 Page 11 11
Addition. Grittman reminded the Planning Commission of a recent amendment
to the Monticello Zoning Code to allow developers to utilize this process of
appeal for such building variation. Grittman noted that some of the homes they
are offering are compliant with the zoning code, but some do not meet the 15
percent brick or stone requirement.
Grittman provided an overview of the staff report and noted a table that reviews
each home design and whether it was compliant or not with the code. Grittman
noted that generally staff would recommend a 7.5 percent threshold for brick or
stone on all homes as part of the recommended 25 percent of alternative
materials on the fagade.
Paul Konsor asked for clarification on the approved ordinance amendment and
the process. Grittman explained the new ordinance and the process for the
appeal.
Eric Hagen noted that the applicant was not suggesting an exemption from their
split entry and multi-level models Cheyenne IV through Wesley. He asked if the
Board needed to take any action related to those homes. Grittman declined and
noted that those homes will meet the 15 percent brick or stone requirement.
Konsor asked if a public hearing was required for this item. Grittman declined.
Hagen asked about how staff determined the 7.5 percent brick or stone
requirements for the homes that did not meet the requirement. Grittman
explained that staff wanted to be reasonable in the request and there was no
specific reason for the (7.5 percent) amount. Grittman noted that it appeared to
be possible to meet the 7.5 percent recommendation for most models fairly
easily. Hagen also asked if the list included in the agenda was a complete list of
the homes they would offer in Haven Ridge. Grittman believed it was a complete
list of the proposed homes for that development.
Konsor invited the applicant to speak about the item. Heather Lorch, Capstone
Homes/the applicant, introduced herself and explained the background for their
request. Lorch indicated the importance the City places on home values and to
have a certain standard to establish those values, previously through brick and
stone requirements. She explained that what the City and applicant have learned
is that the brick or stone is particularly important for the split level and multi-
level homes. She noted that there is not a large inventory of two-story homes
and Capstone Homes would like to be able to offer well priced homes of such
type. Lorch reassured the Planning Commission that they felt the plans they
submitted as architecturally designed, that may have reduced brick or stone, are
very attractive and the price point will reach the City's demographic well. Lorch
noted the importance of being fair to the other builders and developments. She
explained that primarily those developments with that standard are primarily
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 Page 2 1 11
split-level homes. Capstone Homes expressed the importance to provide 15
percent brick or stone on split-level and multi-level homes.
Lorch asked that no percentages of secondary materials be considered for
rambler and two-story models, but that the value of the home be considered
and the designs be approved as presented. Lorch noted that there were 48
unique elevations that would bring a variety of home options and enhanced
streetscape. There are three elevations that the applicant requested to be
exempt from all brick and stone requirements to achieve a farmhouse look.
Steve Bona, Capstone Homes, noted that the applicant is trying to understand
what the concerns are of the City so that they can do a better job of offering
ways to accommodate those concerns. Bona explained that the brick or stone
requirement is in place to bring the value up on smaller homes (split entry and
multi-level). Bona noted the already high cost of purchasing a rambler with full
basement and two-story homes and asked that consideration be to remove the
requirement for brick or stone on those homes. He noted that the company
would still offer both styles of homes with brick, but that they would want the
option to not have the brick or stone as well to be able to provide as many
options for clients so that they have the ability to afford the style of home they
want.
Eric Hagen asked for clarification on the rambler style homes and if they typically
come with a finished basement and the cost of that housing style. Bona
explained that the ramblers are very expensive to build because they have a full
basement. He noted that builders cannot offer them even close to the same
price as a split entry home. He estimated $50,000 higher cost on full basement
ramblers from split entry homes. Hagen explained that the proposed two stories
appear very architecturally appeasing, but the ramblers that the applicant
proposes does not seem as architecturally defined that would replace the 15
percent brick or stone look.
Charlotte Gabler asked how many lots in Haven Ridge are rambler lots. Bona
stated that they can build a rambler on a full basement walkout or lookout lot
and a flat lot. Gabler noted that the City does not have a lot of rambler homes
but does have more of the split entry or multi-level homes. Gabler noted
acceptance of two-story homes without the brick or stone requirement as long
as they had architectural upgraded features. She thought the ramblers may need
more adjustment.
Hagen commented that during citizen comments during the February Planning
Commission meeting, that a lot of the two-stories in town may have built before
the brick or stone requirement. Bona noted that they would be willing to build
some specs that are two-story, which encourages more sale of those types of
homes.
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 Page 3 1 11
Gabler explained that she would like to have a sense of place in Monticello with
new home development.
Gabler also asked about spec homes and how much interest they generate. Bona
noted that they built a lot of spec homes and if they build them, they can sell
them.
Angela Schumann explained the options the Planning Commission could chose to
take.
Konsor noted the importance of being flexible and cautioned the City from
making decisions based on opinion. Konsor noted the importance of having
conversations at the City with how to attract builders (who will have varied
home designs) and people to the community.
Any approval of elevations that are outside of the city code requirements per
this request, would only be specific to the Haven Ridge First Addition.
The Planning Commission discussed removing the requirements for brick and
stone and the 25 percent alternatives for the two-story homes as proposed by
the applicant. They also suggested staff's recommendation for the ramblers.
Konsor asked for clarification on which elevations it would impact based on what
the applicant submitted. Schumann noted the only elevation that does not meet
staff recommendation is Birchwood C. The applicants confirmed they would
revise Birchwood A to meet the code requirement. Schumann added that there
is some question on whether Hemlock A meets the 7.5 percent brick or stone
requirement, but that Hemlock C did not meet code.
Lorch requested if a parameter for building materials is established, they would
request 7.5 percent brick or stone and 25 percent of secondary materials for
ramblers. She emphasized that adding the brick or stone would increase price
points of these homes.
The Planning Commission further discussed a recommendation. Members
discussed the importance of porches as an architectural feature to allow the
reduced brick or stone calculations.
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-014 WITH THE
APPLICANT'S PROPOSALS FOR THE TWO-STORY HOMES TO NOT INCLUDE ANY
BRICK OR STONE, BUT TO ACCOMMODATE AND INCLUDE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RAMBLER MODELS (NAMELY THE BIRCHWOOD,
CEDAR, AND HEMLOCK), AND TO ALSO NOTE THAT THE SPLIT-LEVEL HOMES
WITH BE REVISED TO INCLUDE/OR ALREADY INCLUDE THE 15 PERCENT BRICK OR
STONE. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 Page 4 1 11
3. 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
John Alstad was not present for this item.
Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use application and reviewed
the location site plan of the proposed self-storage facility for Storagel-ink.
Grittman noted that the parcel is currently zoned B-3 (Highway Business) and
abuts an R-1 (Single Family Residence) District to the south. With other recent
developments in this area including a self-storage facility and an RV dealership,
this proposed development would complete development along Chelsea Road to
the edge of 90" Street.
Grittman explained the proposed site plans as noted in the report. The applicant
proposes to complete the project in two phases.
Staff believes that the use is consistent with the intent of the B-3 District and is
consistent with the expectations of other land uses in the area. Grittman
explained that self-storage uses when properly run are a quiet use, with low
volume traffic, and compatible with residential areas. Staff recommended
approval of the application with conditions identified in Exhibit Z. Grittman
reviewed all conditions as outlined in Exhibit Z.
Paul Konsor asked for clarification about Building B being moved. Grittman
explained that it appears to be approximately 22 feet from the property line and
requested that it be moved to 30 feet. This condition is included on Exhibit Z.
Konsor asked what is in between Building A and B. Grittman noted that it was
just an open area, but the Fire Department is requesting that the area be paved
for fire access. There was noted discrepancies between plan sets for number of
buildings.
Andrew Tapper asked why the application required a Planned Unit Development
(PUD). Grittman explained that a PUD is necessary as the site has multiple
principal buildings on the same parcel. It was noted that the development
standards of the B-3 zoning district were the framework for reviewing the
application.
Tapper asked if the applicants were proposing any fencing on their property
abutting the residentially developed land to the south. Grittman confirmed that
the applicants have not proposed a fence along this boundary, but would rely on
tree plantings as a buffer, which is consistent with the buffer ordinance of the
landscaping code. Charlotte Gabler further asked with if the buffer area is
bermed to stagger the trees to reduce headlight glare into residential area.
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 Page 5 1 11
Grittman confirmed. Tapper asked if there was a wall on the east side. Grittman
declined. It was noted that there is no closing in of the site (with fencing or walls)
besides along the street side of Chelsea Road West and a portion of 901" Street.
Charlotte Gabler asked if snow was planned to be pushed to the drainage and
utility easement area and pond. Grittman expected that would be the case.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first.
Byron Bjorklund, StorageLink/applicant, introduced himself and noted that the
have maintained their site on Dundas Road for the past three and half years. He
noted that they have received demand for larger storage units, which is why the
applicant is proposing fifty percent larger units on this site. After receiving staff
recommendations, the applicants had revised portions of their plans. Bjorklund
noted that in compliance with staff's recommendation, they are proposing to
utilize white, gray, and orange accent. This color scheme would be
complimentary to their other facility on Dundas Road. Bjorklund noted that
would propose staging in two phases (completion in 24 months) due to the
material scarcity. In the interim, there would be a view of a white metal building
with orange doors. He stated that it would be too difficult to build the perimeter
of the site and then the center of the site.
Bjorklund noted revised plan sets which included moving Building B to a 32-foot
setback, Building D would be one building (12,000 square feet), and buildings
along Chelsea Road West were pulled back to the 30-foot setback requirement.
He explained that they would adhere to the recommendations of staff for
screening. It was noted that some of the residents had encroaching fences
located on the proposed site but noted acceptance of the existing fences
location. Bjorklund explained that their final plans would reflect all minor
changes. He also added that it would be unlikely that they would light the side of
their property adjoining with the Monticello RV location. All of their lighting
would be LED and downcast. They will submit to the City a photometric plan. No
dumpsters or outdoor storage would occur on the site. The proposed gate to
enter the facility would be setback to 50-feet. The Fire Department requested
access through the fake walls for their fire hoses, which the applicants noted
they would accommodate with a trap door that can be punched out.
Tapper asked if both sides had doors on the proposed Building E. Bjorklund
confirmed.
Konsor asked for confirmation if Building C was no longer proposed. Bjorklund
confirmed and noted that Building D became one building.
Konsor asked where snow would be pushed. Bjorklund explained that there was
room at the end of the aisles and between buildings, but they also use a service
to remove snow if needed.
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 Page 6 1 11
Konsor asked about headlight glare into the residential neighborhood and noted
the applicants proposed screening. Bjorklund noted that the berm rises an
estimated 12-16 feet along the entire south boundary. It was noted that the
facility also closes daily at 9 p.m.
Bjorklund added that they have an interior corridor of 50 to 60 feet to make a
nice circumference around the site. The back buildings are at a setback of 30
feet. Bollards would be placed on the corners of each of the buildings for
protection.
Eric Hagen asked for clarification of condition 2 of Exhibit Z. Staff's preference
was to build the external perimeter buildings and connecting walls first. This
would result in changes to their phasing plan. Bjorklund noted that their intent in
working with staff was so you could not see all the doors of Building E. He
explained that the facility will not look that way for very long. With the demand
and size of units, the second phase would be built. It would be onerous to build
the perimeter first and then the interior with asphalt, concrete, and excavating.
He noted they would rather paint the doors a different shade than orange rather
than the temporary additional landscape screening. There preferred alternative
was to keep the doors orange for that short period of time until phase 2 was
constructed. Hagen asked if the alternative action for evergreen plantings was
approved, where would the plantings go. Grittman explained there is a required
planting around the perimeter of the site and the landscaping plan needed to be
supplemented to meet the code requirement for quantities. Hagen asked if the
landscaping would all be completed in phase 1. Bjorklund confirmed that they
would complete the landscaping perimeter in phase 1.
Shawn Weinand, owner of the land, appreciated the proposal and the applicant's
willingness to change the plans per staff recommendations. Weinand noted that
the purpose of the perimeter wall was to appear like a commercial building from
the outside and to provide a feeling of belonging to the neighborhood. Weinand
suggested that the applicant think about completing the entire perimeter
landscaping right away because of the likely need for a construction entrance off
901" Street for phase 2. Weinand noted that part of the reason the applicant
selected this property, and the buildings plans was the need from the RV
dealerships in the area and the need to have a place for storage of such vehicles.
He noted that both Affordable Storage and StorageLink's site on Dundas Road
are completely filled. Weinand suggested that the applicant be allowed to go
forward with their proposed color for the doors and to place a condition that if
phase 2 does not commence by a certain time, the doors be repainted.
Hagen asked for the depth of proposed Buildings K, L, and M. Bjorklund
responded that Buildings K and L were 40-feet deep and A and B are 50-feet
deep. It was noted that the units were 70-feet away from Chelsea Road and well
over 100 feet from 901" Street from seeing a door on Building E.
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 Page 7 1 11
Tapper asked if the lot was fairly flat. Bjorklund confirmed besides the berm on
the south side.
Hagen asked if the purpose of condition 2 on Exhibit Z was to ensure completion
of something if the project ends after phase 1. He also asked if the City has asked
past applicants to build some sort of a complete border or something similar.
Angela Schumann confirmed that staff's position is to assume optimism, but
there may come a point where phasing is delayed, so providing alternatives is
recommended. Schumann stated that screening or materials condition has been
required for other recent projects, including Affordable Storage.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission further discussed Condition 2 of Exhibit Z especially as
it relates to not being able to finish phase 2 of the project. Paul Konsor asked
what the concern was with staff's recommendation of constructing the
perimeter buildings and screening walls first as vehicles such as RVs and fire
trucks could drive through the site. Konsor questioned why construction vehicles
would be a hinderance if the Planning Commission decided to go forward with
staff's recommendation. Grittman thought the applicant's objection was that the
construction could tear up some of the prior improvements. Schumann
commented that through the PUD, the City can establish a phased plan for
buffering should phase 2 not proceed. That alternative could be further
supporting through the PUD development agreement and landscape security.
Staff would also recommend that the applicant complete the full south buffer
line. The Planning Commission could discuss phasing of the other landscaping,
which may include additional buffer screening on the west edge if phase 2 did
not proceed. Tapper explained his proposal for amendment of that condition
read that by the end of 2024, if phase 2 is not completed, then screening
measures would be required along the edge of the completed asphalt.
Decision 1: Consideration of a Rezoning from B-3, Highway Business, to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) District
ERIC HAGEN MOVED 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. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
Decision 2: Preliminary Plat
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-012, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STORAGELINK MONTICELLO, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 Page 8 1 11
RESOLUTION, AND CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z.
PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
Decision 3: Development Stage PUD Approval
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-013, RECOMMENDING
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD APPROVAL FOR STORAGELINK MONTICELLO, WITH THE
AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT Z ITEM 2 TO READ THAT IF PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION IS NOT
COMPLETED BY DECEMBER 31, 2024 THAT A SCREENING WALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT EDGE OF
COMPLETED ASPHALT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND CONTINGENT ON
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Rezoning to Planned Unit Development
Development Stage PUD
Preliminary Plat
Storagel-ink Monticello
1. No outdoor storage will be permitted within the project at any time.
2. Should completion of Phase 2 not be completed by December 31, 2024, the
applicant shall install a screening wall on the west edge of the developed site.
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.
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 Page 9 1 11
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.
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 251", 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.
4. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of Adopting 2021 Planning Commission Workplan
Angela Schumann explained that after several months of work, the Planning
Commission is asked to approve their 2021 workplan. The workplan is intended
to provide a guide to the Planning Commission for their discretionary work over
the next year. Schumann noted that many of the items may be multi-year
projects.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO APPROVE THE 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKPLAN AS DRAFTED. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 3-0.
B. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 Page 10 1 11
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report as
provided in the agenda packet.
Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on the City Council's action regarding
Spaeth Development as it was pulled from the Consent Agenda during their
regular meeting. Schumann summarized that the nature of the Council's
questions related to the review of the declarations for the project and
clarification on what the plat was designed to accomplish. The City Council
approved the request.
5. Added Items
B-3 Zoning: Angela Schumann displayed the B-3 zoned parcels on the zoning map. She
noted that the parcels are a mix of vacant and fully developed parcels. Schumann noted
that the B-4 District is a Regional Business District that is designed to serve commerce
and traffic from a regional area. B-3 is a Highway Business District and is focused at the
interchange of Highway 25 and Interstate 94 and designed to serve auto oriented
business uses.
6. Adjournment
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:38 P.M. MOTION CARRIED,
3-0.
Recorder: Jacob Thunander
Approved: May 4th, 2021
Attest:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Minutes—April 6th, 2021 Page 11 11
Planning Commission Agenda—05/04/2021
2A. Public Hearing—Consideration of Amendment to the Nuss Truck& Equipment
Planned Unit Development for amendment to buffer yard landscaping
Applicant: Nuss Truck and Equipment (Phil Watkins)
Prepared by: Northwest Associated Meeting Date: Council Date (pending
Consultants (NAC) 05/04/2021 Commission action):
05/10/21
Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building and Zoning Official
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: Legal Description:
Lot 1, Block 1, Nuss Truck & Equipment
PID: To Be Assigned
Planning Case Number: 2021-017
Request(s): Amendment to PUD
Deadline for Decision: June 20, 2021 (60-day deadline)
August 19, 2021 (120-day deadline)
Land Use Designation: Light Industrial Park (LIP)
Zoning Designation: Nuss Truck & Equipment Planned Unit Development
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: NA
Current Site Uses: Vacant
Surrounding Land Uses: North: 1-94
East: Vacant commercial
South: Industrial
West: Vacant industrial
Project Description: The applicant has requested an amendment to the approved
landscaping plan for revisions to required buffer yard plantings.
1
Planning Commission Agenda—05/04/2021
ANALYSIS:
Nuss Trucking and Equipment is seeking an amendment to its recent PUD approval, with the
intent of the amendment being the reduction of planting densities along its eastern boundary.
As a part of the original approval, the PUD included a condition that the applicant revise its
landscaping plan to meet the requirements of the "C" Buffer along this eastern edge, based on
their industrial use and the adjoining commercial use. As the amendment proposed relates to a
condition of approval, it is being brought back for Planning Commission and Council
consideration.
Although Nuss Truck & Equipment use is approved under a PUD ordinance, the underlying land
use labeling is industrial, and the Machinery/Truck Repair & Sales is identified in the ordinance
as an industrial use. The adjoining property is currently vacant land, zoned B-3, Highway
Business, pending a new or expanded automobile dealership as part of the Ryan Automobile
facility. Vehicle Sales & Rental is a commercial use designation within the zoning ordinance.
Given the abutting industrial to commercial use, the "C" buffer yard was imposed as a function
of the City's landscaping section of the Zoning Ordinance. Under the buffer requirements of
the ordinance, the developer of property adjoining a vacant parcel is required to install 50% of
the buffer plantings, with the adjoining future development installing the remainder at the time
of development.
The applicants initiated a landscaping plan that would comply with the buffer requirements as
noted. However, prior to construction, the applicants are requesting to develop an alternative
plan, and return to the Planning Commission and City Council with a request to reduce the
planting density, based on two primary contentions:
1. The applicants contend that their use is similar in nature to the adjoining (future)
automobile dealership use, thus a buffer required by the City's ordinance is
unnecessary; and
2. For commercial Vehicle Sales and Display, display areas are exempt from perimeter
vehicular area plantings; and
3. The neighboring property owner also agrees that plantings of the buffer-required
density would be unnecessary and inconsistent with their future development
objectives.
Land Use Buffers &Vehicle Display Areas. With regard to the first two points, while both
properties deal with vehicle sales and service, and maintain a large area of outdoor sales and
display, the uses are in fact different in scope and clientele, traffic volume, and even peak
operation times, thus the distinct treatments in the zoning ordinance. Vehicle Sales & Rental
uses relies primarily on vehicles sales to the general public, versus the Machinery &Truck
Repair & Sales activities which are most often to other business or commercial entities.
2
Planning Commission Agenda—05/04/2021
Moreover, the underlying land uses will apply to future re-use or redevelopment of the two
properties. While automobile vehicle sales is planned for the one, and truck vehicle sales is in
process for the other, it is not uncommon for properties to change hands over time,
transitioning to different business entities subject to the underlying land use restrictions. As
such, staff's original position regarding the buffer was grounded in the intent of the ordinance
long term, rather than these specific uses.
The applicants have pointed out that commercial Vehicle Sales & Rental uses are excluded from
perimeter vehicular landscaping requirements by code. They note the similarity to their use for
sales and display of inventory and request their revised landscaping plan for the buffer area on
the east side of the site be considered given that they have complied with the vehicular use
area requirement and general site landscaping requirements over the balance of the site.
Ryan Property Development. With regard to the applicant's third point, the original parcel
directly west of Ryan's vacant property was originally zoned commercial (prior to the Nuss
application). At the time Ryan platted and developed their current dealership, no buffer was
required as they abutted other vacant commercial property. By virtue of the Nuss rezoning (to
a PUD district supporting an industrial use), the buffer planting requirement would now be a
condition of Ryan's future construction.
In this regard, it is certainly reasonable for the owners of the Ryan property to take the position
they have—that no buffer plantings are preferred.
PUD Zoning Considerations. Under the City's PUD ordinance, the purpose of Planned Unit
Development is generally to provide flexibility from the standard zoning requirements of any
particular district, in exchange for development enhancements that equal or exceed the
standard zoning. The City Council adopted the original PUD, accommodating the various uses
and building design, along with the modified storage area and surfacing on the west side of the
site, including the condition for site landscaping as provided for in the code. Modifying the PUD
would typically be expected to provide further exchange; that is, lowering landscaping
requirements in exchange for some tangible upgrade on the site elsewhere.
At this point, the applicant is suggesting that the landscaping requirements were originally
excessive, particularly given the type of use and its similarity to other uses with allow for
reduced landscaping requirements for sales and display areas and that the PUD amendment to
allow a reduction in planting would stand on its own.
Under the prior Development and Final Stage PUD review, staff determined that the required
planting in the buffer area is 50% of the required "C" buffer planting, based on the fact that the
parcel abuts vacant property. The applicable standard is as follows:
• 29 ACI of canopy trees (15 trees at 2 caliper inches)
• 34 ACI of understory trees (17 trees at 2 caliper inches)
• 60 shrubs
3
Planning Commission Agenda—05/04/2021
The revised plan which the applicant proposes as a PUD Amendment includes the following:
• 8—8' tall Blue Spruce "Fat Albert"
• 5—3 caliper inch Crabapple
• 60 shrubs
The Spruce, according to the landscaping ordinance, typically count as 2" ACI (caliper inches) for
6-foot-tall specimens. Counting the Spruce against the canopy tree requirement, it would be
common to consider an 8-foot-tall evergreen as a 2 %" caliper tree. Thus, the Spruce would
constitute 20 ACI (against a requirement of 29 ACI); the Crabapples would constitute 15 ACI
(against a requirement for 34 ACI); and the shrub count meets the requirement of 60 shrubs.
The departure from the code requirement, and thus the quantity of requested change per this
PUD Amendment, would be 3-4 additional overstory trees (9 ACI total); and 6-7 additional
ornamental trees (19 ACI total).
If the City prefers to lessen the buffer, it could recommend that all or a portion of these
quantities be relocated elsewhere on the property to supplement existing plantings. One
option would be the large island that separates the unpaved outdoor storage area from the
main paved display area. In the alternative, the City could recognize the vehicle sales and
display similarity and vehicular perimeter plantings as noted by the applicant, and allow the
reduction as proposed.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021-015 for approval of an amendment to the Nuss
Truck & Equipment Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021-015 for approval of an
amendment to the Nuss Truck & Equipment Planned Unit Development, based on
findings to be made by the Planning Commission.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. 2021-015.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff would recommend an amendment to the PUD, with the recommendation that the 9 ACI of
canopy/overstory tree and 19 ACI of understory/ornamental tree plantings are shifted to other
locations on the property.
While the PUD accommodates flexibility in basic site development standards, that flexibility is
typically understood to be accompanied by concurrent increases in other development
elements or amenities. In the initial review of this project at a concept level, enhanced
landscaping was indicated as a desired feature by the Commission and Council. This was
carried forward by requiring compliance with both the base landscaping and buffer yard
4
Planning Commission Agenda—05/04/2021
standards in the PUD approval. By relocating required plantings, the City would be maintaining
its minimum standards, allowing flexibility in the location of those improvements in exchange.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2021-015
B. Ordinance No. XXX
C. Aerial Site Image
D. Applicant Narrative
E. Landscaping Plan, Amendment Request
F. Approved Landscaping Plan
G. Adjacent Site Images
H. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4.1— Landscaping, Excerpts
Z. Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT Z
Amendment to Planned Unit Development
Nuss Truck& Equipment Industrial PUD
1. The applicant's proposed landscaping plan is modified to add 9 ACI of canopy/overstory
trees and 19 ACI of understory/ornamental trees to the landscaping plan, consistent
with the recommendations of the staff report.
2. Execution of any required amendment to Development Contract and Planned Unit
Development.
3. Comments of other staff and Planning Commission.
5
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-015
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FOR NUSS TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, the applicant owns property platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Nuss Truck& Equipment Addition;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to amendment the PUD District approvals to which this lot is
subject by reducing the required easterly landscaping buffer yard ; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to develop the property for industrial uses, and no changes to
other development design or common operations would change; and
WHEREAS, the site is guided for industrial uses under the label "Light Industrial Park" in the City's
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed PUD amendment, is consistent with the long-term use and development of
the property for industrial use; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 41h, 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 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 buildings to
industrial use.
2. The proposed improvements on the site under the PUD are consistent with the
needs of the development in this location as an industrial area.
3. The improvements will have expected impacts on public services, including sewer,
water, stormwater treatment, and traffic which have been planned to serve the
property for the development as proposed.
4.. The PUD flexibility for the project, including the site landscaping elements, are
consistent with the intent of the City's economic development objectives, as well as
with the intent of the PUD zoning regulations.
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
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-015
approves the Preliminary Plat for Spaeth Industrial Park, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z
of the staff report as follows:
1. The applicant's proposed landscaping plan is modified to add 9 ACI of canopy/overstory
trees and 19 ACI of understory/ornamental trees to the landscaping plan, consistent with
the recommendations of the staff report.
2. Execution of any required amendment to Development Contract and Planned Unit
Development.
3. Comments of other staff and Planning Commission.
ADOPTED this 41" day of May, 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
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE,
KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NUSS TRUCK& EQUIPMENT PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
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 by adding the following:
3.8 (13) Nuss Trucking Industrial PUD
(a) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Nuss Trucking
Industrial PUD District shall be machinery/truck repair and sales as
found in Section 5.2 (F)(11) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Section, subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated
April 19t`, 2021, the amended landscaping plan dated ,
2021, and development agreement dated January 25th, 2021, as may
be further amended.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this
ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time.
Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance
as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title 10, Zoning Ordinance, and to
renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended
effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary
corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process,
provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
as has been adopted.
Section 4. 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.
I
ORDINANCE NO.
Brian Stumpf, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rachael Leonard, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
2
0
v as Ab'Mal1i'� alb d►�a1aN1dS
•o - � o
U L1J O
N
a
alb 3-lJb'3 alb a=1 N=1
v
U J � O _
E9 c
0
alp a3ANG18 ti
r
� O
Q
S
� o
5� o � io•
IN
cs, Q LIP
C
E ' r CV ti
Q N
0 i
N
> U
Q) Y o
+++-+ N V p
NNW,
UO f�.
m
O 00 C
---+ J p
p r N
Q O `
Q) p
wo y ` N
Q �_ LO O w O
L � � � N O ■ O
O NO
� p p p
N CIO O M N
U ON
u7 r O
Q) LO 0� Q
O r C QV
c Q
AL
bA _
J r
Nuss Truck & Equipment - Roseville
2195 W. County Road C2
TRUCK & Roseville, MN 55113
r[USS EQUIPMENT 651-633-4810 / 800-704-0935
Fax 651-635-0928
www.nussgrp.com
Greetings Monticello City Council, Planning Commission members and Staff,
Our original PUD request was a vehicle sales use on most of our property. Our early
discussions were to have us match our neighbor and other dealer Ryan's landscaping plan
with the exception of the West lot where we added the council and staff requested screening.
This issue was a significant item in our overall decision to purchase the property and go
forward with the project. Our understanding was the PUD was originally proposed on our
project just for this type of need to give flexibility and "customize" the requirements for zoning.
Our East line is all new inventory display same as Ryan as indicated in the PUD letter/ plans
and discussed at the development meeting. The written proposed resolution stated E
boundary screening needed to have "increased plantings per code" but did not mention which
code. The intended code was a C buffer defined in a consultant staff report. We received the
link to the meeting packet Friday afternoon before the Monday meeting and only had time to
review the resolution. We had assumed incorrectly it would be a modified buffer rule like Ryan
including the vehicle sales language like we had all talked, but did not see the staff report
mentioning the C buffer until after the final meeting.
Ryan has minimal small ornamental trees, grass (pic attached) on their West boundary. Our
proposed plan has the ornamental trees we originally talked with added conifers and an
increased shrubs well exceeding the Ryan plantings providing a nice curb appeal as well.
Another point to consider is in talking with Ryan they have potential plans for another
dealership next to us and want the same thing they have now up against our East line we are
talking about. This would be new dealership inventory up against new dealership inventory.
Text from original development letter
NTE is a vehicle sales business similar to the adjacent Ryan Auto dealership. Our vehicle
inventory show floor is our outdoor sales lots. The request is to have the subject property
zoned as vehicle sales instead of the current 133/I13C. The plan is for extra screening with
trees for the West area with a mixed use parking, loading / unloading lot without new inventory
display. The east display portion we are looking for minimal screening / buffer for inventory
visibility. Our plan used the same planting schedule as the Ryan dealership with some trees
shifted west for additional screening.
IrSincerely, .;fit , Date
Phil Watkins, VP Customer Support, pwatkins(a-)nussgrp.com 612-308-4253
BURNSVILLE • DULUTH • EAU CLAIRE • MANKATO 9 ROCHESTER• ROSEVILLE •ST. CLOUD
0000 ,
_ a �
:.�
g
80 a00.
00 00 0o 0000 °aoUs
° o
ge
a a
�Ooo
� •••°+� aft
0
° R
II I �a
I �
I I II I �
I I �
II I I I �
I �
I I I �
Woo
a42,�1
FF00.
�
g
ta.v. . ..o a
• a o oopo °ao •
° o
ge
a a
�0@ (D ®
Hl
° R
II I �a
I �
a I I
II I
I I I �a
II I I I �
I �
I I I I s �
I � �
Woo
a42,�1
iL
..
�I
l /
� I
�t f
r \
r7 f
Fk,
a
it.-'�'[�l\��.�' i�l. Sfi�:a�.�l+ _•ice''..i�
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening
Subsection (H) Standards for Site Landscaping
(8) Sight Triangles
Section 3.30)(2)(b), Fencing,berms,walls,and all other landscaping features shall adhere to the
Corner Visibility
requirements of Section 3.3(13)(2)(b), Corner Visibility.
(9) Credit for Existing Vegetation
Section 4.1(C)(2), Existing vegetation meeting the size standards of Section 4.1(C)(2), Planting
Planting Standards
Standards, located within the perimeter buffer area may be preserved and credited
toward the perimeter buffer standards.
(H) Standards for Site Landscaping
(1) Purpose and Intent
Site landscaping material is intended to soften the visual impact of building
foundations and provide for the even dispersal of trees across a development site.
(2) No Exceptions
The site landscaping provisions of Section 4.1(H) shall be required for all
development.
(3) Distinguished from Other Required Landscaping
Site landscaping,for the purpose of this section,is exclusive of required perimeter
buffer and screening landscaping. Plantings required to meet vehicular use area
and perimeter vehicular use area landscaping standards can be counted towards
meeting site landscaping requirements.
(4) Site Landscaping Standards
Site landscaping shall be supplied in the amounts identified in Table 4-4:
Required Site Landscaping Plantings. Site landscaping shall meet the minimum
size standards for new planting specified in Section 4.1(C)(2),Planting Standards.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 245
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening
Subsection (G) Standards for Perimeter Buffers
(b) The above incentives may be combined to achieve a cumulative reduction in
the amount of required tree ACI.
(G) Standards for Perimeter Buffers
(1) Purpose and Intent
Perimeter landscape buffers are intended to mitigate potential negative effects of
different contiguous uses.
(2) Applicability
Except for adjoining single-family detached residential uses, adjoining
commercial and industrial uses occurring within the same zoning district
boundary,and uses in the CCD district, all development shall provide a perimeter
landscape buffer to separate it from uses in a different use classification in
accordance with Table 4-2: Buffer Types, and Table 4-3: Buffer Type
Application.
(3) Types of Buffers
Table 4-2: Buffer Types, describes four different buffering types in terms of their
function,opacity,width, and planting requirements. Where a particular buffer
type is required in Table 4-3: Buffer Type Application,the requirement may be
met with the combination of minimum buffer width and minimum screening
requirements specified under either Option 1 or Option 2. Where an option
utilizing a fence or wall is selected,the fence or wall shall comply with the
standards of Section 4.3,Fences and Walls.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 241
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening
Subsection (G) Standards for Perimeter Buffers
TABLE 4-2: BUFFER TYPES
ACI = AGGREGATE CALIPER INCHES
Minimum Screening
Requirements - Perimeter Buffer
Option 1: Minimum WidthOption
Buffer .- and Configuration of 1 feet Widthof 1 feet
TYPE A— BASIC BUFFER
This perimeter buffer functions as basic edge 2 ACI of canopy trees + I 0 ACI of understory trees +
demarcating individual properties with a slight visual 15 small shrubs per 100 linear feet
obstruction from the ground to a height of ten feet.
TYPE B—AESTHETIC BUFFER
This perimeter buffer functions as an intermittent T8 ACI of canopy trees + 2 ACI of canopy trees +
visual obstruction from the ground to a height of at 10 ACI of understory 14 ACI of understory
least 20 feet, and creates the impression of special trees + 15 small shrubs trees + 35 small shrubs
separation without eliminating visual contact between per 100 linear feet per 100 linear feet
uses.
TYPE C —SEMI-OPAQUE BUFFER
T12 ACI of canopy trees + One 4-foot high berm or
This perimeter buffer functions as asemi-opaque 14 ACI of understory one 4-foot high solid fence
screen from the ground to at least a height of six trees + 25 small shrubs + 2 ACI of canopy trees +
feet. 16 ACI of understory
per 100 linear feet trees per 100 linear feet
TYPE D—OPAQUE BUFFER
This perimeter buffer functions as an opaque screen 1 18 ACI of canopy trees +
from the ground to a height of at least six feet. This 20 ACI of understory One 6-foot high solid
fence + 12 ACI of canopy
type of buffer prevents visual contact between uses trees + 55 small shrubs
and creates a strong impression of total separation. per 100 linear feet trees per 100 linear feet
[I]: Any required perimeter buffer width can be reduced to five feet with the provision of a solid masonry wall
at least five feet in height along with ten large shrubs per every 100 linear feet.
[2]: Perimeter buffer widths (but not vegetation amounts) may be reduced in accordance with Section 2.4(G)
upon approval of an Alternate Landscape Plan under the provisions of Section 4.1(E) if adhering to these
requirements is not possible.
[3]: In cases where an adjacent use is designed for solar access, understory trees can be substituted for canopy
trees.
[4]: Required plantings shall conform to the planting standards outlined in section 4.1(C)(2).
[5]: Fences and walls shall comply with the standards in Section 4.3, Fences and Walls.
Page 242 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening
Subsection (G) Standards for Perimeter Buffers
(4) Determination of Required Buffer Type
Table 4-3 specifies the type of perimeter landscape buffer that new development
shall provide between it and adjacent property,based on the uses present on the
development site and that on the adjacent property. The buffer type is indicated by
a letter corresponding to one of the four buffer types depicted in Table 4-2, Buffer
Types.
Existing Use .- on Abutting Land [I]
OfficeCivic and -1
Single Family All Other InstitutionalCommercial
Residential Residential Uses Uses Uses
1AII
e-Family Residential n/a A B C D
ther Residential A n/a A B D
Civic and Institutional Uses B A n/a A D
Office and Commercial Uses C B A n/a C
Industrial Uses D D D C n/a
[I]: Letters in cells correspond to the buffer types listed in Table 4-2. Buffer Types.
[2]: Multi-family, townhouse, multi-building campus or shopping center type developments shall provide buffers
around the perimeter of the development instead of around individual buildings.
(5) Location of Perimeter Buffers
(a) Perimeter buffers required by this section shall be located only along the outer
perimeter of the parcel where it abuts another parcel, and shall extend to the
parcel boundary line or right-of-way line.
(b) In an industrial district,perimeter buffers are not required along lot lines
abutting streets except as provided for in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 when abutting
non-industrial districts. In such cases, the outdoor operation or storage
components shall include perimeter buffers as necessary to screen outdoor use
areas from off-site views.
(c) A perimeter buffer may be located along shared access easements between
parcels in nonresidential developments.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 243
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening
Subsection (G) Standards for Perimeter Buffers
(6) Responsibility for Buffer Installation
(a) Vacant Parcels
Where a developing parcel is adjacent to a vacant parcel and a perimeter
buffer is required in accordance with this section,the developing parcel shall
provide a minimum of one-half of the perimeter buffer required adjacent to
the vacant land.
(b) Existing Land Uses
Where a developing parcel is adjacent to an existing use and a perimeter
buffer is required in accordance with this section,the developing parcel shall
provide the full perimeter buffer required adjacent to the existing use in
accordance with Table 4-2,Buffer Types, and Table 4-3: Buffer Type
Application,unless a portion or all of a perimeter buffer that complies with
the standards of this section already exists between the lots. Where all or part
of a perimeter buffer exists,but the buffer does not fully comply with the
standards of this section, the developing parcel shall be responsible for
providing all the additional planting material necessary to meet the standards
of this section.
(7) Development within Required Buffers
(a) The required buffer shall not contain any development, impervious surfaces,
or site features(except fences or walls)that do not function to meet the
standards of this section or that require removal of existing vegetation,unless
otherwise permitted in this ordinance.
(b) Sidewalks,trails, and other elements associated with passive recreation may
be placed in perimeter buffers if all required landscaping is provided and
damage to existing vegetation is minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
(c) Overhead and underground utilities required or allowed by the City are
permitted to cross a required buffer in a perpendicular fashion,but shall
minimize the impact to vegetation to the maximum extent practicable.Where
required landscaping material is damaged or removed due to utility activity
within a required buffer,the landowner shall be responsible for replanting all
damaged or removed vegetation necessary to ensure the buffer meets the
standards in this ordinance.
Page 244 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.I Landscaping and Screening
Subsection (H) Standards for Site Landscaping
TABLE 4-4: REQUIRED SITE LANDSCAPING PLANTINGS
Use p- Required
General Standards
Single-family detached and 4.0 ACI of canopy trees OR
Multi-family dwellings with
less than five (5) units [5] [6] [7]
Multi-Family Dwellings with 16.0 ACI of canopy trees (including at least 3 evergreen trees) per acre + at
five (5) or more units least 2 shrubs per each 10 feet of building perimeter, or as may be otherwise
specified in the zoning district
Civic & Institutional Uses 14.0 ACI of canopy trees (including at least 2 evergreen trees) per acre + at
least I shrubs per each 10 feet of building perimeter
Office & Commercial Uses 10.0 ACI of canopy trees (including at least I evergreen tree) per acre + at
least 2 shrubs per each 10 feet of building perimeter
Industrial Uses 4.0 ACI of canopy trees (including at least I evergreen tree) per acre + at least
I shrub per every 10 feet of a building wall facing a public right-of-way
District Specific Standards:
TN District lot standards
(all plantings must be in the
front or side yards, and all See Ordinance 4.1 0)(2)
shrub and flower plantings must
be in the front yard)
CCD lot standards See Ordinance 4.1 0)(3)
IBC District lot standards See Ordinance 4.1 0)(4)
NOTE: ACI = Aggregate Caliper Inches
[I]: See Table 5-1, Uses By District.
[2]: At least '/2 of the required shrubs shall be of an evergreen variety.
[3]: Each evergreen tree meeting the minimum size standards of this section shall count as two caliper inches
towards the total number of required canopy tree caliper inches.
[4]: Credits towards required landscaping are available for the retention of non-specimen trees per the
provisions of Section 4.2(D), Tree Preservation Incentives.
[5]: Required landscaping trees shall be planted within the boulevard.
[6]: Lots in the T-N District shall not adhere to these standards, but instead to the specific standards listed in
section 4.10)(2).
[7]: Required Plantings for corner lots shall be double the listed requirements (8.0 ACI of canopy trees)
Page 246 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.1 Landscaping and Screening
Subsection (F) Standards for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping
(F) Standards for Vehicular Use Area Landscaping
Except where exempted by Section 4.1(F)(1)below, all vehicular use areas shall include Vehicular use area
landscaping DOES
landscaping both within the interior of the vehicular use area and around its perimeter, count towards
as a means of mitigating the parking area's microclimate and visual impacts. overall required site
landscapinK.
[Section 4.1 fl(3)1
(1) Exemptions
The following uses shall be exempt from the requirements to provide vehicular
use area landscaping:
(a) Single-family detached residential development;
(b) Two-to four-family dwellings;
(c) Off-street surface vehicular use areas with four or fewer spaces;
(d) Parking structures; and
(e) Vehicle display areas for vehicle sales uses.
(2) Interior Vehicular Use Area Landscaping Standards
All vehicular use areas shall provide and maintain landscaped planting areas
within the interior of the vehicular use area in accordance with the following.
(a) Configuration
Interior planting areas shall be designed in accordance with the following
standards:
(i) Islands shall be located at the end of parking bays and have a minimum
size of 180 square feet when adjacent to single loaded parking spaces,and
a minimum size of 360 square feet when adjacent to double loaded
parking spaces(see Figure 4-1: Interior Parking Islands).
Page 236 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
Planning Commission Agenda—05/04/21
3A. Consideration of a request for one year extension of a variance to required 10' side
yard setback in the Mississippi Wild Scenic Recreational River District in the R-1
(Single-Family Residence) District. Applicant: Sandra K. Lichty
Prepared by: Community Meeting Date: Council Date (pending
Development Director 05/04/2021 Commission action):
NA unless appealed
Additional Analysis by: Chief Building and Zoning Official, Community & Economic
Development Coordinator
Property: Legal: Lot 1, Block 59
Original Plat of Monticello (abbreviated)
Address: 725 West River Street, Monticello, MN
Planning Case Number: 2020-013
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND:
On June 2, 2020, the Planning Commission granted a variance to the side yard
setback for this single-family property. The applicant proposes to replace an existing
legal non-confirming attached single-car garage with a larger two-car garage. To
accommodate the construction of the proposed garage, the processing of setback
variance was necessary. The existing garage on the property exhibits a side yard
setback that abuts the west side lot line, effectively at a zero setback. This is
significantly less than the minimum ten-foot setback requirement imposed within
the applicable Wild and Scenic Overlay District.
The proposed garage will improve the setback non-conformity, lessening the
encroachment to locate the proposed garage approximately 6' from the lot line.
Per Section 2.4 of the City's zoning ordinance, variance approvals expire if a building
permit has not been secured within one (1) year of the date of the variance
approval. However, the ordinance does allow an extension of up to one (1) year
with a written request by the applicant showing good cause. Although the
ordinance allows the Community Development Department to administratively
grant the permit, staff believes it appropriate for the Planning Commission to
approve such extensions.
The applicants have submitted a written request which staff believes meets this
requirement for extension.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1
Planning Commission Agenda—05/04/21
1. Motion to approve a one-year extension (May 4, 2022) for the variance of the
subject property to allow encroachment into the 10-foot side yard setback as
approved on June 2nd, 2020.
2. Motion to deny an extension based on findings to be made by the Commission.
3. Motion to table action on the extension, subject to additional information from
staff and/or the applicant.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance extension.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Aerial Image
B. Extension Request
C. Original Staff Report and Exhibits
2
0
v
u
0
0
U
T
a
v _
m
v
U
0
0
0
NO
Aig
Q�
L
L
Q�
N �
2Q�
J
N
0 1S
0
os
Ln
.� 0 M
> o �Q
0 ' o
N � m
� a
N
U
U N
ro
J �
c�
a� r
J C
cc
LO J
Jacob Thunander
From: Duane Lichty <slichty2@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 11:42 AM
To: Jacob Thunander
Cc: Angela Schumann; slichty2@gmail.com; Duane Lichty
Subject: request to City Council for extension
Hello,
This contact is to request an extension of the variance that was granted to Sandy and Duane Lichty on June 2, 2020, by
Monticello's City Council. Our property of 725 West River Street was provided a variance for the location of a new
garage as part of a building and remodeling process. We have contacted a number of general contractors and had little
success in being able to secure multiple quotes on the project in order to proceed with the project at this time. As you
may know, the cost of lumber, etc, has contributed to 100% plus cost increases and the demand for homes has risen due
to the low cost of financing along with a low supply of homes.
We would like to request an extension of a year to the variance, which will allow the market and our ability to engage
more contractors in the process of providing competitive quotes.
Thank you,
Sandy& Duane Lichty
1
Planning Commission Agenda—06/02/2020
2A. Public Hearing—Consideration of a request for variance to the required 10' side yard
setback in the Mississippi Wild Scenic Recreational River District in the R-1 (Single-
Family Residence) District. Applicant: Sandra K Licht y(NAC)
Property: Legal: Lot 1, Block 59
Original Plat of Monticello (abbreviated)
Address: 725 West River Street, Monticello, MN
Planning Case Number: 2020-013
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s): Side yard setback variance for proposed garage addition
Deadline for Decision: June 27th, 2020
Land Use Designation: Places to Live (Residential)
Zoning Designation: R-1, Single Family Residence District
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay
District
Current Site Use: Single Family Residence
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Mississippi River
East: R-1, Single Family Residence District
South: R-2, Single and Two Family Residence District
West: R-1, Single Family Residence District
Project Description: The applicant's property consists of a single-family home
with an attached single car garage which is accessed from
West River Street. The existing garage is considered
"legally nonconforming" by reason of setback. The
applicant wishes to replace the existing garage with a new,
larger garage. In addition, the applicant is seeking to
demolish an existing deck in the rear yard and build an
addition onto the home along with a new deck.
The subject site is in the Wild and Scenic Recreational River
Overlay District. Therefore,both the underlying R-1 zoning
and the overlay zoning requirements are applied to this
application. The existing garage presently has a setback that
abuts the side property line on the west side of the property.
1
Planning Commission Agenda—06/02/2020
The processing of a variance is necessary to accommodate
the construction of a new garage with setbacks less than ten
feet from a property line, as required in the MWSRR
District. It should be noted that the R-1 zoning for a garage
on a side yard is six feet,which the applicant's survey meets;
however, the stricter standard of ten feet is applied.
ANALYSIS
Variance Consideration. Variance requests are required to meet specific standards to
be considered for approval. Those standards are summarized as a situation where there
are conditions unique to the property, not created by the applicant, which create practical
difficulties in putting the property to what would otherwise be considered a reasonable
use.
To accommodate the construction of the proposed garage, the processing of setback
variance is necessary. The existing garage on the property exhibits a side yard setback that
abuts the west side lot line. This is significantly less than the minimum ten-foot setback
requirement imposed within the applicable Wild and Scenic Overlay District.
The City's variance evaluation criteria is provided in Chapter 2 Section 2.4(C)(4)(a) of the
Zoning Ordinance and reiterated below. Also provided is a Staff response to each criterion.
(4)Review
(a) Variance Criteria. Approval of a Variance may only be made upon a
determination that practical difficulties will result based on all of the following
criteria:
(i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the
provisions of this ordinance are strictly applied.
Response: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a two car
garage. The applicant has noted that it will be a small two car garage by
today's standards. The existing garage is single-car. Staff feels that the
request is reasonable as single car garages are no longer adequate.
Moreover, the proposed garage will increase the setback to meet the
underlying R-1 district standards in the Original Plat area.
(ii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to the
property.
Response: In this case,the unique circumstance is the change from a virtual
zero-setback condition to six feet, which complies with the underlying
zoning requirement.
2
Planning Commission Agenda—06/02/2020
(iii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created
by the owner thereof.
Response: The lot was formed prior to the current Wild and Scenic Overlay
standards. The circumstances were not created by the property owner.
(iv)A Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
Response: The variance request will be an improvement since the current
building setback abuts the property line. The new garage will not alter the
essential character of the locality and will be similar to other properties in
the area.
(v)Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a sufficient basis
for a Variance if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of
the regulation.
Response: This is not the case with this variance request. While many
projects, including this one, can be viewed as economically favorable to the
applicant, such considerations are only a limited feature of this variance
request.
Garage Dimensions. The existing garage measures 12 feet in width and 20 feet in depth,
attached to the house via a breezeway. The new garage will be 16 feet wide and 24 feet in
depth. The proposed garage dimensions,while larger,will be setback farther from the side
property line than the existing garage.
Garage and Driveway Location. The existing garage is located on the west side of the
house and is accessible via a concrete driveway from West River Street. The applicant is
proposing to expand the driveway toward the east. The garage will by compliant with a
width of 22 feet at the property line. Staff is recommending that the curb cut be redesigned
to meet the three-foot side yard setback. The garage will still be accessed from West River
Street. This is subject to further review by the City Engineer.
Building Materials. It is presumed that the proposed garage will utilize the same roofing
and siding as that of the principal building. This should, however, be confirmed by the
applicant. Details of the specific building materials shall be provided by the applicant for
review and is a recommended condition of variance approval.
Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District. Properties within the MWSRR
Overlay District must not exceed 25%impervious surface. The proposed garage and home
addition will be 14.2%impervious. This is not counting the driveway,proposed front yard
deck, and the proposed rear yard deck. Assuming the driveway is paved, the total
impervious surface will be 18.5%. As a condition of approval,the ground under the decks
must be kept as pervious surface (no concrete, brick, etc.) in order to allow stormwater to
percolate into the ground.
3
Planning Commission Agenda—06/02/2020
As noted, the applicant is also proposing to construct a deck toward the river side of the
home. Such decks (and other improvements) are required to meet a 100 foot setback from
the bluffline of the river. In this case, the proposed setback appears to be approximately
107 feet from the bluff—complying with the standard as designed.
DNR Review. The DNR reviewed the variance request. The DNR did not have any
objections to the project but requested that the applicant has a formal impervious surface
calculation done to confirm compliance with the 25% impervious surface requirement.
Further, the DNR recommended that water retention features be added to control the
increased rate of discharge. These will be conditions of approval.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2020-016 approving the setback variance for
the Lichty garage at 725 West River Street, based on findings in said resolution,
and pursuant to the conditions identified in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2020-016, based on findings
identified by the Planning Commission following the public hearing.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC 2020-016, subject to submission of
additional information from staff or applicant.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends Alternative 1,approval of the variance. As noted,the proposed
garage would be located farther off the side yard setback from the existing garage that will
be removed as part of the project. The applicant's desire to provide a standard size garage
in order to accommodate the indoor storage of yard equipment is considered reasonable.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2020-016
B. Aerial Site Image
C. Applicant Narrative
D. Site Survey and Proposed Improvements
E. Site Images
Z. Conditions of Approval
4
Planning Commission Agenda—06/02/2020
EXHIBIT Z
Sandra K Lichty
Variance to Side Yard Setback in MWSRR Overlay District
725 West River Street
1. Applicant verifies that materials for the proposed garage will match those of the existing
primary structure on the property.
2. The ground under the decks must be kept as pervious surface (no concrete, brick, etc.)
3. The curb-cut shall be setback three (3) feet from the side yard property line, along with the
paved driveway.
4. Contractor to maintain current drainage patterns.
5. Engineering Department will require a driveway permit prior to expansion of driveway.
6. Any additional recommendations of other Staff or Planning Commission.
5
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2020-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE
SIDE YARD SETBACK IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
AT 725 WEST RIVER STREET; LOT 1, BLOCK 59, ORIGINAL PLAT
WHEREAS, Sandra K Lichty is requesting a variance to the setback requirements from the side-
yard property line in the R-1, Single Family District and Mississippi Wild and Scenic
Recreational River Overlay District to be able to construct an attached garage; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a site survey illustrating the location of the proposed
addition on the property for review; and
WHEREAS, the existing garage is located within the required setback, but can not be reasonably
relocated to a conforming position on the parcel; and
WHEREAS, the existing garage is insufficient in size to provide access to a typical passenger
vehicle for common residential parking and/or storage purposes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed garage will meet the R-1 setback of 6 feet for the area, but will not be
able to meet the applicable MWSRR setback of 10 feet; and
WHEREAS, site conditions support the requested setback variance based on the finding that
practical difficulties result from the configuration of the subject parcel inability to make
reasonable use of the existing garage structure; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 2"d, 2020 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 approval of the variance:
1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties in improving the property in a
reasonable manner, due to the configuration of the lot and inadequate area of the existing
garage, which limit reasonable expansion to other directions; and
2. The existing parcel is of otherwise sufficient size and area.
3. The existing home and other expansions constitute reasonable use of the subject property.
4. The relocated garage construction will improve consistency with zoning requirements by
meeting the R-1 setback.
5. The proposed addition will be consistent with neighboring structures in size and setback
from the bluff line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota, that the requested variance is approved based on the conditions provided
in Exhibit Z of the referenced staff planning report, as follows:
1. Applicant verifies that materials for the proposed garage will match those of the existing
primary structure on the property.
2. The ground under the decks must be kept as pervious surface (no concrete, brick, etc.)
3. The curb-cut shall be setback three(3) feet from the side yard property line, along with the
paved driveway.
4. Contractor to maintain current drainage patterns.
5. Engineering Department will require a driveway permit prior to expansion of driveway.
6. Any additional recommendations of other Staff or Planning Commission.
ADOPTED this 2 d day of June,2020,by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By:
Sam Murdoff, Chair
ATTEST:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
0
v
u
0
0
U
T
a
v _
m
v
U
0
0
0
NO
Aig
Q�
L
L
Q�
N �
2Q�
J
N
0 1S
0
os
Ln
.� 0 M
> o �Q
0 ' o
N � m
� a
N
U
U N
ro
J �
c�
a� r
J C
cc
LO J
Duane & Sandy Lichty April 26, 2020
725 West River Street
We purchased this house in February, 2012, as a landing place when we came to visit our
son and his growing family. It is affectionately known as the River Cottage, thanks to our
daughter-in-law. Over the past 8 years, we have taken this house built in 1944, and added
and completed small renovations to it as we continue to "land" here on weekends and
visited family. In the past three years this has become home for Sandy as she secured a
job in Monticello and Duane still lives and works in Iowa. Our vision for this house has
become, through living here, to retire in this home by the river as we continue to make
memories. And here, is where the rubber meets the road.
This story and a half, two bedroom and one bathroom house of 1,100 square feet, needs to
provide more livable space on the main floor. In its day, this 1944 cottage provided a
livable sized space for families 70+ years ago. In order to provide accessibility for all
people, a master bedroom and bath, a half bathroom, and laundry on the main floor is the
reasonable answer for today's lifestyle. An additional change includes demolishing the
breezeway and small garage to add a larger garage in order to accommodate the current
size and number of vehicles that most people currently own, as well as lawn care equipment.
This is a unique property in that its width seems rather narrow compared to the length
from street to the river in back. This home is also unique in the way the property's
elevation begins to drop considerably as you walk toward the river. When this home was
built 7 decades ago, the zoning regulations and guidelines were quite different and
accommodated the world that families lived in at that time.
We are asking permission to modify this home, with the least amount of distraction and
change to the front by adding a new garage that will be 16 feet wide and the length of the
current house front to back. Because the current garage sits nearly on or on the property
line, we need to be offset that line and are requesting the amount of space from the
property line to the garage wall be 6 feet at the most. While that is a small double
garage, the property does not allow for a typical double garage size. We believe the
length of the property can accommodate adding the master bed and bathroom and moving
the living room to the current deck area which will then make room for the laundry and
half bath to become part of the main floor. The addition of a deck, the size of the
current deck we had built a few years ago, will not cause a street view change of the
property and the rear view will be similar to its current state with the deck on the house.
Thank you for considering our request for the modifications to the property. If there are
questions or further clarification needed, please contact either Sandy or Duane.
■■■ ■■��■■■■■■■ I Wilk E=Lou MR
r'/■■■■■■
► . . : ■■■■�■■■ ■IN
f ■■l ■■■■ _.
ISO
■
■
G
■
■■
� W m
uz
r� o mf < �q
�1 w 3az
U Cw. � Oro V O
aao
ov N
Z e Z y q y W
J
ai Q r Jv OI
T^ wz 02r
w O VI mW F QO Q zaw I w n
U zo
ooQuo` 3 av {,I Cei II
2 M w "o V� h z
d '� zz o m.. U� = 1w. v n
< KK w
d 2 K V of
Tp c �� U VIw Iz
o N w`"c
Z
00400 c
m o°)
ZY« to
y�rn oo 2200 0 �z� �
�v°�3
m0> > gea
w
woo z
z
o' °1 0 0
%
o°a cq o
oCT
fo
S° \
oe
z �O
Iz s y�
x�l� 66 zg�
o9
0� v
0
p � $
h b
� 3�W
h Nei
-
�� w F
I
i
-
Y 'l \vJ ELEVA
doLl
FF
ti
h
AI �
I
L IT
,
N '
I E \N�
r L
- Cl OL q -C
io - - Im
-*4 �4
° t
Job,
f AWN
WV
IL
■•■ f` �,
14.
i•
r 1
a
`` - �y�•�'1'�rr 1
re
r �•
'I
- � 1
1 l
�■ A � 1 -
!L
y1.
■ * I
■ yy,�Ty
Igo 44 ti
Y -
�.: a I:,
•���. �
_ �
� r31 y
�y .� S � 7r � 7� � 4
�" s
IP �' � �
■
�-i
'I�
� ��:'
�,
� !�i �
_ ' � r° + p:
q r�
.0 �.� d
er r
��
� a,,
V ��' .h
.. µ
��
g '.. �_,
` y
1
{'�
�e f
S J
i
��� r
�t '
i
4ti - '�F
a �� y r
--�.
�� .,
S. - �.
�'�' s
°�` _ .� �
� .� s� 9
.PL _
� 7
rl
• -�'. 4
�j R�
���
-- _
: .�,,, •�
._ ;.
�,. k
~��
From: Mary Stephens
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 5:35 PM
To: Community Development
Subject: Public hearing today 6/2/20 re 725 W. River St, Monticello
To the Monticello Planning commission:
I received the notice of the public hearing for today at 6:15 pm related to the 725 W. River
St. property. As a nearby riverfront neighbor on River St., I felt it important to gather
information related to the requested changes.
In speaking with Angela earlier today, it is my understanding the variance for the change in
the garage structure will not impact the setback from the street. That was a primary
concern in that the top of the hill, where the property is closely located, there is significant
limited visibility on the road from both directions, when people go by, often speeding and
unchecked due to no stop sign or slowing notices on River St. It was made clear this is
unaffected so as not to create any further safely issues.
The other question was the side variance that could impact their neighbors on the west
side, and also across the street. Angela fully explained the change and reviewed the survey
document with me. If the immediate neighbors as I mentioned are in agreement with the
requested variance, and there is no obstruction of river view for neighbors or safety issue
from it, I support the request. Perhaps the only question was on the existing driveway
staying put, while making a new one, which seemingly makes the drive wider that the new
garage. Again, if their immediate neighbor is not opposed, I support the project for the
Lichty owners.
Thanks to Angela reviewing the document with me at length, and the commission's time
and careful review of all submissions for maintaining the integrity of our West River Street
waterfront neighborhood.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mary B. Stephens
813 W River Street
Monticello, Mn 55362
Planning Commission—05/04/2021
3B. Consideration of an Administrative Appeal to Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter
3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts, Subsection (E) R-1: Single Family Residence
District for Haven Ridge 2nd Addition. Applicant: Capstone Homes
Prepared by: Community Development Meeting Date: Council Date (pending
Director 05/04/21 appeal): 5/10/21
Additional Analysis by: City Planner (NAC), Chief Building and Zoning Official
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: Legal Descriptions: Haven Ridge 2nd Addition
Planning Case Number: 2021 - 016
Request(s): Administrative Appeal
Deadline for Decision: June 15, 2021 (60-day deadline)
Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential; (LDR): 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
West: Single Family Residential
1
Planning Commission—05/04/2021
Project Description: With adoption of Ordinance No. 755, the City approved a 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 seeking an appeal under this clause for homes in the
Haven Ridge 2nd Addition. Their narrative indicates the 2nd
Addition proposal would be consistent with the designs as
approved previously for the 15t Addition.
PRIOR BOARD ACTION:
February 22"d, 2021: Ordinance Amendment for R-1 roof pitch and administrative review
process for 15% brick/stone compliance in R-1 and R-2.
April 6', 2021: Planning Commission approved with conditions the Administrative Appeal filed
by Capstone Homes for various brick-stone exemptions on elevations for Haven Ridge 15t
Addition. In summary, the approval included the two-story designs as presented by the
applicant, ramblers with porches at 7.5% brick/stone included in 25% secondary materials
enhancement, ramblers with stoops at 15% brick/stone, and all split and multi-levels at 15%
brick/stone per code.
ANALYSIS:
Capstone Homes has submitted an administrative appeal per the ordinance process for review
of 15% brick/stone requirements for the 47 lots in Haven Ridge 2nd Addition.
Capstone is requesting approval of elevations for 2nd Addition consistent with the Planning
Commission's action for 15t Addition designs. The narrative describes the changes Capstone
proposes based on the model name and style. The table below illustrates the various plans and
corresponding brick/stone treatment proposed.
Home Plan Plan Design Unit Type Brick/Stone Treatment
Proposed
Linwood All designs Multi-Level 15% per ordinance
Wesley
Cheyenne All designs Split 15% per ordinance
Primrose
Rockport
2
Planning Commission—05/04/2021
Creek View All designs Two-Story Per elevation plans
Foster provided
Patterson
Brook View
Mulberry
Waterstone
Birchwood A, B Rambler 15% per ordinance
Hemlock A, B
Birchwood C, D Rambler 7.5% brick or
Cedar A, B & C stone/25% secondary
Hemlock C architectural materials
As discussed during the prior considerations, the intent of the brick and stone requirement is 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 and approved administrative appeal presumes that other enhancements of equal
impact and value would replace the reduced brick/stone fagade treatment.
For the current proposal, the variations proposed are intended to be offset by usable front
porches and at least 25% alternative material design on the facades. For two story plans, the
square footage and materials design of the exteriors continues to be proposed as an overall
home plan enhancement.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021-016, approving the appeal as submitted by
Capstone Homes and as shown in the May 41", 2021 home design table, based on the
findings in said Resolution and on the conditions identified in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021-016, based on findings to be
made by the Planning Commission.
3. Motion table action on Resolution No. 2021-016, subject to additional information from
the applicant and/or staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommends Alternative 1 for approval of the administrative appeal. This
recommendation is consistent with Planning Commission's prior action for Haven Ridge 15t
3
Planning Commission—05/04/2021
Addition. The applicant has demonstrated an intent to meet the architectural requirements of
the city by revising their split-entry and multi-level model homes to meet the 15% requirement
and illustrating what staff believes is an appropriate mix of materials and brick/stone on other
models.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2021-016
B. Applicant Narrative
C. Model Home Designs— Rambler and Two-Story
D. Haven Ridge 2nd Addition Final Plat
E. Ordinance No. 755
Z. Conditions of Approval
4
Planning Commission—05/04/2021
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.
5
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-016
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 2ND ADDITION SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to construct single family housing in the Haven Ridge 2nd
Addition 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 2nd Addition 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 May
41", 2021 and the applicant was 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 modifications 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 4" day of May, 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
April 16, 2021
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Architecture Administrative Appeal—Haven Ridge 2nd Addition
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.
We are also grateful for the time Planning Commission, other policy makers and City Staff have invested
to come to an agreement to exempt selected Capstone house plans and elevations from the 15% brick
and stone requirements for Haven Ridge (1"Addition).
We are now requesting an exemption from the 15%stone or brick requirement for Haven Ridge 2nd
Addition with the same Capstone plans as Planning Commission approved for the First Addition on April
6th:
• TWO-STORY PLANS: All elevations to be approved as designed.
• RAMBLER PLANS: Elevations with a porch: 7.5%stone or Brick/25% minimum of two or
more secondary materials.
o Birchwood A, B
o Hemlock A, B
By way of clarification, all elevations of multi-level and split-level plans will meet the 15%stone and
brick requirement. In addition, Rambler elevations that have a stoop (not a porch) will also meet the
15% requirement. These Rambler elevations that will meet the 15% requirement are:
• Birchwood C, D
• Cedar A, B & C
• Hemlock C
I have only attached the Two-Story and Rambler plans with elevations in this application. Please let me
know if you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the requests above further.
Best,
Heather Lorch
Land Manager
Capstone Homes
CAPSTONE HOMES, INC.
14015 SUNFISH LAKE BLVD,SUITE 4001 RAMSEY, MN 55303
0: 763-427-3090 1 F: 763-712-9060
REEK VIEW I I I -
+�y
' r�
®® ®®®®®®® ®®®
G
ELEVATION A
S k' ►
TF q'-=
R'r
_I
ELEVATION B ELEVATION C
3 BEDROOM 1 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE
2 ,471 SQ FT LIVING SPACE
=__
1/2 x ...__...
KRONEN P®.
:f GREAT ROOM D1NNG roax a-o p1ix BEDROOM 4 BEDROOM 9 Funna BEDROOM
MASTER m,• `= yl' Fu IN x BATH
cPc-v ......._...- r,l FAMILY ROOM •'
., � � II
mnVcau: n-lo x 6o e�i.x�ro eaa MUD X4 CC i O Al
, W.I.C.
~ n
7'] r��l II II••\�ARHIdOE PLlRT PANlI3Y - � OPT. ............ �II
Y DN DN srtu LAUND, ••.
FUTRE
w aau
UP easrr w''LLB T
MASTER SUM _
GARAGE -----mix lo-e '
.�� so0 x aln4 �y
RM(ROOM ', FOYER B.4tN O urF" UTIL
•oPt'.-r -------- LOST STOP.
W�DOuI„i b-0 x b-0 U'b Ilb 1
Ir �I
__________ PORCH _
MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR
- F0 S E R I I -
ti
ep
a�
,�A k
-1 MUUMUU® ®®®
®®®®IUD®® IDIOM
24 ®®®®®®[Ell ®®®
ELEVATION A
07
EMU
I _ _ ®®®�®®®. MUCH
ELEVATION B ELEVATION C
3 BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE
2, 266 SQ FT LIVING SPACE
-; -----
•oPt. IaR(a� ;,I �.;.•—•cam.. - --
. ................... .
KITCHEN 1/2
e DINING ..... MASTER ITE W.I.C. II LOFr
FUTURE
. ¢-a z¢-0 A.
a, GREAT ROOM a-0x @YI M BATH FAMILY ROOM ie? +� ,jl BEDROOM
7l-5 x IC-4
IK x Ibl ____vNLi____ ,.M
�Is�
BN.IGK B4R •�Y •OPt. .__a ¢ �
•ppl. - REPI-KP
,.. Muo uus¢au BATH mi srtace .,df-s .
g wali (ilT.
i•�a="orr. .oPr.-� �.�� 4, N
DN =H•I
PANTR
CIIAbE r�D �5
9*RM<ROOM korex B IEM000 n ura C" mac: W.I.C. Ia1FL
K g g 5-4 x II-b BEDROOM�3 STD
4 SARI
30.0 x 22rJ00
PORC1'1 i---------------
i 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 S 0 N
SriS .
F 4'
`S.Sf" nr�R :o ,jcg�Frh i�'tt}.+11•:;..
9
Il
• �9 ®Will
ELEVATION A
x 3R F.p Y+, ;.I Y' C•s4, � y' ;;�.yan
.S
ELEVATION B ELEVATION C
3 BEDROOM 1 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE
21173 SQ FT LIVING SPACE
; SEE BBB
LJLJ V
OPT.
'O�•�''� KITCHEN wlNDow�: ^'^ W/11RE
WMDO� 10-3 x 15-2 FM.;,L
BEDROOM
-- GREAT ROOM DINING - -- W.I.C. LOFT 11-6 x 10-3
•_ 140 x 15-0 10-9 x 15-Z .OPTIONAL VAULT_ M-T x 15-4MASTER SUITE :�I13-0 MO - `h �°'
-_, FIREPLACE• ISLAND wl LLL :i
KJP�.�;'i HALF a4 bFR.�� HALF ��w, d•
WMDOW;y' WALL =_= WINDOUF WALL � I I I I I III R.L
MEGH. III 3/4 ��
CHASE MUD
MASTER 7 •_=_
DBL BOWL _
BINKe
I/2 eENTcw BATH aPr •SINK BAT UT,
TOR.
Pm.
SINK FOYER -opt..` D LAUND.
GARAGE LARGER
PORCH 31-0 x 22-6i=-6/22-0 --------------
eHwR.
BEDROOM n BEDROOM-3
I I I I
-------------
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
MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR
- BROOK VIEW III -
kwq�,(• .�Y,,'yq] py.p yam.
`�5�.4�!6'0�a• �_ - .fdL. ���t{'NATa{Cjf�61
ELEVATION A
LJ 1
�crr��rr� _occ mmmm®®m ®®®
e rm o nc„o a r_ mmmmmmm mmm
.rorcrrr _crc mmmmmmm mrm •
ELEVATION B ELEVATION C
4 BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE
23, 788 SQ FT LIVING SPACE
rl
'�I•�� KITCHEN W.I.P.
ux u llb z 1141
- GREAT ROOM DINING w�.c. B 6 x M- BAT BEDROOMzo•4 MASTER BEDROOM
IL8 z DO IIE x ITO BATH W.RE 1b1 x 10-4
I16 z n-u uo z n4l e�cu 7 FAMILY ROOM
„. IEN�K WX �• / 30A x 16-II
T LAR ,
i_Y�i_v' .: 8NQU62 v
1/23
FYcolz I'm W.LC. .�.z•w'-. :r�.\�'oPr. /4�
� ,cwnw: . RIREPLALE y`y ---J yf..
W!✓OOYI LME� GOFII DN uALF I1:
w aLLe I1•
IF BOFFR VNILT® LIP
----- GARAGE LAl1 T
NDR MASTER ,••
.. L4WD,eNK �---- �- uN1aNEwED
FLEXRO OOM FOYER - --- BROOM-2 STORAGE/UTILITY
10-II z I
uRroaW.�. IW x 12.1
----------------
MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR
- MULBERRY III -
Nil! a
4
LLU LLw LLw LLw
®®ED®®®® ®®®
®®® ®®®
4�
EW
4
ELEVATION A
;I
-1 Al min
EV
�r � �'� *fin :7.:• ''�'iE^`�.a lfF�f� u;ti'� f fx'-.
r
t
Jm®®Em®® Emm —: ®®®mEmm mE® ��� mEmmmoE crn
®E®EEEm E[HE] mEmmOEM mmm mmmm.Om Crnf9
EEO - Emmmm®m 010 -d mEEmE.^E Ef?i❑
ELEVATION B ELEVATION C ELEVATION D
4 BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE
23, 607 SQ FT LIVING SPACE
uR6ax eNaiex� r wNvow
S
wlNocw� KITCHEN , luwolu Rl W.I.C.
GREAT ROO 06 x 13-9
M MASTER SUITE MASTERwRO
1"x 16-s BATH �,M FAMILY ROOM BEDROOM
1� IaT x rs-v -- -
',�, vauLr - -- ';; `oPr. 7Su x IB-4 11 10-n x M-0
+ flREPLACE `w
BEDROOM*2
ppr. `.^ AN. •OPT. y FOLDING ° II-lox II-0
_X ___ WIN cauNrex
WlNpgll OOIU -
�° I' NALv , >,LdINDRr LMI/Y MUD B_T_O_R.I wT
x
W.I.C.,
watts , 01NK wts BATH !;--_-_
_____ _____ yw =_
O
FOYER __ ^a cECH. if;IQ R.I.•
GARAGE LOFT BATH::
3I-0 x 2161 21-0 IXJ x rt-10 71 BEDROOM-3
FLEX ROOM II-lo x n-0 UTIL./ y
wlNool+^' BEDROOM-4 -----
14-0x13-0 17-0 106 STOR,
i
I I
---------------
PORGH - ----
I I I I
I I I I
I I
MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR
A E E Il -
W R N
a
N�
Y
m wlu
®®® ®®®®®®®
ELEVATION A
�I
1.":
1 u
Y
'nnm nnnnm�m' e
s i
rr l rr rr rn
rCG rf Crl r r'rl f -I rf rl f rr� rrr ICI
I r l �a r l l rr.
ELEVATION B ELEVATION C ELEVATION D
5 BEDROOM 3 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE
3 ,401 SQ FT LIVING SPACE
x
OFFICE/ ^-
DINING GUEST
1"x I040 °, BEDROOM BEDROOM 9 LOFT MASTER aT1RE
MASTER WITE
w I
;;; 13-0 x 10-3 143 x Ib9 BATH R1TRE �'FAMILT ROOM
r CsREAT ROOM .___ FAMILT ROOM
6NaGIe eaR I II x I►3 = __" 3"x 2240
crt.
s'•t,r
I B�1LH Half u�x I
Hav+uu BAT W.I.C.
.... ......KITCHEN MUD W.I.C. Iliil nl
II-0 x WO LAWDRI• I i l UP 0.oeEt
so
W.I.C.
I'
iliF� R1. '�Ir2
'a W.LP.
_ r
;Nose GARAGE loBEDROOM V
FORMAL
DINING I FOYER BEDROOM.3 i UTIL/BTOR.
ROOM lo-e x Iza BATH
no x I�-a ii
----------- ———-----------
i
I i
PORGN ----------
MAINal IN!
FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR
B I R C H W 0 0 D I Ilift
s
®®®®®®® ®®®
ELEVATION A
st
lam1m) -Hum
Immulml um[m]
® nenuun
®®®®®®® ®�� rC rrrrr— rrrr - rf „I i
ELEVATION B ELEVATION C ELEVATION D
3 BEDROOM 1 2 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE
1 , 559 SQ FT LIVING SPACE
W Nppyp� ;v.WLT is- ---
■
DMWG 1° T �E
u0 1140 GREAT ROOM F, K",Im m E LL BEDROOM
17-I x na Ixa x O.9 �T�E 17.5 x las
FAMILY ROOM
I Cev+i er '-;N
243 X 7
eNADK BAR I I ,.wILgY i`i�,/,�• 35
I - E
NGLF 3
KrrCWEN
WALL MAO.
R.I.
TF! :Illllli
B1WfR.
MILD/ � IruR' •jj
BEDROOM n} UNFI I•_.!.
10.1 x 1041 sorsn LAUND. u FIR 'STOR AGE E
_ = UTILITY ROOM i V
I
BATH eeNCN --------------
GARAGE I"x 22.6 uwlm
zo-o X 22/24 a FLEX/
STORAGE
BEDROOM-2
IOi x IFO
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I
I I �
POROH
0 0
MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR
- CEDAR I I -
y
ELEVATION A
ELEVATION B ELEVATION C
2 BEDROOM 2 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE
13,630 SQ FT LIVING SPACE
LAa�ER �DEse� i�
SHOWER �� '�•V�
• :t: DINING GREAT ROOM
OQY
wIN •;; p!x as 12-1.21v MASTER SUITE__ MA, wMoau runiRe
BATH FUn� rjrtuRe
I�aNcm ---12�x Ho __ FAMILY ROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM
BNAcIc BAA = - 204 x 204 IOi z G-I 1O x I4a
- r " II
VAULT �oPtaNAL "i
, �N IF�ACE
• FlR�LK:E � �...... ( I W.I.C. I I.`..•. ... __
iCITGHEN RooR HALF LAUND. W.I.C.
12gz13-I LME wALL Gil L____
eAtH IIIII BAT�'!,i
cPr.• :f; FLEX ROOM FOYER DH BEDROOM-2 1 1 11 1 ___ UTILITY
UNFRL
WMOOWS= IOb x II-4
oPT,• STORAGE
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
I I
MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR
- HEMLOCK III -
umn[m]m mm
[OEM um
i
®®®®®®1® ®®® o
ELEVATION A
<..
�+ 4
y � a
h
- rrrrr-rn rrr - nrrrrrrj r l I
ELEVATION B ELEVATION C
3 BEDROOM 2 BATHROOM 3 STALL GARAGE
1 , 786 SQ FT LIVING SPACE
---------- ......................
wl .�. �
DINING li
13d x IFO mo
" "; MASTER SUITE BEOOM
w III GREAT ROOM"' FAMILY ROOM
131 x M19
-
�apr.
Lre mNoour � on®+I.ncF °Hill Y
AIL
KITCHEN II•,.,,e 7MA
w l.o----- ..�
OFFICE/ e�irxc"' / W°'pO11 sarruRe STORAGE u
BEDROOM a3 —\-AND. EXERCISE/
THEATER
GARAGE
Lh1 900+xms WiFM.
UTILJ
— STOR.
BEORoorl n Ir 1 I I
PORCH
C
MAIN FLOOR
LOWER FLOOR
/ 509'3355"E M"Sf,60,Z0j�z pw.soul M"14,Zq,ZOS / O't p
35-_9 66_1
erssr- ———— J
/ C� �4�36�eo.�..4i"S V14"n ark na F IE M of('�0 6 L9as<1 m M�I M.Sl.lL49S MU z
`'2 eP �e'x S $.°taaae> �L-__fees°s°•�i_v '86'LB V F.8
r zo7oo
377.08
°o RFARMSTEAD �3_L&-OH
BOOOt snrwa•c R' �Y 1\rr °" r-°o'on
N8790'S6'E'
343.15 �Fe-ssl r I I ter.1ko C��l
NO2"49'04"W el\'j b I*I K `0 3 Po'E (•`+8' m'm�
" Y' .� L.s°z.sae0xl. 0 ' snm"an�!°sos24Ha"b ej' N�
& \V' J I'�� ��J , _QO�$oo •`9 eb'b >S
�W a gcl m �'�° \lu •J)- war �F;mr`n,>,µ, % bn�r^ z
UZI
ny ,�,»3,sh;'>F;,_��\\�.rr��'"w,•`'`E_�;.\N �,'v,'.�y� �����F,�/ �m� wa oQy �-- _-� ,.
'� �•�ra`.� �Y ,�< r,595��g m1'g��Cs'"°m �� '� ; Sr:s�, �;�
N���Se>
L,' a L:.asi v I rzg 150;00 4.°b5;,.�a�ge�d M
�' "�'' _soarox Jlr y��s'e: -
r-s3s.--: °s s"so'.zo
- --, .. Cre �T
0 Os
E
A ,� a _J M.s:.saz° @`• �$ �E -
n'i's's'i4eree 9,1 - o go
zr-ao'asrin� L_!e,_vazos°_� e8 lz 5
"I N El o--oo'oe:-t7� viu, z�$-� _8 ` avro--
o�sazo� =saz_ cca c
9' Is w nn g� 9�a�L3 _J L_Mrs os°-� ffo i�nz Jo mYl
SsrNl cl°c o-
M
1109,
flea: ¢s Qz
8� 20N
- '°.fir.Si nr�.,r ,vv„ram n$ £i ° • i44ii
" x -
w � Ryfr a
a Y = a
v �°m
-
y
u� r
X a
E EEo P Iry
a�o 1
E
E - - -
2 a -
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—05/04/21
3C. Consideration of an update on the Land Use Application Process (AS)
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND:
Community Development staff will provide an overview presentation on the land
use application process utilized by the city.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Not applicable; informational item only.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
None.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Powerpoint presentation
1
0
�.
a�
} �,
� � �
0
cn �
U
O
� �
O °'
.�
• -
•O N
U .N
• — �
_ � �.
o Q
U
��
n , ca
W �
ot
1 � y
U
U_ Lu c6
4-j Q l�A E � c
Qom ° ro
o �, > " o
v
m ro CL 4J
U 0 a- j ro c6
_V N N .V i
ra .E V D
O N
V) v
c6
� O O U CO
'N � U .— v Q _j O ca
bn
O N 0 a) W N v - U
v I ,N O S cV > }' c � N .�
r-I ca r14 N -1 w � i u N
ca � E
i7i u
� J J
i
0
Q
� a
4-1
cn
ca
Lo N -
cn •— � � O
Q N a--J ^
• • f6 • f6 w
cn CL
� e �
O1 1 L,3 x
�1
a �
V
._
CL 4-1
CL
i '
U > ca
Q C n
-
ca
•c6 Q Q _ g y
33
O EE O -E� �
U Q U 2
4—J(1) • • . •
O V)
U 0
o ,
J
J
W
a
N
p
z
O
U
O
i
/ � N
._ U
4 E
L _0
•— O cn N
E N N N
E >- LU u E
O E " - U �
Q � o .� O Q
V � . .
0Q
C 3 0 3 3 3 3 a 3 3 = a 3 3 3 0 3 3 0
O N 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° Z Z ° ° ° 0 ° ° m 1 3 O
`u[A `u `u `u u O U U `U `U `u 0 u `u IA ' N
41
w w w w +0 \ v N
+ + + + O + O + + O + + N
y w o 0 0 o E o 0 0 0 0 E o 0 0 'S
LL O 008 0 V O 0 0 0 V1 O '-I •� 41
Z V? U1 UT lA E U? U1 lA'�' E '�N C
Q r Ln 0 y 0
N
d u u 0 a n
a w w 8
-a Q + + oo 0 y
C Z
o 0 3 � � � o
g
Q C C O C C C N W ry W (p a
Z ~ Z •c E ~ ii � •1O •v ry W U
a O Q O
ii o- > O
Q E ¢ E v �n o 1O E e � a � + ¢
g wa , a w a a v v 8 E - o Z o N N
,�. p O E a%i o y u o a g c w
LL -o I- z w E 3 0 od
o Z Z 2 ZO w a `^ > `Y^ c o Z o W
r r E ¢ ° '��° .� U O h v LL
C 3 z QQ a g > vV vE z
�l oC O Q U a ° o w ° r v v v O
�l .3 LOUU o E w 0 5 c v p a
W o ° ° O oe a a w ¢ E
FU o v�m u w o r o a
• 1 W
> a°�i'^... o. a0 Q LU c ¢ .E E z c a 'E Q o 0 0 o
c c o m E w g 0 0
a
Q� N a a 'E > �^ u oa1Oi� vo0i z
O w N v E v 3 v O
z � '- � a � �
E w w o = v w 2� � va "' a
a E e —° > c 5 m a
U U r a .F E o o °� m ° t w
v .N uu
CGi
N w E E a E
o f m y o Q
U c � c z E a
o to 1 v � m :0 O o 3 w
E o o zad r ro Gm
ry co -o s O
•�> y y y Z a d m m 7 w
a £ LL H r
CL a o a a c c c a a E a o � o F
o 0 0 0 3 3 3 a °_ ¢ o T - o 0 0
d d d O O O a 4 a V o v r r r
I
L
O Q
L
Ln
O O
Q N L
U Q 0 .0 -0 ate-+ 0 Q
ra
u — C: ._ O ca _
B O O U0 M V) u v U 0
CL � U cn a N CO oc — C U
Q
z
o
E _ o
O �
w
� � U
O �
E c � � T
G ui bo 0 0 o y c t s
Q CL
G y 3 0 m 0 c T y `0 3 v ao v
E C p 't v -° 7 bo N
on
v u O
> u t v bo v ° u N c a a� �
E E a = o E f0 E o c bo y y o w
'U• a0+ cp C a o C O O
y'. c Z a C c O O - L bn c (U H
O a N -'DO o N vOi .� V N Q
`-' ui m LEv s v y a� o ° o o ° E c n
O Ul 7 — T — C U
•u N
Q Q V a 3 c O O O O C '6 O u°- > y0 C N 7 Y N
O N c bn c •- v .c m N a'9 0 a v
�l •� o Q v c O a N ° u °- 6 c m om. 'O c
E s a u 3 v o ° - bn v ° bo a ro
o bn v
H p V] M q O O N O C N vOi N O
co Uv =°Cmc WoO a °> O Vo ?u v m
ZIQ, o o ° a a JCL v2 'o Fo ° E °
� u
Q 3 x
3
o ° v � u 0 o6co.v
E 0, 0 'o E o c� E
a o E o c c v 0 NUu3?
MA3co
sm
V wCE bn U 3v°
v^
o s c Y o .�, bn
Y -O bn O C O � .to T N 3 O a 3 • • • • • • C
v - y y c a v c c E `w o o s o °
O a v y ° a ° y o a t% u o °
E t ° 3 °a v - o a E o- t3 `° m c v n a ° - N V ° z
O0 - E o a O 3 O w 0 �+ w m O y ` a>i
1�U-1
c f6
O �
F- •�-�I Z H G z Z
CL
V u u J W
Q O Q ¢
4-j
W
W
v N
cr
N v o
•— o
ca 4-1 =3 a- O
cn T.5 >
Q > Q
• • N Q
u O cn v� cn Q o m LU LU
L
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
= M4`AtlMaIVd I�dtlill4NUS
� ¢ o
3 ?211�3l�JT/3'� iil�•2131�3-• g -
v o 1'og
N V
u � o
J
O c
V' o
dl� 3N[V fA T-
P
C �
Qct O
OD
Q�
Q N
> U
Y
� U �
� °: r `�' •ram'
a 0 8
c S
f0 O '.
a m
o °'
y � �
Q1 c
C L p
Q C O O
L N OCC
Q U 3P c
(U �o=
—o P
Oo :
75
•— —
QP
aJ
m
V
•— (3)
`•�- � �
O — �� O Ln
> O N
z +) ro
� p 0 � �� > v� p >. � O
� +_+ N — v +-+ +-+ O 4- U
4-' O
U C) (U Z .cn 0,U Q � Q) 4- v 0 O
V _ � ro�
0 00 = Q Q
W
LL _0
bA
O O
a--+ Q
4--) N — -0
c ca
Q �
N
O c�a � •> ro
Q >0) _0 Q Ln
. � Ln
. . •� v O O —
•cn U
V 4 U 4 •Q U
O � a-J aA
L to cn Q Q
0 0
U
ca �
Q Q
Q
a
0
V) 4-1 �
N O_ C:
N jUl
.i
U E c6 N
v M 0 o o o a�
tU0
Q •� o U �U O
+, 2 m > Q
> cn U Q
DC
L
O
m
U
V
O
L.
C
a • O,C W i
p
Q dN OU VA gg Q ooU Go 'pOZ y z $ °v o
L) > 8O o G o nRnp o
w R
N C�
0 oLLcEo � 3
_ n .a U Q O G R U
LL
0ON moo a o ro? o a,
C
rn Y N .+ U
c4 O O ° a a obi
i W
w F- a Y �� � � o V 3 0 0 3 � �•�
0 O Q .a m Tw o C o o o Z vU
c
o S W [� ►V. ►F"-i Q
— o
y �3'�
cc'o
o-,-.
cu
U �p Q cn
_ O
aA
V .U�
r
a)
ro
NOMO v U O
U Ov �
• 4 NN 4A
bz )
o0ouu > o -. z
O (U .E •; J
L • • Q ON� tuo
• •
DC CL DC Q N DC
0 0 0 0 0
Planning Commission Agenda—05/04/21
3D. 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
A. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2021-27 and Ordinance 759 approving the
rezoning of Haven Ridge 2nd Addition to R-1 (Single-Family) Residence District
and adopting Resolution 2021-29 approving the final plat of Haven Ridge 2nd
Addition and Development Agreement. Applicant: Marc Schulte/Haven Ridge,
LLC
Approved on consent agenda; consistent with the approved preliminary plat
and zoning.
B. Consideration of granting a second extension for final plat application for Spirit
Hills South to November 22, 2021. Applicant: R.W. Land Holdings, LLC
Approved on consent agenda.
C. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2021-30 approving Development stage
Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Commercial Self Storage in
the B-3 (Highway Business) District and tabling action on rezoning to Planned
Unit Development, Final Stage PUD, Final Plat and Development Agreement for
Storage Link, Monticello, Applicant: Byron Bjorklund
Approved on regular agenda. Council adopted resolution 2021-30 approving
development stage PUD and preliminary plat and also approved rezoning to
PUD,final stage PUD,final plat and development agreement contingent on
applicant working with staff on conditions in Exhibit Z.
Chelsea Commons
During the last two April City Council meetings, funding was approved for additional
study in the Chelsea Commons area. The additional study is being driven by the recent
development pressure in the area, as well as the project's identification as a top Council
priority. More information can be found:
Traffic Study & Financial Analysis:
https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/vertical/sites//`7B46185197-6086-4078-ADDC-
OF3918715C4C/o7D/uploads/4C Chelsea Commons Budget Reg.(1).pdf
Stormwater & Grading Plan:
https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/vertical/sites//`7B46185197-6086-4078-ADDC-
OF3918715C4C/o7D/uploads/4D ChelseaCommonsBudgetReg.CCA.RLRev.pdf
1
Planning Commission Agenda—05/04/21
Upcoming Workshops and Special Meetings
Planning Commission is asked to attend the following workshop and meetings. Please
mark your calendar.
• May 4th, 4:00-5:45 PM Workshop: (In-person at MCC)Joint City Council,
Planning, EDA and PARC for purposes of reviewing Chelsea Commons preferred
concept, as well as use and architecture guidelines
• May 10th, 4:30—6:00 PM Special Meeting: (In-person at MCC)Joint City Council
and Planning Commission for review of concept stage PUD for Duffy
Development multi-family residential development (affordable development
including proposed apartment and townhome units)
CMRP Framework 2030
The Partnership has made progress on the work deliverables for Framework 2030,
CMRP's regional planning and economic development effort. On April 22nd, the group
reached consensus on a regional vision, and made suggestions for the language of 12
guiding strategies. On April 291", Partners will weigh in on specific actions in support of
the 12 strategies. Members of the Planning Commission had the chance to participate
in the "Round 2" engagement which will help launch these actions. More info at:
https://regionalplanningpartnership.org/about-the-partnership/agendas-and-notes/
CMRP Regional Vision: We -- the communities of the Central Mississippi River Regional
Planning Partnership --are a strong and dynamic region.
We are made prosperous through our network of assets and proactive leadership, made
unique through our vital and connected places, and made home by our welcoming
people and communities.
Council Updates
Council Highlights—April
https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=F18BE4DO-OB7D-49F9-8773-
D1B2526EE7D3&DE=2FCOFDF4-93C3-411E-8174-A4655BCA1743&Type=B BASIC
Council Connection—April
https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/vertical/sites/%7B46185197-6086-4078-ADDC-
OF3918715C4C%7D/uploads/04-26-2021 Council Connection.pdf
2